Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

Jonesy, if you were just a tad more literate yourself, you could easily read what I was saying and become wiser.Show the folks here an example of something you have a problem with and I'll PM to you what I was saying. Edited by Buzsaw, : Title Update & scratch sentenceEdited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Mmm, I've been thinking about why more savvy and intelligent creationists don't come and why ones who come don't last long.Most are not thick skinned enough to put up with the way they're treated here.Most creationists believe there's a higher intelligence in the Universe than that of mere men on this tiny speck. Most know that there are reasons to believe. The faith of the more intelligent creationists is not blind. They are aware of the evidence of the supernatural.Why should they care to bang their heads against the EvC wall where the boss and most of the members do not allow for debate on that evidence in the science, mean spiritedly denouncing any and all evidence cited? Creationism involves a creator. There is ample evidence of the supernatural working in the world and the Universe. Creationists, more-so than skeptics recognize that fact.You want more intelligent creationists? Change you attitude in how you moderate and how you treat them in the debates. Stop censoring them.You're also loosing some good evolutionists. Why? For the most part because good savvy creationists to debate aren't here. All they need do is lurk as guests a spell to find that out.Most evolutionists here are not meanspirited. Most are respectful. If the moderators would exert more effort in attending to the few who are disrespectful instead of badgering the few creationists that stay, it would be nice. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Effective creationist debaters are going to give the constituency here a run for the money, so to speak. Imo, Admin just can't tolerate that. I've noticed over the years that when a creationist begins making points, Admin goes into action, more-so than usual.I remember when I was debating on the alleged properties of space to expand, curve etc, applying a lot of logic along with the limited understanding I had. The thread went many pages. It wasn't long after that that I received my 2nd permanent banning., the first being not long after my win in the EvC's first debate with Jar on Biblical creationism & the LoTs.Those were the days when, at least I could debate some evidence to the supernatural and refer to the Bible in science.I'm saying, give effective creationists some leeway. Let them debate CREATIONISM. Don't expect a Biblical creationist to think or debate the secularist science methodology. What sense does that make? A creationist is a creationist is a creationist. You want some life here? Stop shooting yourselves in the foot, running creationists off for debating Creationism! Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Mmm, nobody! Before the debate commenced it was established that there would be two judges after our debate to cite the winner.As could be expected, alas, no judges judged anything. Why? Because even by Jar's own constituency, the consensus was that he did poorly. They essentially judged the debate. It's quite clear who was the winner. Jar was on the ropes, so to speak, throughout the debate. It was Jar, the one who, before I submitted the OP, boasted that he'd put me away in a couple or so of messages. The rest is in your link. (Thanks.) Sometime, on page two, Jar said that he'd had enough, after which I good-spiritedly thanked him for engaging, etc. See, Admin? This is what you do to us. You know full well that we creation science advocates do not concede that creation science is not science. You're spinning that falsehood out of whole-cloth.Given the amount of science that people like AIG, ICR, Moller et al have done at great expense, effort and time, both in the lab and on the field, I've been trying for years to get you to rightfully acknowledge that creationist science is indeed science by definition, whether it be conventional main line or creationist.Just because creation science lacks all of the government funding, foundational funding and other funding etc, does not eliminate it from being science, by definition.The scientific research of scientist Lennart Moller, his team vessel and other equipment on both land and sea was not a vacation event. It was field science, after he published his findings via photography, literature and other media.I have the video of ICR's scientific field research of the Grand Canyon strata and of the Mt St Helen's suddenly formed gorge, etc.How skeptics view the science research does not render the research to be non-science. I've been rightfully explaining that science like this has produced more physical (I say physical) scientific evidence supportive (I say supportive) to creationist hypotheses than the zero event of the BB has of physical scientific evidence.You have the authority here at your relatively little science board to doggedly concoct your own exclusive definition of science. I'm saying you are shooting yourself in the foot, bemoaning the fact that effective and astute creationists aren't signing up to endure the lop sided and censored MO which you are enforcing. Methinks, before you try to remove the splinter in our eyes you remove the beam in your own as the apostle, Matthew put it in 7:3.I hope that you view the above comments, and others as constructive criticism; not intended to be meanspirited; meant for good and not personal attacks.Proverbs 27:6

quote:

---

Faithful are the wounds of a friend; But the kisses of an enemy are profuse.

---

Hi Percy.I'm trying to correlate the first paragraph of your message. Would you please explain it to me so as to correlate the sentences in it?

I'm confused as to how the message 11 which you cited correlated the statement relative to Dr Adequate & me.Also I didn't correlate "Fullhouse, Joey" et al with that about Dr Adequate and me. You didn't link what you were referring to as to Dr Adquate's message. All in all, it made me wonder if you had had a few too many.

Correlate; Co-relate; Questioning how one sentence co-relates to another in the same paragraph is an incorrect application of the word? Please explain.

Message 64.
​
2. Quick; what message does he refer to regarding Dr Adequate attempting to understand Buzsaw?

quote:

---

I think Dawn is making a reference to a character I've never heard of ("Joey") on a show I've never seen ("Fullhouse", by which I think he means, "Full House", and I've never seen that either). He referred to Joey and the show and the phrase "You say this guy's name was Bill?" a couple days ago in Message 11 in the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread. Dawn is making the point that some people have inadequate comprehension skills and so are unable to identify the key points, in this case, Dr Adequate in attempting to understand Buzsaw.
  —Percy

---

Edited by Buzsaw, : Change "Jonsey" to "Jonesy"

If you read my uniformity statement carefully in context, what the "something" is follows it.Huntard, apparently you have the same comprehension skills that Percy accuses me of.What you've done above is to segmentize apart phrases from my message so as to render it difficult to correlate the segments readily.The statement should not be difficult to comprehend by anyone having a knowledge of the terms in it relative to the zero event, ontology sub-microscopic chaos, expansion, observable order, etc.Buz's statement: "The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order............"Huntard, there's no reason anyone familiar with the terms in this statement, by a careful and thoughtful read of it, shouldn't be able to comprehend it.In it's original context, the "above example" was directly above the statement in the thread.The zero event does premise the alleged BB expansion. No?Anyone can cherry pick out the faults of others. Your message quoted above says this: "What Buz menat to writes:" . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LoL on your contention that grammar, perse, is what draws lively debates with Buzsaw on behalf of your board. The fact is, as evidenced in the Buzsaw profile archives, that what draws members to my stuff is my stuff; being unique, interesting and challenging, so as to liven up your board and draw in some lurkers.Thus, and by Jehovah, god's providence, Buzsaw's membership is still active, after two permanent bannings by you.

Out of context it means whatever the definitions of the words mean. In context it relates to the context. Read the context thoughtfully, and go figure how the words relate to the context.

Larni, it appears that you have juxtaposed my statement with that on Dawn Bertot or someone else. I recognize the first paragraph as mine but the rest from someone else.Had you linked the quote for clarification, perhaps your message could be comprehended --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then look up the words; think objectively; specify what it is that you need help on.

Larni, you know the rules. Whether it be in your signature or in your message you need to identify the writer of whomever you quote. You've juxtaposed two different authors into one statement, designating neither to the writer/s.