Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 303 (34968)
03-22-2003 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Admin
03-22-2003 12:52 PM


quote:
Those who wish to discuss novel theories must provide evidence of more than just one proponent. Lone theorists would be disallowed. Demonstrating that the theory has more than one proponent could take a variety of routes, such as bringing another proponent into the debate, or providing a reference to at least one published article, paper or book that's not by the original proponent.
One of the reasons we're here, a big one for me, is to gain and maintain expertise in opposing non-science viewpoints that are being promoted as science. I've got to be careful not to lose sight of that.
(The above, statements from two separate posts of Admin.)
The above statements seem to covey the following two implications:
1. All viewpoints expressed here concerning science must have at least one other major source of reference and must not be totally unique. My "forever universe" thread comes to mind here, as I've never encountered this view from another source. As a new poster I'm not sure where the parameters are on this and a bit confused as to where they are.
2. A major purpose of the board is to oppose non-science theories/viewpoints. Though there are a growing number of scientists and archeologists who interpret what is observed in the light of the Bible and Biblical history, does the second statement quote above really mean what it appears to say? Do you consider viewpoints expressing the possibility of the divine supernatural in history and in the workings of science as to be officially opposed by the forum administration?
Frankly, I was taken aback when my Chariot Wheels thread was closed after one apparant minor infraction of the subject rules by me, the initiator of the thread, when one warning was given and my ideological counterpart, at the moment, suggested the closing would work fine with him/her.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Admin, posted 03-22-2003 12:52 PM Admin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 303 (168112)
12-14-2004 12:33 PM


