Clarifying The Buzsaw Position

Nobody's saying we don't Google, Buz. I use it all the time. (I use Wikipedia a lot more, I guess.)But we don't use literally the first search result, as you seem to. You need to be using your sense in regards to judging the authenticity of statements. Instead you just seem to pull the first thing that seems to support your bizarre views with absolutely no effort put into determining if the information is legitimate or just made-up.As a suggestion - use Google's search engine for journal articles: scholar.google.com. It returns search results only from peer-reviewed research. I've found it an invaluable tool for getting legitimate scientific information. (As a caution - the majority of journal articles are archived in PDF format, so you'll need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software, avaliable as a free download from http://www.adobe.com.) Since that's never happened, it's unlikely that's what were afraid of. Your use of Google tends to have only the result of making an ass out of yourself; again, this is due to the fact that you exercise absolutely zero diligence in terms of verifying the accuracy of the "information" you uncover.You just find the first thing that appears to corroborate you and run with it. This approach consistently gets you into trouble. When did that happen? Percy's physics epiphany certainly occurred, yes; but from what I saw it was due to the information provided by professional physicists like Cavediver in response to your misinformation, not by anything that you posted.I mean, if you want to take credit for being so consistently wrong that other people are educated by the attempts to correct you, well, more power to you; personally I don't see that as being something you would want to be proud of. To participate in science forums, it seems to me that you should attempt, at all times, to present factually accurate information. Since what you describe as "secularistic ideology" is actually factually-verified science, and your position is religious make-believe, I can see how this puts you at a disadvantage.But surely complaining about that disadvantage isn't something that you want to do? Wouldn't doing that be an implicit recognition that what I just said was correct?

Buz, words fail me. You have an amazing ability to misinterpret even the most clear and severe criticism. I have this overwhelming urge to type in capital letters.Once again Crash has got it right. This is from his Message 46: Moving on to the Google issue: Buz, almost everyone uses Google. A lot! No one was saying that they don't use Google or that you shouldn't use Google. We all use Google. We all love Google. Your ability to misinterpret plain English is stunning.What people were telling you is that there's a lot of rubbish out there on the Internet, and it is essential to be able to tell the difference between sense and nonsense, else one could end up posting nonsense here. Which is what you do time and again. ARE YOU NUTS???The correct information came from Cavediver and Chiroptera, not your incredibly stupid Hyperflight site. How could you miss this? My earlier mea culpa post was not saying Hyperflight was right. Hyperflight is spectacularly wrong. There is no such law as conservation of spin, which is what Hyperflight is misinterpreting as conservation of angular momentum. My mistake was of a completely different nature, thinking that angular and linear momentum could be converted back and forth as long as energy was conserved.That Hyperflight is wrong has been explained to you and is obvious just from reading the thread anyway, and that you somehow haven't been able to absorb this yet probably means that in your mind my above paragraph is saying, "Percy admits he's wrong and Hyperflight is right." God help us!Let me repeat: in science the correct criteria for separating sense from nonsense is whether the information is supported by replicated observational studies and/or experiments of the real world.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

[qs]I think the examples you give below speak eloquently to just how divorced this view of things is from reality. Books aren't where novel science is. Books aren't where you find out the state of current research. Books are for introduction of a subject as a basis to gaining understanding.I admit I haven't read a book on biology for years, but I read dozens of papers in a month and it is those that I cite. And if i need to look up something I'm not so familiar with I will read the papers on those subjects too and then cite them. For instance you might be interested in a piece from Physics Education entitled Quantum physics explains
Newton’s laws of motion . This is a fairly introductory work as befits an education journal so it was just about comprehensible for someone who gave up physics after high school. I found another paper on QM and newtonian Thermodynamic models of heat engines approaching equivalence but that was several orders of magnitude beyond my comprehension. You got the stuff at a crackpot site full of rubbish, Percy just tripped himself up and was corrected about errors he made in his critique of it.So it goes like this. Buz posts garbage -> Percy makes mistakes in his rebuttal -> Cavediver corrects Percy.So where is the value in your contribution? Percy managed to learn from his mistake but you seem incapable of doing the same. Cavediver didn't say that the hyperflight site was correct, just that one of Percy's specific criticisms was wrong. Nowhere that anyone cane see. You posted a random persons comment from a comment page and it didn't even support what you were saying previously. What does this even mean? Are you running background checks on everyone? The only real way to find out what position someone is espousing is to ask them, otherwise you are merely ascribing beliefs to them based on your own assumptions. Are you talking about fact checking what they say?TTFN,WK

