Effective Posting Styles (And Suggested Improvements)

Objective people, having read and assembled all of the evidence Buz has cited for the Biblical record would know why they support Buz.Objective folks know that everything temporal has a before, an outside of and a time in which to have happened. Objective people would know that energy must needs have had no beginning as per 1LoT.Fortunately not all have had their minds programmed into believing science claims that defies all that is observed and what is logically impossibleNot all are naive enough to believe that life-less pre-mordial soup could, having no intelligence to drive it, allegedly emerged naturally and randomly from a bit of soup to all of life's complexities and diverse enormity observed today.Some folks are objective enough to understand that for a tiny nation of Jews could be scattered globally for over 19 centuries to return to their itty bitty land and become a powerful nation of identifiable Jews again precisely as prophesied by ancient prophets. Some folks are objective enough to read all of the other corroborating fulfilled prophecies that Buz has cited and go figure that the Bible has more credence. than the BB, Singularity and natural origin of life.Some folk are objective enough to see that the most blessed, prosperous and free nations of the planet have been people having Biblical principles and the most poor and oppressed ones have not.These are just a few reasons that it's you brain-washed sheeple who believe in unsupported impossibilities who are the pitifully deluded ones. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Having hit the submit button inadvertently, indending to hit the preview button, I was editing while you posted.

Dr Adequate, I don't consider you to be a troll, but this here's a classic example of a trollish message; a one liner saying narry a bloomed thing about what in my message was false, poorly articulated or otherwise awful.See, Doc, this is the kind of trollish yada that Admin, PaulK et al blame me for when it's you people and the trolls who drag out and slow down the forward movement of threads. It not only comes from the classic trolls, but from good members like you, Coyote et al.So please tell the www some substantitive things about my awful message.

Says the cite's top troll in another trollish message. So what should be espected from one who's ox is being gored?

I like that word, "effective" in the thread title. Long, lively and red hot threads should be an indication of some effective posting styles, should it not?Creationists who draw interest are often the ones who get criticized by members and admins the most.An effective posting style may not mean that the message is factual or even articulated well. It still may be effective enough to arouse debate.What's considered factual is often relative to one's paradigm. It may not be considered scientific to the satisfaction of the mainstream's science methodology. That, of course has to do with the nature of scientific evidence[ which I've been thinking long and hard on.The nature of the various sciences are manifold. I hope to get to a thread on it when I can get a handle on how to open the topic effectively.

To spark up some interest, move the thread topic forward and to enlighten.

Give me an example of my alleged propensity to post a bunch of unspecified other posts. See Crashfrog? This is what you do. I do not claim to have presented killer/empirical evidence. It's usually the evolutionists who make these claims about illogical conclusions they/you come to. Look over my posts. I usually apply the word, supportive, relative to my evidence. But you're not all regular people. For the most part, you are members here because the majority of you are scientifically astute.I'm a man with a high school degree. I work to expand my vocabulary. We can all click on Google, type in problematic words which other forum members use, click on an online dictionary and learn what the word means. If you have no desire to expand your vocabulary, that's your prerogative.I sometimes embellish posts with alliteration. I remember about that from high school. A late great English preacher, Leonard Ravenhill, once held some services at out little small town, Wyoming church. He was a very inspirational preacher who sometimes applied alliteration to his messages. It's fun to do, so why not apply it now and then?I'm a peon layman having no higher education debating the Biblical creationist paradigm here on a science cite rife with highly articulate educated scholars. I learn a lot from all of you except the cite's coddled trolls . Over the past 8 plus years you all have helped me to expand my knowledge and expand my vocabulary.Due to my lack of higher education it becomes needful for me to cite links supportive to my arguments, more so than members who've been formally educated, some of them having their doctorates, etc.Search engines, coupled with gleanings from scientific elitist members make it possible for me to debate the best of you, including Percy, Coyote, Dr. Adequate, Lyx2no (I hope he's still with us), Cavediver, Son Goku and Eta Carina, a former highly astute physicist, et al.I think of little David with his smooth little sling stone who felled the giant, Goliath. David became deadly with the sling & stone as a Shepherd in the wilderness and trusted in his skill and Jehovah enough to dare to confront the giant.Having the smooth stone of Biblical truth and help of the majestic ruler and intelligent designer of the Universe, I am able to hold my own with the best of you. Aside from these, I could do nothing. I do not go beyond what topics I can handle. There are science threads which I know I am incapable of debating, aside form, perhaps a post or two.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------