Re: Post 34 and 37 Thermodynamics Tread
Hi Admin. I have been instructed to bring my td/id problem here. I'm asking for an answer to this question. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text question from context of message 34 of Thermodynamics Thread:
buz:
The topic of this thread is a "Discussion of the 3 thermodynamic laws." ID creation involves the "mysterious" and "no physical imperitive that it is so." Peeper, the evolutionist has been allowed to debate/discuss the 3td laws relative to the "mysterious and that which has "no physical imperitive that it is so." i.e. the improbible. Since ID creationism involves the "mysterious" and "improbable," may I assume that I will be allowed equal opportunity to discuss/debate the 3td laws in this thread as an ID creationist, or is this thread closed to ID creationists?
I will be in and out today. Thanks
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-14-2004 12:41 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Admin, posted 12-14-2004 2:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 303 (168289)
12-14-2004 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Admin
12-14-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Post 34 and 37 Thermodynamics Tread
It wouldn't be appropriate to turn this thread into a discussion of thermodynamics. I'll confine myself to commenting on the process.
I'm not asking you to discuss td with me here. The only reason I brought the text forward is to request an answer to the question in it.
I understand that you do not agree that there are issues with your comprehension. Perhaps this view is incorrect and it is really everyone else that isn't comprehending.
My IQ tests well above average and I have no problem comprehending the td laws.
As I said elsewhere, since you refuse to learn from others, and since you won't learn on your own, and since you will bog debate down interminably insisting that your comments make sense, moderators have no choice but to administer admonishments and/or limit your participation.
That's just not true, Percy. I have learned a whole lot since I came here and continue to learn from you people, the internet, books and elsewhere. Certainly I am aware that most of my counterparts are a lot more knowledgeable on science than I am. For this reason, I do my homework and limit my posts to that level of knowledge that I do have. This is what I did in my td thread, and am willing to be shown otherwise. You and others make no effort to show me anything. You just keep on keeping on making these insultive, degrading, generalized, and unsubstantiated accusations about my stubbornness, lack of the ability to comprehend, et al.
I think it would be very helpful if you would address a question I've raised several times. Why do you have this passion to participate authoritatively in discussions of topics about which you know almost nothing?
I continually called for counterparts to refute my op and other statements. How about a great debate, with a volunteer counterpart going back and bringing up all the effective and sound refutations that were posted by my counterparts on my td thread? Ask for a volunteer and I'll gladly take them on, so long as it isn't mike. Mike badly needed moderating in that thread, imo. All he did was heckle with insolent off topic yada. Had he been a creo insulting an evo, no doubt he'd have been admonished. I would also want to be able to bring up specific posts which were not effectively refuted.
When someone tells you you're not making sense, try to get to the bottom of what doesn't make sense.
Of course they're going to tell me I don't make sense. I'm an ID creo. I tell them to go to my op and show where I messed up. Neither they nor you do it. You all simply go at me for talking nonsense/ID creationism.
Engage people in a dialogue about it. Definitely do not go into your standard defense mode of protesting ad infinitum that you were making perfect sense and that we're all just a gang of evolutionists trying to shut you up because we cannot refute your arguments.
Percy, we dialoged for ten pages about it. Again, if you can show where I messed up, please educate me by cutting and pasting specific messups and talking about them. They and you refuse to do that though. Why? The only reason I can think of is that they/you can't do it. Like I said, I challenge anyone to a great debate on specific posts they consider to have been effectively refuted in that thread.
That particular objection makes no sense anyway, given that all your posts reside here unchanged and undeleted. If your arguments were really as effective as you seem to believe, wouldn't we just delete them and ban you? If it were really our desire to silence Creationists, aren't we being particularly dunderheaded strategically?
That would be real dumb strategy. You'd not only loose what credibility you have here with creos, but you'd have even fewer bonafide creos willing to put up with the bias practiced here.
Please tell me this, Percy. How many active, I say active bonafide ID supernaturalist Biblical creos who have stayed any significant length of time do we have here? I count one, based on the threads I've read and participated in. Me. Hopefully Anti-climacus will prove to be another, but, imo, if he gets talking ID science he'll get plenty of biased static. Have I missed some/someone? Nearly all of the 'creos' here are not ID creos, but evolutionists who you people get along with fine. Why shouldn't you, when origin wise, there's only about a nickles worth of difference in their ideology and yours. You made a big deal about my fellow creos siding against me in my td thread. Of course. Why shouldn't they? They're evolutionists, like the rest of you. Herein lies the problem. ID supernaturalist Biblical creationists who debate ID and the supernatural are in effect, disallowed participation in science threads, which brings us back to the question at hand as put forth in the ongoing td rhread which I desire to participate in.
buz:
The topic of this thread is a "Discussion of the 3 thermodynamic laws." ID creation involves the "mysterious" and "no physical imperitive that it is so." Peeper, the evolutionist has been allowed to debate/discuss the 3td laws relative to the "mysterious and that which has "no physical imperitive that it is so." i.e. the improbible. Since ID creationism involves the "mysterious" and "improbable," may I assume that I will be allowed equal opportunity to discuss/debate the 3td laws in this thread as an ID creationist, or is this thread closed to ID creationists?
Again, I'm not asking you to discuss td law here. I'm only asking you to specifically address the question in bold print.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Admin, posted 12-14-2004 2:02 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Admin, posted 12-15-2004 10:14 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 303 (168715)
12-15-2004 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Admin
12-15-2004 10:14 AM


Re: Post 34 and 37 Thermodynamics Tread
So rather than do the noble and right thing which would be to address my post, you've decided to cop out and ignore the points of my defense with this insolent statement. I pray that God will convict you of this injustice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Admin, posted 12-15-2004 10:14 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2004 3:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 301 by Admin, posted 12-16-2004 10:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 302 of 303 (168910)
12-16-2004 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Admin
12-16-2004 10:41 AM


Re: Post 34 and 37 Thermodynamics Tread
If you do want your God/thermo thread reopened, I think it would be best to keep the focus tightly on the 2nd law and the nature of the energy flow between Jesus and the woman. This gathered the most attention, and it seems the most concrete and easily discussed.
Thanks Percy, for this somewhat conciliatory post. I am limited with time today so please let me think about what to do. In the mean time, maybe we can discuss this ID and interpretation of science problem in the new thread. I also want to reread your last post here when I get to it and may have some responses to it, if it doesn't pertain to the new thread topic. Sincerely, buz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Admin, posted 12-16-2004 10:41 AM Admin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024