AdminNosy banned?

If Jar and Omni freely chose to leave the whole issue of explanation should be up to them. They should neither be prevented from explaining nor coerced into explaining against their will.While I would hope for an explanation, it is their decision.

quote:

---

Why do you think Percy rejects Dr Baumgardner's IDist science research papers as unscientific as well as other such examples?

---

Because it's TRUE. Baumgardner is just playing theoretical games. TO the best of my knowledge his whole "runaway subduction" idea relies on making unreasonable assumptions about the physical properties of rock.

quote:

---

Why do you think IDist creos are discouraged or banned from science forums here?

---

Because they spend very little time in rational scientific argument compared to attacking people who disagree with them. (And in at least one case the person in question seems to be mentally ill).

quote:

---

Because as per Percy there is no IDist science being done on the planet How could there be when he insists that there is no IDist science existing?

---

As Behe admitted during the Kitzmiller trial there is no original research supporting ID. As the Discovery Insittute practically admitted when they made their vague press release about their own spending on research - they didn't give a figure for the portion spent on scientific research. instead lumping together all the "research" they funded in just one figure.So, you insist that IDist's must refuse to debate until certain lies are accepted. Well if they will only debate on those conditions then it proves that they are wrong. ID is a fraud and you have admitted it.

The thread on science and induction went much the same way. NWR denied that science used induction - at all. Yet he was unable to explain what sort of reasoning science did use to derive general laws.

quote:

---

Nobody's insist that anyone accept anything.

---

The whole basis of your complaint is that cetain claims are NOT uncritically accepted.

quote:

---

To debate a hypothesis is not to demand acceptance from anyone. Let the debate itself determine who's argument is valid

---

That's Percy's position and my position. It is the position that you are complaining about.

quote:

---

You are the ones demanding acceptance of your hypothesis.

---

And exactly how are we "demanding" that ? By pointing out truths that you don't like ? By actually winning the debate ? By NOT uncritically accepting claims that you want to be true ? That's what you're complaining about.

quote:

---

Baumgardner cites plate tetonics, fossil observations, and other evidence in his flood paper, i.e. the same stuff evolutionists observe, yet the evo hypothesis is considered science while the other is not.

---

And that is BECAUSE of the evidence, not despite it as you would have us believe.If Baumgardner really does have solid supportign evidence it is open to you to present it. All you have to do is open a thread. So long as you just pull the same stunt you did with the Moeller video - claim that there is good evidence there without discussing it - then there is no reason to believe you.In fact there is good reason to disbelieve yopu. Do you remember citing an article penny stock website, an article about hurricanes as absolute fact ? Do you remember attacking people for not dealing with the "evidence" ? Do you remember claiming that you trusted the site because NOBODY ELSE agreed with its claims (!) ?. Do you remember that the main claim of an increase in hurricanes since 1948 turned out to be false ?Maybe you did learn a lesson form that incident - don't put your "evidence" up for discussion. That would explain why you are supporting nwrt here. If you can get away with CLAIMING to have evidence - but never presenting it for examination - then nobody can prove you wrong.

I have been unable to access the forum from ~7:00am GMT up to now - a period of about 7 hours. And it's not the first time it's happened recently.