Summations Only

I have to agree. Too many evolutionists here have little patience with creationists, dismissively descending into denigration and sarcasm at the drop of a hat. We seem to forget that even though we've rebutted a position a hundred times that the new creationist member is often figuring out how to defend it for the first time.It should be possible to be right without becoming despised in the process.--Percy

Like I have said, you tend to tolerate newbies for a spell but mother, censor, dog and harass them by and by until they're gone looking for a more fairly moderated and balanced board.Your other moderators tend to allow more leeway. Your evolutionist constituency, and if I remember correctly, including some moderators, voted to allow me back in the science fora. Go figure, Percy. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Quoted as illustrative of my point - your remarks never provide any indication that you know what you're talking about. (The Ford you're referring to is the Model T, and the brand of Japanese luxury cars you're thinking of is Lexus.)I'm sure you feel like these corrections are nit-picking, but the problem is that you can't be relied upon to get it right even when it does matter.

This thread isn't about you. Figuring out how to stop yourself from turning every thread into a discussion about you is one of the prerequisites before a return to the science forums could be considered.--Percy

I don't believe there are any better moderated discussion boards Buz - despite your protests, this is an exceptionally fair place to be. When I attempted to discuss these subjects on a creationists site I was banned without warning within 48 hours.If you keep to the rules and follow advice, you can discuss what you like here - what's your problem with that?

/agree And even if you don't, you get suspended many times before being perma-banned.

If you look at our newest member and his behavior so far, I think you will agree he has been given a more than fair chance to explain his actions and correct other aspects of his posts.I probably wouldn't be so understanding, of course my first interactions with him were not exactly positive so I am a bit biased.It is not hard to follow the rules and participate here, although it is hard to debate with some people who clearly are much smarter than I am, but I do enjoy learning, and being wrong is a great way to learn. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

Well probably because the bible is wrong and there are no end times in sight yet. Was a grate empire destroyed or not when he crossed the river or not?? so your saying that the man who basicly is the father of philosophy was not the wisest man at that time in Greece?And the last bit did the oracles prophecy of defending themselves with wooden walls not save Athens?

I understand why you insist on this path, but I think you are requiring an impossibly high standard that is essentially a permanent ban. To a very great extent, your requirement makes Buzsaw responsible for the reactions of the rest of the participants.Independent of Buzsaw's understanding of evidence, the man has other issues (belief in his own infalliability, inability to consider, let alone understand opposing view points, tendency to consider every half baked source that agrees with him as accurate, complete refusal to do any self-examination, complete disrespect for any science he does not understand, etc.) that cause others to drag Buzsaw himself into every thread in which he posts.And the problem is not unique to Buzsaw. Threads in which shadow71, Dawn Bertot, Chuck77, et alia appear in frequently turn into threads about them rather than the position they advocate, and with good reason. For the most part, all of them are incapable of properly engaging in a debate that includes scientific evidence, and their substitute tactics for participating produce way more heat than light.I would recommend taking smaller steps with Buzsaw. Give him a more attainable hurdle o meet and allow him some limited participation in the science forum. Or encourage to participate in a scientific debate in the Great Debate forum while ignoring completely the inevitable peanut gallery comments.Just one man's opinion. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think we should show the creationist a bit more leniency in the science formus after all we have facts to back us up they dont So fi for example a creationist posts a claim that the earth is 6000 years old and has no evidence but the bible to back it up let him post that then let him read detailed information of numerous dating techniques that prove him wrong and none that prove him right.Or if they copy and paste some creationists work from the 18hundreds let them do it, then let them watch it being torn apart piece by piece by facts and evidence.

When I posted about James A. Shapiro's theory of Natural Genetic Engineering and gave my view of his theory I was told I did not unerstand his theory. Subsequently I discussed this with Shapiro and he told me I had a good understanding of his theory. I posted his reply to me on this board (with his permission) and I was again told by many on the board I had no idea what Shapiro was talking about.How can I rely to something like that?
That's why I have stopped posting in the evolution threads.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Juries always argue back and always have the last word.

Yes, there is some validity to that complaint.When you, or another creationist, raises a point, that should be answered. But we should try to avoid the piling on that so often occurs.I am trying to follow the practice of not posting unless I have something worth saying that has not already been expressed by others. That reduces my posting rate, but I hope it makes it a little easier on the creationists to who are presenting and arguing their positions.Edited by nwr, : fix typos

This is another example of why creationists are ill treated here. We all get painted with the same broad brush. A significant percentage of us are not YEC 6000-ers. Many YECs like Kent Hoven even call for a young Universe. That's nonsense, though he has some valid evidence and arguments for many aspects of ID and creationism. I don't through out the baby with the bathwater as some critics of Hovind do. ,I've been here over 8 years and I still get lumped by you people in with the YECs who's paradigm makes no sense. Nor is it Biblical. Nor does it satisfy the 1st law of thermodynamicsHave you ever bothered to read my long time on-going message signature? The Buzsaw unique creationist paradigm factors an infinite Universe. Jehovah, god who exists in the cosmos/heavens, is eternal; thus an eternal Universe and thus an infinite stable amount of energy as per LoT1. No energy is created or destroyed infinitely. As per science, it only changes forms.My paradigm essentially trumps the non-scientific BB Theory which implies a finite Universe. (See my message signature). .

It was just an example sorry i offended you, but common the 6000 old earth is not the silliest thing creationists claim. Yes and the observable fact that everything you push moves faster so Einstein was clearly wrong about the whole speed of light limit because its so simple when an object is travelling at the speed of light you just push it and vuala it travels faster then the speed of light, by by relativity. Big Bang Theory for Kids