Percy, some of you people are not reading well. I made no claims of providing the correct information. In fact, I thought carefully before posting so as not to take any credit for explaining or providing the information which Cavediver and Chiroptera so graciously stepped forward to provide. What I said and what I meant was that it was the google site which I brought forward that surfaced the issue at hand. Get it? Surfacing an issue is not explaining or informing you of your error. C'mon, you guys, now you're getting hostile and inflaming again, straining at gnats and swallowing camels.I thought I made it clear in my explanation that I fully understand that QM applies to small things on planet earth. How many times do I need remind you folks that my point was that QM's role in explaining things on earth distinguished what I consider to be a lower net entropy observed on earth in the last half million years than the rest of the solar system. I said I thought possibly that one area where it applied to the solar system more directly was on the spin of the planets since I remembered reading about that which you took issue with as baloney so then I googled to read up to see if there was support out there to justfy my statement. Remember how that went? If I had made no effort to support my statment, I be damned and if I research to support my position I be damned. IDists just can't win in this place. Nemmesiss is right. You see to it that we don't. That's a given. You claim that I don't read a dang thing and when I read you go at me for doing what we all do, to search out the truth and to make a determination as to whether our own positions are falsifiable. Maybe the site I used has it's faults, but did you read the whole link before rendering it all as hogwash? I read some other stuff on it that sounded quite right, but then how would I know. Thanks for the warning. Btw, I later found a couple of other sources, on I believe from the U of Michigan that indicated somewhat of what Maggie suggested, that something like applying some aspects of QM to the solar system would be at the high end of Qm's application, bordering on the lower end of Newtonian relativity. Some reliable sources of my reading on QM seemed to bear this out to some extent.So I have made no such claims to informing you of anything or teaching you. All my role amounted to was to surface the issue via google site, flawed as it may be. For doing so, you went at me for relying on google too much to support my positions on the issues. Cavediver and Chiroptera are the people who did the work, imo angels sent by God in answer to my earnest prayers for the good of EvC to have some balance in Science and to vindicate myself on some of what I considered to be spurrilous charges.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Really? Isn't this you: Everyone seems to have interpreted this as a claim by you to have identified correct information using Google. Everyone but you.Your entire message is just an exercise in dissembling. The only thing you're good at is denial.--Percy

I have no idea what you mean by "surfacing an issue." Again, I can't imagine why you would be proud of being so spectacularly and resolutely wrong that third parties are inadvertently educated by patient and repeated attempts to inform you of your copious errors.But surely you've noticed that a considerably greater amount of learning goes on in threads that aren't polluted by nonsense? There's literally nothing here for you to take credit for. The only thing that damns you is that you don't, apparently, know how to judge the validity of information put before you - beyond, of course, "is this consistent, or inconsistent, with creationist ideology?" We're pretty patiently explaining better strategies. You appear to have completely ignored my suggestion of Google's journal research tool avaliable at Google ScholarJust using that would be a great first step towards improving the quality and reliability of your sources. C'mon. Think this through. Planetary bodies are at the lower end of Newtonian physics' size magisterium? Really? Newton developed those models from watching apples fall in Cambridge, but they only apply to planets and larger?It's your penchant for saying things like this - statements that make it adamantly clear that you aren't thinking things through.QM applies at the level of atoms. Higher than that the error terms it introduces are indistinguishable from the models of Newtonian mechanics. Newton's laws apply from atoms to asteroids. Higher than that, the error terms introduced by Einstein's theories begin to become noticeable, and relativity is the model we use.QM < Newton < Einstein. I don't understand in what sense you've been vindicated, and I think it's a little ridiculous for you to be taking credit for the work of others, as though correcting your misstatements is the only reason Cavediver and Chiro have to post informative content about their fields of expertise.

