Poll: Does Buzsaw Deny Obvious Error?

I will comment on this: Buz seems to be suggesting that if derogatory remarks are made against his sources it is valid for him to retaliate by lying about sources used by the opposing side (IIRC he has made similar comments about criticisms directed at him).If unsubstantiated slurs were directed against Buz' sources (which is not the case) then he would have a legitimate complaint. However I cannot see that it could justify fabricating slurs against opposing sources in an act of petty revenge.

I have my own reaction, but first here's my own response to the bibliophobe issue. First the context: I own somewhere around ten hardcopy Bibles, mostly different versions. I also have QuickVerse on my computer, which has a far greater number of different translations and has the advantage fo being cut-n-pastable. So if bibliophobe refers to someone fearful of the Bible itself as an object then I don't qualify.Since I've held Bible classes with my children and other children from the neighborhood in my house, I also don't think I qualify as bibliophobic about the written contents of the Bible.I think Buzz's conclusion of bibliophobia derives from his belief that we must know his interpretion of its meaning is correct, and that we fear it because we know how wrong it shows us to be. He may not appreciate that our interpretation of its meaning is different.I think Buzz also believes that many views of modern science were formulated not as a response to evidence and observations but to oppose religious views and replace them with atheistic ones. For this reason he thinks scientific views are as arbitrary as his own.Buzz is able to maintain his beliefs because he is either unable or unwilling to assess the supporting evidence, hence evidence or absence of evidence makes no difference to him. That's why he is seeking to argue from authority rather than from evidence.But Buzz's excursion into the argument from authority has led him back to his original problem. Unable to assess the credibilty of authorities through the evidence and arguments they present, he can only assess their credibiilty through the declarations of others at websites and so forth, or in many cases their very own self-proclamations of their own credibility.Until Buzz understands and accepts evidence as the foundation of discussion here, convincing him of anything, including of the wrongness of his approach, is likely not possible.--Percy

You have? Wow, Percy just when I had you stereotyped, you bust a move on me! You da man!Well, I really was not consciously stereotyping you. Same with you, Buzz. I have much love for you, too!

Hi Crash,I couldn't help but notice that you're pushing up against, and probably beyond, the boundaries of the Forum Guidelines. Your post appears to be egregiously in violation of rule 3:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

I know Sylas has already responded, and that you responded that you were talking about another thread. You're hereby sentenced to post a message analyzing and contrasting this other thread's relationship to the issues in this thread in a thoroughly objective fashion and without resorting to anglo-saxonisms of any kind.I somewhat share Sylas's prissyness about profanity. I say somewhat because as I've grown older I've grown increasingly frustrated at not being able to express myself clearly and succinctly in non-profane terms.Although the EvC Forum registration agreement states that you must not post profanely, the Forum Guidelines make no reference to profanity, and that is on purpose. I believe that there are times when profane terms are the best way to communicate meaning clearly. As long as the profanity isn't directed at others and fits the context (i.e., isn't gratuitous) then it's probably okay by me. Other moderators may vary, of course.This message has been edited by Admin, 02-21-2005 09:53 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

I think Buzz's conclusion of bibliophobia derives from his belief that we must know his interpretion of its meaning is correct, and that we fear it because we know how wrong it shows us to be. He may not appreciate that our interpretation of its meaning is different.

---

On this basis it would be fairer to label Buz himself a "bibliophobe". He's the one who's run away from discussions or resorted to baseless claims of "ideological bias" when he's been unable to defend his (mis)readings of the Bible.I'm thinking especially of the discussions of Isaiah 7 in this case, but it's not the only example.

Ok, I lost my temper. I'm sorry. I apologize to Buz for any time that my heated words have caused offense.I'm apparently not capable of addressing these issues with Buz in the detatched manner that so typefies the exemplar debate engaged in at this board. So I won't post anymore on the subject, except to offer a suggestion. Why don't we let Buz have one thread all to his own, where the rules are different for just him? Let him assert whatever he wants; let Buz and only Buz, in this one thread, be exempt from a requirement to proceed from an evidentiary basis. Since it looks like that's what he wants, and that he believes that the requirement that discussion proceed from evidence is specifically targeted at him and his ideology.Maybe that would be more productive than a bunch of threads where Buz attempts to defend his input?

