|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi AdminPD. In the thead about the existence of God I'm wondering why the stuff in these posts were off topic. Evidence for the existence of God includes the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy and other corroborating evidence. It's not the same as digging up bones et al. It's a different realm which requires documentation of the phenomenal and the unnatural.
Imo your admin action essentially killed the thread at the crucial time when the most substantive evidence for the existence of God was being debated.http://EvC Forum: God's existence cannot be proven logically! -->EvC Forum: God's existence cannot be proven logically! BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
AdminPD writes: As I understand it, the thread is about logical arguments.Opening Post Therefore, logical arguments and logic itself simply do not have the power or purview to prove the existence of god or anything about god. 1. I am arguing logics pertaining to the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecies that have been shown to have been fulfilled relative to the likelihood of the existence of God. 2. Since nothing supernatural is considered to be scientific, arguments for the existence of God appear to be regarded as logically based by most counterparts with whom I debate relative to the existence of God. Reason - Wikipedia
wikipedia writes: In philosophy, reason is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic”terms with which reason shares heritage. AdminPD writes: Not just what you consider reasonable: ..... AdminPDThe thread is not about discussing/providing evidence for or against the existence of God. Again, what we consider evidence is not accepted as scientific. Logically if a book alleged to be inspired by God fortells future events, one could argue on the basis of logic and reason that the book is credible and that God exists, whether the argument is scientific or not. Imo, you're raising the bar too high for an even handed debate here since sound logic should have some underlying evidentual basis for credibility. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
AdminPD, since it's likely somewhat of a tough call to make, I can live with your decision if you still don't agree with me. I don't want to make a big issue out of something that's not all that much of a deal. You do a fine job of taking care of things here which we all appreciate. Perhaps I should have let it pass.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Paulk writes: I want to agree with the sentiment that you should read ther Bible. I also want to say that unlike the other people who have said it, I really mean it.Buzsaw ceratinly does not. That's why he's retreated to refusing to cite the Bible verses that he claims support his views. Because he knows that if he does so they will be read and the truth will be uncovered. http://EvC Forum: Endtime Prophecy and the European Union -->EvC Forum: Endtime Prophecy and the European Union I would appreciate that another moderator than myself deal with this meanspirited, off topic and false accusation by Paulk who should know better than to post personal attacks in threads. Like many others on this board I don't cite sources for all statements made but do when I deem it necessary and usually do when asked for a reference, depending on nature and sometimes civility of the request. If PaulK has a significant problem with my conduct which he can verify he should know enough to bring it to the proper thread where it can be addressed. Edited by Buzsaw, : add title BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I certainly had no intention of hashing it out here. All I'm asking for is the usual moderation proceedure to be followed. My key problem is that Paulk violated the Forum Guidelines by 1. doing a generalized personal attack which was false and meanspirited within the thread and 2. doing this which specified nothing being off topic.
Imo the proper thing for him to have done would be to bring his complaint here requesting moderation action if he figured I had violated Forum Guidelines. Am I missunderstanding the guidelines here or what? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Another possibility would be to spend some time recruiting creationist moderators who are familiar with science. We need to first have some good ones for the job who feel welcome enough or are thick skinned enough and who have the time to want to remain here long enough to be considered, don't we? Do you have any suggestions for anyone here who I might attempt to recruit who aren't evo BBists and would be to your liking in science topics? I'm not aware of any but perhaps I've missed someone. ABE: If someone comes to mind perhaps we could discuss the matter in PAF. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
It is very doubtful that folks like Behe and Baumgardner participate in any forum debates.
Imo most of these types of people who would certainly be good for forums who do science for a profession are so busy with professional aspects of the subject that they have neither the time or the desire to expand their efforts beyond the realm of their profession. It would be like a science professor who has had enough of work would desire other work related activities outside of the workplace. When I asked Lyndonshire to come on regarding redshift et al he agreed to but likely had no intention of taking it up on a regular basis. He was no creo perse but made for a vigorous and interesting debate. Another scientifically articulate fellow came on a few months ago whom I liked but can't remember his username. Imo, he got pretty shabby treatment and left in the middle of his first thread and though I was disappointed, don't blame him for leaving. These folks, imo, need more leeway on presenting alternative viewpoints without being badgered on what is considered bad science by the mainline scientific establishment. Likely Baumgardner would eventually find himself out of line since the consensus here is that there is no such thing as ID science being done and that there is no evidence of a higher realm of intelligence existing in the universe whatsoever. So long as even articulate evo BB athiestis like Hoot Mon who have alternative science views are considered problematic, it is pretty likely that no IDist is going to ever going to be considered acceptable for debate in the science threads. Imo any recruiting will need to come from good people like Nemmesis who come on and find it suitable for participation. Once articulate and intelligent people come on we need to cultivate them into remaining via tolerance and hospitality, reigning in some of the more caustic evo members who can get pretty meanspirited in their debate conduct. It's one thing to do lively and vigorous debate, but quite another to do so in a meanspirited and unfriendly manner as some prominent and active members here tend to do. Of course, having said that I know all boards have these. You likely will not agree but too often evos get a free pass on this whereas Biblical creos are more often called on it. My complaint here about PaulK comes to mind. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
My apologies for misreading you, Percy. I get it right often but admittedly do have my senior moments. Perhaps the day will come when you'll get a taste of crow as well.
I'll see if I can bring up the addresses and get with the program. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I didn't find a venue for direct contact with either gentlemen, but did find a possible indirect contact via their respective associations to which I sent requests for direct contact. We'll see what comes up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Due to some topic flagging in this thread I am requesting permission to respond to Jar's message 54 in this thread. I have sound corroborating on topic support for my position here. This is on topic as per the thread title and OP to refute the contention of some in this thread who are trying to argue that all humans are sons of God.
http://EvC Forum: How many sons does God have? -->EvC Forum: How many sons does God have? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweek topic URL from containing "m=31#54" to "m=54#54". Things work best when those numbers are the same. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Percy. I have managed to contact both gentlemen now and heard back from Dr Michael Behe. He has advised that I contact (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center), which I have done. I have contacted this organization with my request and am waiting for responses from Dr. Baumgardner and these folks. Behe says these are young science apprised people for the most part and would likely be my best bet for possible recruitment to our site. I'll keep you posted on this.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025