Summations Only

Because you're too ignorant to recognize when you've been refuted and to arrogant to admit to it. For example: your Message 162, is refuted by me in Message 171 and you've never acknowledged that you were supporting terrorists and repeating lies started by Limbaugh. You didn't even get hte country right. See above.

I dont feel i was ridiculing Buz. Atleast it was not my intention.Buzsaw DO come across as a right wing conspiracy guy (Yea, 'nut' was a bad choice of word in this case..). You know; NWO, Obama as an NWO agent, etc. etc.. '

Rpb, your own ignorance is showing. Nearly all late Presidents and especially Obama have been calling for a New World Order, just as was prophesied by the Old Testament and the New Testiment of the Bible for the these latter days. Nearly all world leaders are calling for one. It is indeed a conspiracy to absolve national sovereignty and ever increase the global order, imposing it on all nations by force if necessary until all citizens become subservient to a few powerful and brutal elete despots.It's sheeple like you who's ignorance allows it to happen. .[rbp]You are right. I do not participate enough. I lurk alot but i do not post alot.
I had enough of the creationism debate a few years ago and i have no reason to participate in creationism debate on this board since it is almost non existing.[/qs]Then that makes you a troll, posting nothing edifying. You're here criticizing us who do. You need to poop or get off the pot. You need to show evidence that they are bad. Here at EvC, one does not just declare stuff to be bad. You must do the evidence thing as the rest of us are required to do.

The reason, Buz, is that you are not posting science. Science has a specific set of rules and procedures that it must follow--generally lumped under the term the "scientific method." It relies on verifiable evidence, hypotheses, testing of those hypotheses, rejecting or reformulating the ones that don't measure up, all of which leads to scientific theories. Theories must also meet another criterion: they must successfully predict things that in turn are verified. Note, these terms are used in a different manner within science than they are used by the general population. The general population equates "theory" with anything from "guess" to "idea." In science a theory is the single best current explanation for a given set of observations, and it is an explanation that covers all of those observations without being contradicted by any. And, as noted, it makes successful predictions.What you rely on is about the opposite of this. Your "chariot wheels" for example: they are based on a fuzzy underwater photograph and a lot of wishful thinking. To make these "chariot wheels" into verifiable evidence you need more than a fuzzy photograph--otherwise we would already have positive evidence that bigfoot and UFOs exist. If a potential chariot wheel is recovered and subjected to scientific investigation there are many tests which could be performed to determine whether or not it dates to the time period you say it does. Comparison to existing wheels from Egyptian tombs would be the first thing to do--if they are even chariot wheels at all! That has not been determined. That's up to him as the one who runs the board. On the exodus thread he wanted verifiable evidence. You failed to provide any. Creationists are not immune to the rules of science and evidence. Their claims, when refuted by scientific evidence, must be supported by scientific evidence, not by dogma, scripture, myth, and belief. Perhaps most creationists leave voluntarily when they make claims based on their beliefs, and when challenged are unable to support those claims with any verifiable evidence.Here is the difference between religious belief and science: Science, when disputes arise, goes back to evidence or seeks new evidence, and from that determines which of the conflicting claims, if any, are the most accurate.Religions, when disputes arise, tend to split. There are currently an estimated 30,000-40,000 different denominations or sects of Christianity alone. The reason for this is that they do not rely on evidence to address differences among them, but instead rely on belief. And as Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning." If you don't agree with the others in your group you split into two groups and each go your own way as you have no empirical means to settle those disagreements. Buz, I think your problem, shared with many or most creationists who have passed through here, is that you are unable to come up with evidence for your beliefs which will convince most outsiders. You accept your evidence because it supports your beliefs, so "it has to be right!" But that's not enough to convince those who rely on verifiable evidence.And because you are not relying on verifiable evidence you have a major problem in the Science Forum.Perhaps a solution is to initiate a new Forum on this site--perhaps call it "Creationists' Corner" or some such. I would suggest it be moderated for abusive language, trolling, and the like without moderating content as is necessary in the Science Forum. Perhaps this would be a place where you could post more of your beliefs and the evidence you feel supports them without getting banned.And we could soundly refute them as always. ; - )

From this point on, I am a practicing Creationist.Score one for the team!