quote:

---

C'mon, you guys, now you're getting hostile and inflaming again, straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

---

I'd say that your allegation that we were telling you not to use google was "hostile and inflaming" - because it was completely false and baseless.It's really interesting that you get upset at truthful criticisms of your own actions but have no problem with making completely false criticisms of other people.

quote:

---

How many times do I need remind you folks that my point was that QM's role in explaining things on earth distinguished what I consider to be a lower net entropy observed on earth in the last half million years than the rest of the solar system. I

---

Yes, you said that other people attemtped to do that. SO the support you should have bene looking for is OTHER PEOPLE invoking QM to "explain" it. In fact you should also have been looking up references to show that the entropy of the Earth was lower is some meaningful way.

quote:

---

I said I thought possibly that one area where it applied to the solar system more directly was on the spin of the planets since I remembered reading about that which you took issue with as baloney so then I googled to read up to see if there was support out there to justfy my statement.

---

Which is so far from the actual issue that it is hard to see why it is even worth mentioning.

quote:

---

I googled to read up to see if there was support out there to justfy my statement. Remember how that went? If I had made no effort to support my statment, I be damned and if I research to support my position I be damned. IDists just can't win in this place. N

---

If you had found real, valid support you wouldn't have got into trouble. This is what this is about, remeber - your habit of citing any old rubbish if it happens to say somethign you like - or even if you think that it says something you like. When we look up google we do the work to check our sites. You don't. Why is it unfair to criticise you for failing to do the basic checks that we hold to be necessary - and do ourselves ?So you spend a minute or two looking up websites with no real quality control. And you thiunk that entiles you t passs them off as reliable and accurate sources. Nobody is allowed to point out tthat you did a lousy job because it's "unfair" to point out that fact ?Bullshit Buz. It's not a case of bias - it's a case of you not doing a decent job. We aren't required to pat you on the head and pretend you did good. Because you didn't. There's npothng unfiar in that. It can't ba attributed to bias. It's just the truth.

quote:

---

Maybe the site I used has it's faults, but did you read the whole link before rendering it all as hogwash?

---

The site you use rejects relativity on the grounds that it contradicts Newtonian physics - and can't even get Newtonian physics right. The author would fail high school physics for confusing momentum and energy. It's an outright crank site and not trustworthy in the slightest.So lets get this straight.You made a highly implausible claim.Rather than support that claim you made a barely related but also implausible claim.You tried to support that claim by referencing an obvious crank site.And you complain that it's unfair that people don't believe you.It isn't unfair. It's fair and honest. And that's what you don't like about it. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed a quote box (it's what I do best).

I've reviewed this thread. Using google you've produced two quotes. The first is best described as raving insanity (hyperflight) while the second clearly contradicts you, saying that we need only use Newtonian mechanics at the level of the solar system - and we don't need to worry about the weirdness of QM. (In fact I would quibble and point out that we need Relativity to explaim Mercury's orbit). Neither quote offers any useful support for your position - and you use of them simply makes you look bad.I think that this proves the point you keep fighting. You haven't developed the skills needed to use google effectively in these sort of debates.

PaulK, anything I've ever done makes me look bad to you.. You and a few other hard nosed members are the ones who always demean the ole man. I take this stuff from you insolent people as a grain of salt. If Percy wants me out he can show me the door or stick me in showcase. If you people were this picky about members like Jar who can do no wrong I'd worry but as I see it there's others as bad or worse than I who are left alone simply because they're on your ideological side of the isle. I'll do the best I can to get along here and follow the Forum Guidelines as I've always done but don't expect me to ever suit you, because I know it's impossible. It's come to the point that I just don't care. I've got plenty else to do if I'm not wanted here.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

you know a person's run out of arguments when he plays the martyr card. sorry buz, that card is old, tired, and useless.all we're asking is for you to actually review your sources, and not post crackpot stuff. is it really that hard?

