Summations Only

That's a pretty cruel invite, Mr. Jar. Buzsaw is banned from participating in that forum.

I don't know how serious you are, but I did want to point out that one former poster here did manage to get himself arrested after repeatedly threatening people over the internet.

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.

Actually you are neglecting to mention that we asked you questions about Shapiro's paper and you admitted not understanding Shapiros work. In particular you had no clue that "purifying selection" was standard terminology referring to natural selection while trying to explain to us how Shapiros work did not involve natural selection despite his use of the term purifying selection.You also went on at length about how a paper about random mutation being a "null hypothesis somehow disproved that mutations were random, when the actual paper gave evidence against directed mutations.There is ample evidence in the Shapiro and Wright discussions that you don't understand biology papers in sufficient detail to understand criticisms of your positions.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Frako's post was about a creationist who believes that the earth is 6000 years old. So it wasn't about you. At all. Does it really make sense to adopt the position that his comments included you so you can claim to be injured? There are still YECs who still post here.I'm beginning to understand Percy's issues with your participation. I still think it would be best to let you post in the science forum, but I no longer see any reason to talk him out of his position.What I find hilarious your complaint included your own shot at YEC beliefs. Sigh.

And every element or compound that goes from liquid to solid or vapor to liquid. And every infant organism that develops from an embryo. Photosynthesis. Food becoming body parts. Salt water evaporating and then raining down as pure water.We've done this exercise before. Some people never learn.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Add attributions to quotes to remove impression that Rahvin is at fault.

Say what?? Biogenesis is nothing of the sort. We witness the results of biogenesis every time we see a new born anything. Your response to Percy's point that eyewitness testimony is not essential is to point out a lack of eyewitnesses?A closed mouth gathers no foot.Edited by NoNukes, : Deleted response to nonsense

The no true Scotsman argument rises again.Apparently it is pretty easy to ignore the true basis of Christianity and to act like a Pharisee. Do you believe that the early Christian Church had a 66 book Bible? Or any Bible at all? Are you suggesting that your brand of Christianity is the real thing, while, for example, the Church at Ephesus, was a bunch of wannabee fakes?Is your take on Genesis anything like the take of early formerly Jewish Christians? Is there anything that Jesus says that suggests revising that take on Genesis? If not, then how do you decide that your personal take is required to be a true Christian?Seriously, a Christian is someone who accepts the need for a personal savior and adopts Christ as his savior and Lord and lives a life according to Christ's teachings to the fullest extent achievable. Period. What you describe as Christianity is, instead worship of the Bible in the form canonized by human beings.

I don't think accepting evidence for evolution is the key. I think Genomicus avoids moderator intervention because he makes efforts to present evidence based arguments for his own propositions.If your position is essentially that the scientific method is crap and that you aren't bound to use evidence, then you are going to have difficulty presenting your case according to the rules governing the science forum. Unfortunately the rules, when evenly applied, do stack the deck against proponents of Creation Science. Further, attempts to avoid empirical evidence invite dogpiling and mocking because the departure is pretty easy to spot.There are threads in which arguing about whether the scientific method is appropriate, but that argument cannot be the center of every single thread. Science threads about a specific science topic are about the evidence and the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. If you really have an issue with that limitation, it ought to be discussed in a thread of its own.At any rate, I really don't think Bolder-dash is interested in science based discussion. His primary goal these days is to complain about the forum rules. I don't think he is banned from the science forums, he simply doesn't have any purpose there other than complaining that a topic is being discussed at all.

I think this characterization is wrong. Foreveryoung started good threads, but he did not follow up on them. His first blow up started when people refused to buy into his radical theory without some evidence.In fact, very few people participate in the physics discussions where Fy posted a good number of his threads. In a number of the threads he either stopped participating or when into loud profane rant mode in fairly short order. That does seem a bit silly, but aren't those the rules of the game here? In your opinion, what should the response to a creation science argument be in the science forums?

Except that the examples you've given really do seem to be off topic posts. We have had discussions about what constitutes the modern synthesis, so I doubt that you'd have had any problems generating discussion about that. But that point was pretty much irrelevant in the thread you raised it in. The Wright paper discussion was strictly about the evidence supporting the conclusion that mutations were random with respect to fitness. Yet your approach was to post questions out in left field. That is to thwart the discussion in the thread by directing it towards your own agenda. Completely bogus. If you challenge someone on doing that, and they don't pony up the evidence, that's a win. Those challenges work quite well on the typical creationist arguments I see on this board.But this would be a great thread for you to give a counter example. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Nobody gets suspended for being off topic. Although it is probably possible to get suspended for deliberately refusing admin direction for such, I don't know anyone who gets suspended this way.

Exactly. Persistence, not simply posting an off topic message, but continuing to break the rules despite warnings.

Other than objecting to the goofy title "evolutionist" sure. But again, nobody gets punished for simply being off topic.

I don't expect you to accept the blame for anything you do. If admin were looking for an excuse to ban you, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to find one.