Dr.A asks I've been thinking about asking someone to come into EvC and try his luck here. I believe he is an Intelligent Design proponent. Not likely a YEC. Conservative politically.I'm not sure about it, and there is a good chance he might refuse the suggestion out of hand anyway. If there were a page I could remember listing the PRATTs so I can have him go through those before retreading one, then he might take interest.

No, that's not why.I flatter and encourage people such as slevesque, wumpini, sac ... and they disappear. I talk softly to foreveryoung and he explodes with rage at everyone and goes about looking for my previous posts to vote 'em down. I tell Chuck77 that he seems to be a nice guy, and he hates me because I proved him wrong about a subject that I didn't even mention until he asked me to comment on it --- and then, like slevesque, throws up his role as moderator.Meanwhile the people whom I do just mock, such as Buzsaw and Dawn Bertot, hang about forever but don't contribute anything to the debate. (Note that when I mention Buzsaw and Dawn in the same sentence, this is not to say that I put them in the same class: I like Buzsaw personally, as a man, whereas the most sympathetic feeling I can muster for DB is a sort of horrified pity.)Right now, I'd even welcome the return of marc9000 --- except that if he came back he wouldn't do so to argue for a young earth or fiat creationism, he'd do so to lie about Barack Obama.

I completely agree with this. The problem is not so much that we're unduly mean to them, but that creationists are such delicate hothouse flowers that they wilt under the mildest criticism.This seems to be a tendency amongst theists in general. There exists a certain subset of theists who simply cannot tolerate dissent. It's not all by any means; GDR and Catholic Scientist for example have thick skins and give as good as they get. It is a significant percentage who behave this way though. Any criticism of their beliefs is taken as an attack, an opportunity to "take offence", whatever that is supposed to mean. It's a useful way of stifling one's critics.I think that creationists show this tendency to such a ridiculous extreme because they are fighting to maintain such a huge personal well of cognitive dissonance. They have an inkling that there are problems with their beliefs, but they don't like to think about it too deeply. It's uncomfortable. The ones who can weather the barrage of criticism at a site like this tend to be the ones whose cognitive dissonance is so deeply entrenched that they're no longer even dimly aware of it. Sadly, debating these folks tends to be rather fruitless.Mutate and Survive

Faith had a similar idea. What we ended up with was Theological Creationism and ID. It was meant to be a place to defend creationism/ID without recourse to science. It never really took off.

imho, I don't think GDR has displayed having particularly thick skin - I don't think he has needed to.
He simply doesn't encourage/deserve posts that could be considered abusive.
Certainly, I have seen some strong discussions take place, but they were gentlemanly in nature.Although it sounds like I am cheer-leading for GDR, I simply wished to point out that not all creationists should be tarred with the same brush.Just sayin'.

As far as I am aware, GDR is not a creationist.Mutate and Survive

Only in the broadest sense in that GDR like myself believe that GOD really is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen.

Well, Catholic Scientist is an atheist who uses "Catholic" in his name.Okay, just joking. But he posts so little on religion, that it is hard to be sure.GDR has religious views that are more-or-less defensible. It's the theists with indefensible views who won't defend them. I wonder why?

I have considered becoming a creationist devil's advocate but I don't know if I could do it. My M.O. is to blaze away at anything that sounds stupid and creationism is so stupid that I'd probably just be shooting myself in the foot.On the other hand, if Buzsaw sets the standard for effectiveness, maybe it is an attainable goal.My user name could be ringomartinez.

ringomartinez would certainly be setting a high bar, perhaps one that is unachievable.