No, just the stupid stuff.Any time you're not making yourself look ridiculous by defending unsupportable positions with the arguments of cranks and crackpots, you actually bring a lot to the board. I've long thought you were a highly effective moderator, conscientious and fair.

quote:

---

PaulK, anything I've ever done makes me look bad to you.. You and a few other hard nosed members are the ones who always demean the ole man. I take this stuff from you insolent people as a grain of salt. I

---

In other words you don't intende to correct your behaviour. You just intend to dismiss all the justified criticisms and warnings and keep on making the same mistakes. In fact youare saying that people who are unwillign to lie to protect your ego shuldn't be believed !

quote:

---

ll do the best I can to get along here and follow the Forum Guidelines as I've always done but don't expect me to ever suit you, because I know it's impossible. It's come to the point that I just don't care. I

---

You don't care that you grossly misrepresent your opponentrs.You don't care that you try to pass off nonsense as reliable fact.You don't care that you frequently misread your sources.And in fact you say that it's impossible for you not to keep doing these things again and again.You don't even see anything wrong about it - it's all the fault of those mean old people who keep telling the truth instead of believing you.OK then, go. If you're not capable of dealing with these major problems, if you're not even interested in trying to do so, then you are saying that you can't really follow the forum guidelines nor are you even interested in making a good faith effort in trying. If that s the case then you should go.You can't write it off as meanness on the behalf of your oppoennts beacuase you REALLY DID all these things. The quote from the hyperflight website IS obvious lunacy. The quote from Maggie really DOES contradict your claims. When people told you that you needed to use more care in choosing your sources you really DID claim that they were telling you not to use google. You really DID suggest that just finding a source should be enough to satisfy your opponents - you should not have to actually care if your source is in the least reliable or even if it actually supports your claim. Those are FACTS, Buz.And you say that you can't reasonably do better. I say that any honest, sane person can and should be able to do better. At the least if they made an honest mistake they shoudl be prepared to admit it and apologise. If they keep on making mistakes they should try harder to avoid doing so - not whine about how their opponents are "mean" for spotting serious errors and misrepresentations I can do these things. Why can't you ?Edited by Admin, : Add missing close quote.

quote:

---

PaulK, anything I've ever done makes me look bad to you.. You and a few other hard nosed members are the ones who always demean the ole man.

---

Buzsaw, did you fail to read what I wrote to you a few posts ago? Here, I'll paste it for you: We are as demanding with each other as we are with you, almost certainly more so.What is actually happening is a sort of informal peer-review, buz.It's a valuable learning tool that I am very glad to be exposed to, as it forces me to improve the quality of my arguments.You should be glad of it too, and it is very telling that you resent it instead of allowing it to improve your efforts.Don't you want to improve and learn?

You can start following the Forum Guidelines now. If you have responses concerning the errors that have been pointed out to you, then you're welcome to respond. But responding to all the efforts to correct your errors with, "You people are just saying I'm wrong because I don't share your views," playing the martyr card as one person put it, is simply avoiding the issue under discussion.You started this thread and called it Clarifying The Buzsaw Position. If your position is in essence that arguments can be ignored because they are motivated by dislike for your stance on evolution, then take your position elsewhere, it is not welcome here.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

