I prefer corroborating evidences, so as to lend the maximum support to any given hypothesis.
Your thoughts on when evidence was corroborating, and more importantly when evidence is credible, would make for a very interesting thread, don't you think?
I think many of us suspect that you're not clear on these concepts. Certainly many of your ideological fellows have said as much, so it can't all be bias on our part. Perhaps this is something you'd like to explore at some point.
I don't know enough science to critique what anyone has to say including Buz. In the science forum I just ask questions and figure that there is some slight chance I'll be able to partially comprehend the answers.
However it does occur to me that if Buz's posts on science are something less than accurate it isn't always necessary to argue with him about it. It is possible to ignore him.
I vote to let him participate, and suggest that if anyone finds his posts falling short of their scientifc standard then it might be an idea to not waste their time with it.
I don't know enough science to critique what anyone has to say including Buz. In the science forum I just ask questions and figure that there is some slight chance I'll be able to partially comprehend the answers. However it does occur to me that if Buz's posts on science are something less than accurate it isn't always necessary to argue with him about it. It is possible to ignore him.
I vote to let him participate, and suggest that if anyone finds his posts falling short of their scientific standard then it might be an idea to not waste their time with it.
GDR, keep an eye on my debate with Moose regarding fossil dating. I debate the true creationist POV. Of course you all think my science is inaccurate. Why should any evolutionist agree with someone else's hypotheses?
You should not judge my posts on the basis of the accuracy of them in the views of members debating on a totally different ideology about science. I will be applying some sensible arguments supportive to the creationist paradigm with Moose regarding fossil dating problems.
Edited by Buzsaw, : eliminate word
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
The thing is Buz I don't even have a high school chorus in biology, (and if I had it would have been back when the earth's crust was cooling), so I'll leave you to it.
The thing is though; from a Biblical POV I have no problem with evolution. The question of that God did it is a very different question of how God did it. From a theological POV I'm interested in the idea that God did it, and from a scientific POV and interested in how God did it.
Bottom line is that I hope they let you back in as there is a dearth of creationists around here, and the powers that be might consider that the title EvC does kinda imply that there is a place for you here.
Look, whether buz can discuss evidence or not has little to do with my topic proposal about the mechanics of a water canopy.
There are certain physical properties that cannot be denied even by someone like buzsaw. I firmly believe that no one can deny the depth-pressure relationship in fluid mechanics. Heck, we see these properties in action everyday with our water pressure from the faucets.
All I want is a thread where creationists (not just buzsaw) can explain to the rest of us how a water canopy hovering above could exist without crushing everything. Furthermore, they could also explain how plant life could exist with that kind of water canopy blocking off the sun.
Is that too much to ask? I don't care about evidence whether the canopy existed or not. I just want creationists to tell us HOW it could exist at all.
quote: GDR, keep an eye on my debate with Moose regarding fossil dating. I debate the true creationist POV.
By which you mean YOUR POV. Which the vast majority of creationists would reject. By what standard is it "the true Creationist POV" ? Does that mean anything more than "Buzsaw believes it" ?
quote: Of course you all think my science is inaccurate. Why should any evolutionist agree with someone else's hypotheses?
I think you mean that we KNOW that much of your "science" is inaccurate. For instance we know that your claim that palaeontologists date fossils be working out the age of the particles of sediment, going back to when the original rock the sediment was eroded from is not true. In fact we can say with reasonable certainty that it is an invention born of prejudice and wilful ignorance, with no concern for the truth.
So this is the "ideological" difference, that you find so important. Evolutionists, in general, care about the truth. You care only about your own beliefs.
quote: You should judge not judge my posts on the basis of the accuracy of them in the views of members debating on a totally different ideology about science. I will be applying some sensible arguments supportive to the creationist paradigm with Moose regarding fossil dating problems.
In other words your arguments should not be judged on their truthfulness nor even whether they really make sense (it does not make sense to ASSUME that palaeontologists are idiots who cannot see the problem with your method of dating fossils and actually use it, for instance - even for someone who does not know that the assumption is false). On what criteria should your arguments be judged then ? It seems the only one you will accept is "Buzsaw believes it". That is hardly a reasonable "Science Paradigm"
Seems to me that he confused a creationist site with a reliable source. Not an easy mistake to make for anyone who is actually informed on the creation/evolution debate.
Seriously, anybody who honestly thinks that rocks are only dated by index fossils and index fossils are dated solely by evolutionary theory is scarcely any less ignorant and deluded than Buz. (And that only because index fossils are one method of relative dating).
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
Buz, that link does not at all help your case here. It is nothing but a declaration of ignorance by someone who hasn't a clue as to how geological studies are actually conducted. There is not one ounce of truth there. It wouldn't take but a few short minutes of Googling *just* USGS reports on paleontological studies to show you how asinine the link's and your conclusions are, but I don't want to waste my time. I am truly embarassed for you.
As such, I'm with jar in that I think there is much value in providing the willfully and non-willfully ignorant with a stage. The audience has an excellent opportunity to compare and contrast faulty and ignorant arguments with ones that are well reasoned and well supported.
Since I have been lurking for a while, and not participating very much, I haven't noticed this issue before. Had I seen it sooner, I would have been one of the first to support the motion. What's the worth of this site without creationists? Although some of them are quite reasonable, we (evolutionists) all know most creationists spout a lot of nonsense. But even if they do, aren't they the reason sites such as this exist? If you can't stand the nonsense, then simply don't read it. But if you want a debate about creationism and evolution, then you must allow both sides to have their say, however nonsensical it may seem.
Let Buzsaw participate in full.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.