Buz and some others can post what they want as long as they don't clutter things up too much IMO. It is easy to ignore and not worth the time to post a reply.

1. There are not even 100 significant sects or belief's in Christianity, that I am aware of, and I think that's important for you to consider. As well, among the significant sects, there are shared/likeminded interpretations on many of the Biblical interpretations in a significant number of text doctrines.I believe this is at least somewhat so in science.2. There are thousands of Christians, I am aware of who agree on hundreds of Biblical doctrines. To argue that it's hard to find three is either indicative of your ignorance of Christians and Christianity or you're grossly exaggerating.2. Are you and Ifen drumming up some kind of a boycott against buzsaw, are you tired of being refuted by buzsaw in fair and square debate, or are you simply acting childish? I think you have a narrow interpretation/definition of the term, "cosmologist." My dictionary: "Cosmologist: One skilled in or occupied with cosmology." I see this as an example, my friend, of how arrogantly you people claim to have THE SCIENCE and all other views put forth here are deemed to be in violation of forum guidelines.Btw, I have not been incessantly arguing that expansionst interpretation of redshift has been disproved, nor have I incessantly argured that my sources are correct. I've simply posted alternative views which interpret redshift more consistent with static space idiology. Whether or not my sources are respected by mainline scientists, they do present some unresolved problems with expansionist interpretation such as the presence of cosmos particles and their effect on the light as viewed from extremely great distances, as I am understanding the debate.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

I think you are the one who is right on this. 1,000's seems (on sober second thought) to be an exaggeration.I think I was going on the rather odd sample we have here where we get 2 different interpretations for each 3 who drop in here. It would be so much less fun if you guys got your stories straight.