AdminPD properly shifted discussion of Buzsaw from the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0 thread to this thread. This is a response to Message 107. No, it really isn't. What I described in the case of Buzsaw, and what you're not responding to, was a persistent inability demonstrated over a period of years to comprehend the sense of many discussions. This was particularly clear recently when Buzsaw claimed QM applied at planetary scales, responded in all seriousness to a nonsense word-salad post which was posted solely for the purpose of demonstrating his lack of comprehension, cited a nonsense site in support of his views (hyperflight - it mistook the law of conservation of angular momentum as if it were a law of conservation of spin), misunderstood people's criticism of the hyperflight site and his inability to tell sense from nonsense as a criticism of Google, refused to be corrected and defended the nonsense site, claimed to have identified the correct information, denied all the above, then suspended himself. And that's just a partial list. And keep in mind that Buzsaw's exile is self-imposed. Except that this isn't what actually happened, is it. It really isn't an effective form of argument to just always respond with, "No he didn't, you did." You need to build a case around what actually happened, around reality, rather than just issuing a knee-jerk response of baseless accusations.Buzsaw wasn't treated with any significant anger or verbal harassment in the Thermodynamics and The Universe thread, nor here in the moderation thread. My point was that he was being so obstinate and clueless that a response such as the apparently contrived one offered by Schraf is perfectly understandable. We're only human. There's only so much frustration people can take.No one here is interested in banning critics of evolution. This site exists to discuss creation/evolution issues. We're a discussion site. It is only those who make discussion difficult or impossible who are not welcome. That is why you're in Showcase, because you so quickly shift from discussing the issues to excoriating everyone who doesn't agree with you. You also seem to believe you have a record of triumphal discussions where your position has prevailed (an opinion not supported by examination of any threads here), and this belief helps nudge you ever more quickly into a mode of discussion where you decry people's obstinacy in not conceding that you've already shown they were wrong.For example, we're all painfully aware that you believe you carried the day in discussions about Wheeler's views on QM and about backward causality, but this perception is not shared by anyone else nor is it supported by examination of the threads in question. Here's one thread as an example: the implications of quantum physics II. No one reading that thread would conclude that your views prevailed. I'm not claiming that MitchellMcKain prevailed, either. I'm just pointing out that the fact that you think you prevailed leads you to go into new threads on the topic with a chip on your shoulder, prepared to strike out at anyone who doesn't concede that you've already shown that retrocausality has been demonstrated.Clearly your problem is different from Buzsaw's problem. Buzsaw's problems stem from a few simple factors: lack of comprehension skills even of simple English, an unflappable belief that whatever he believes is right, incredible persistence, and he posts a lot. Your problems are different. You have excellent comprehension skills, but you somehow see yourself as the world's policeman for creationists and are determined to extract your pound of flesh from every evolutionist by punishing them with torrents of abuse. When you're in discussion mode then you're a welcome and challenging opponent, but you're not in discussion mode very often. You much prefer your other mode, the one where every other sentence addresses "dishonest evolutionists" and accuses them that "they just won't admit" and so forth. When you're in this mode discussion quickly breaks down. You're in that mode a lot, and that's why you're in Showcase. There are many people who love to debate a challenging opponent like yourself, but we can't allow someone who causes so many threads to shift off-topic into personal criticisms to roam the board freely.You often seem to believe that my criticisms of you as Admin violate the Forum Guidelines, and I'm going to attempt to explain this once again. One of the responsibilities of any enforcement division, such as the moderator team here, is to make clear what behavior is causing a problem and how it is contrary to the Forum Guidelines. Taking moderator action while claiming that the Forum Guidelines prevents any explanation because it disallows personal comments would hardly be fair and certainly not helpful. In the real world keeping someone prisoner against their will is against the law, but the police do it all the time. It's part of their responsibility in order to promote the greater good. In other words, enforcement divisions must be given powers that the population at large do not possess in order to do their job effectively.Just as real-world police are not perfect, neither is any moderator team. If you're looking for perfection you've come to the wrong species. But we have a set of Forum Guidelines that are unbiased with respect to viewpoint, and we attempt to enforce them fairly as best as we are able. If you don't like the Forum Guidelines or the way they are enforced then there is nothing keeping you here. You're free to participate at any board you like, but as others who have observed your behavior at another board have noted, your problems follow you around.My advice to you hasn't changed since day one: stick to discussing the issues and leave the personal side issues out of it.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director