Actually dear, Religious Tolerance claims over 1,000 Protestant and Anglican denominations.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Hi, Buzz!Hi again, my friend/brother in Christ. I appreciate the conciliatory attitude you've maintained towards me, in spite of our differences. We've been critiquing each other significantly and imo, that's ok so long as we maintain a good relationship. My remarks weren't not to judge your relationship to Christ, but your aparant apathy to the secularist bully pulpit which has emerged in academia and other aspects of knowledge debate/discussion in our culture which undermines Biblical truth and those of us who labor to contend on behalf of it. The apostle Paul admonishes us to contend for that, not to capitulate to the adversaries of it. Isn't this what I went about to do in the Great Debate with Jar and throughout the related thread fairly effectivly and efficiently? Wasn't my purpose, clearly to show that Biblical ID (Intelligent Design as per creation as opposed to random mutation/natural selection (RM/NS). ) satisfies the scientific td laws. IMO, this must FIRST be established before on can hope to BEGIN to debate ID creationism against secularist randomness/BB. My hypothesis also satisfies the first law of thermodynamics, (td 1) as to orgins, where BB does not. My hypothesis also is at least more compatible with td 2, imo, in that ID appears to be more compatible with the decrease of entropy observed earth than does RM/NS. I would be willing to participate in a thread on this so as not to detract from this thread, if I can do so on freely on alternative viewpoint without threat of suspension If I violate forum guidelines, those specific violations should be clearly defined and empirically substantiated before threats of suspension are posted by admin. Yes, I agree. We observe the three td laws of the universe. Right? Then we take a hard look at my hypothesis. Would it's operation work within the observed laws. We debate that. So you tell me, Phatboy, why, after I painstakenly do this all the way through one 2 page thread and another long 300 post thread, responding to all contenders do I get a suspension notice by admin Percy, rather than a commendation for the effort I extended to follow those forum guidelines as instructed by admin in past admonishments? Where were you, my supposed creationist admin advocate, to admin on my behalf when you were needed?? Are you implying that my "method" was unscientific? If so, how so? Though my sources were unacceptible to my counterparts, I did present what I honestly considered to be at least supportive to my argument, such as the cosmologist cited in the GD, inventer of the first radio telescope, if my memory serves me well. Check. And, me dear good bud, the "gained knowledge" throughout the history of intelligent humans has been knowledge long thought to be utterly unthinkable, i.e knowledge of the existence of the vast invisible world of waves, forces, rays, et al. Will that knowledge someday include a whole dimension of invisible superhuman beings as per Biblical hypotheses, already heavily substantiated by fulfilled Bublical prophecy?????? As Biblical pastor and spiritual mentor to a host of impressionable parishioners I suggest tthat you give that possibility some serious thought. Literal knowledge. Check. I am reading a lot and learning, here, elsewhere on the web, as well as other literature. It should at least be acknowledged that before I stepped up to the GD, I first needed to do a lot of forethought about my studies, so my friend Jar's boast of putting my argument down on the first punch would'nt happen. I've made my statements of faith clear when the occasion called for them over the past two years, PB. These people know them well. To repeat them adnausium is, imo, counterproductive to influencing folks here. Statements of faith were not about what the GD and much of what I debate here is about. That I am despised by many here and considered a fool, does not bother me. It simply attests to how our savior, Jesus and his apostles were regarded and treated long, long ago, how Job was falsely accused by his four accusing friends and in fact, how many freethinking pioneers of some established stuff that blesses us all with the knowledge we have today, began to establish this knowledge. Though Sylas, imo, has consistently admonished in good faith, rarely supporting my position or modus operendi, I do think he needs to give a little bit more consideration to how I perform as comparative to the average poster in town here. It angers me that of the multitudes of posters who operate here, I am implicated as being one of the very few to be consistently hounded with threats of suspension by Percy and a small chorus of a few of his friends singing his praises and backing his accusations. This tells me that I am regarded as the very worst of all of the multitudes of posters who operate here by these people and that angers me. We all have our faults, including myself. These, my accusers hone in on a few of these and repeat them adnausium, disregarding the work I do to improve on my conduct here. Sorry, but I see it as ideologically driven bias by these few, and though I'm sure they all mean well, they need to see that when they point the finger at me, three fingers point right back at themselves.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Thanks, Ned. I see the queen has something to say on this. Ok, about the three, but your statement was quite ambiguous. Likely there's some of the major Biblical doctrines all creos here would agree on. For example, even Jar, who appears to reject all of the other supernatural stuff as either fable or allegory in the entire Bible does profess to believe in two, i.e. the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as per the Niceen Creed. Yes, likely few agree on each and every statement in the thousands of statements in the Bible, but that really doesn't say much, except imo, science has many of the same idiosyncracies (spelling?) in this regard. Peace!This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-21-2005 22:14 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Did you read me clear, dear? I'm talking significantly prominent sects. You have all flavors of pseudo science too, don't you? This board is suppose to be about debating whether some of ours are pseudo or science, isn't it? Trouble is, some folks here seem to be defiantly catagorizing ours all as pseudo before hearing some of us out.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-21-2005 22:22 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

The guidelines are already clearly defined in Forum Guidelines.There is no limit whatsoever as to what views may be advanced. None. This has been emphasized repeatedly.The guidelines require that claims, from anyone, shall be backed by reasoned argument and/or evidence. All admin advice has been consistent with this simple principle.Posters may advance any claim that they like; but they are expected to actually defend those claims. Rebuttal is expected, and normal. It is, after all, a debate forum.If there is a rebuttal, it needs to be addressed substantively. You must not respond to rebuttal with red herrings about how unfair it is that everyone else has different ideas Similarly, a rebuttal needs to be substantive. Both sides of any debate are required to keep to the guidelines. The most relevant rule is as follows (my emphasis):

quote:

---

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

---

I have already given that consideration. Yet again, I tell you... when you feel someone else is not following the guidelines, indicate the post. Vague whining is not helpful. There is no guideline anywhere which says that all sides have to get the same number of warnings. We only admonish when there is a real basis for it; and not simply to balance out the number of admonishments given to any perceived sides in a debate.I propose to close this thread down soon. Further meta-discussion is not helping. Those who want to debate any topical issues, please do so in a new and appropriately focused thread, consistent with rule 1: "Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics."AdminSylas

Thanks, CF. This is not to disregard your apology, but isn't that insultingly disingenuous and meanspirited of you to couple with a professed apology when, in fact, all I've ever called for is fair and balanced treatment and opportunity to post my minority views?

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw