Re: SavageD's dog-pile problem at "Why only one designer"
SavageD's definition is pretty lousy. Backwards in fact. Natural selection doesn't CAUSE better adapted individuals to survive and have more offspring as he would have it. That's the basis of the process, not the outcome.
If he had said that it was the process whereby adaptive traits spread through a population and identified the better reproductive success of better-adapted individuals as the cause of this it would have been much better.
Re: SavageD's dog-pile problem at "Why only one designer"
where·by - conjunction 1. by what or which; under the terms of which
Seems pretty clear that he says that survival and better reproductive success are the result of the process. In reality differential reproductive success is the basic mechanism of the process, and survival is only important insofar as it contributes to reproductive success.
This is not a discussion topic but I will just comment that if you want the restrictions to be lifted it is a good idea to indicate that you will not continue to engage in the same behaviour that got the restrictions imposed. Indicating that you WILL go on in the same way is a very bad idea. And that is exactly what you have done.
Until you make a good faith effort to understand WHY your "evidence" is being rejected I very much doubt that you will be let back into the Science forums.
As for the PNT forum, twice in a row you scrapped a topic rather than construct a decent proposal, wasting moderator time. I suspect that you won't get that privilege back either until the moderator team see signs of good faith from you. Displays of bad faith, like the above message are not going to help your case.
It's very simple Buz. You were banned from the science forums because you were unable to understand why your evidence was rejected. And so long as your idea of discussing it is to slander all the people who showed that your evidence wasn't any good you are not going to be let back in.
If you actually bother to look back at your scrapped PNT's you will see that your real problem was that all you wrote was a long-winded intro that hardly touched on the actual topic. And you aren't going to get your privileges back in PNT until Percy is convinced you'll make a good faith effort to change that too.
I have some trepidation about continuing but absent moderator intervention, I suppose that it's OK. But I will try to restrict myself to the actual problems relevant to your bans.
quote: Nobody could show that my evidence was no good because it could not be debated.
Well that is a lie for a start. There was plenty of debate in the Exodus thread, and a lot of valid points raised against your "evidence". True, a lot of it consisted of you repeating your assertions rather than providing any sort of reasoned defence of them, but if you want to support your contention of "no debate" on that ground you only confirm my point.
quote: Your all the people was not all of the people. It was a few of you more vindictive secularistic non-creationist people who think evidence of stuff like multi-verses (none) is really, really good, to be touted while researched physical evidence at Aqaba, along with corroborating land evidence is not even supportive evidence.
Of course I did not say "all the people". I said "all the people who showed that your evidence wasn't any good". So there's one glaring misrepresentation. Because this isn't a discussion forum I won't deal with the multiverse issue here except to point out that you misrepresent my position and that off-topic ranting about cosmology is another of your bad habits.
As I said elsewhere, the problem is that your evidence doesn't stand up to even basic critical examination and deserves to be rejected. If you can't come up with even one thing that is at least probably true AND probably something to do with the Exodus then you don't have much of a case. And the fact that you don't understand that is one of the issues you need to address.
quote: Tell me, PaulK. Be honest. Which evidence is more physical, falsifyable and observable, the Exodus or Multi-Verse theory?
In fact I would say the multiverse theory by a nose - knowing that it is mainly a piece of theoretical speculation without a solid evidential foundation. But this is not a discussion forum so I don't propose to get into that.
So let us sum up. To regain your privileges you have to:
1) Honestly discuss the nature of evidence, so that you understand why your arguments in the Exodus thread were rejected. (Note that I said "understand" not "agree").
2) Convince Admin that you won't waste moderator time by producing PNTs that don't meet the requirements and then scrapping the topic when you are asked to fix your proposal. If you aren't prepared to produce acceptable proposals
That's it. So long as you show that you are completely unwilling to address these problems and that you intend to continue to act badly in other ways, too you won't be allowed back in.
First Buz, you've got to understand that that the rules apply even to people on your side. It isn't unfair to apply the same rules to everyone.
Moose posted a message worse than most of Hooah's "offenses", and handed out a full week's suspension for no apparent reason other than posting a topic that Moose didn't like. If a creationist received the same treatment you would be screaming to high heaven at the unfairness of it. And for once you'd even have a case.
quote: For example in the Exodus threads and elsewhere, Jar, every few messages would simply copy and paste what has been addressed but not to his satisfaction a number of times adnausium, trollishly preventing or slowing the forward movement of the tread. When all's said and done it's Buzsaw that is charged with dragging out lengthy threads.
It's Buzsaw who bragged that the thread had been stalled, claiming that it supported his case (!) and Buzsaw who whined and whined when Admin intervened to get the thread moving on. It's Buzsaw who insisted that he had to repeat the same tired points AGAIN - still not answering the rebuttals - before he could post new evidence that he claimed to have (and never posted it, eventually admitting that he didn't have any more evidence). The facts put a rather different complexion on it, don't they ?
And in fact isn't it true that the vast majority of your jeers are aimed at virtually any post that is critical of you personally ? Yet you feel perfectly free to make false attacks on your opponents.
quote: LoL, Paul. You've never been at the receiving end of Hooah's meanspirited trollish messages, most of which equal or pass what Moose posted.
I don't favour unfair treatment for those who attack me.
quote: Adminnemooseous has been quite lenient with Hooah. The lengthy suspension, like when he suspended Jar a while back was not because of a single message. It was the ongoing trollish nature of their MO that served to deserve the belated action of a moderator.
A week's suspension for no apparent reason is hardly lenient. Especially when accompanied by a contentless personal attack placed in a topic proposal of all places.
quote: These lengthy suspensions occur regularly with creationists. When have I ever aired complaints on any of them? How about you citing otherwise to support your allegations?
Do you deny complaining about so-called "biased" moderation ?
My understanding of the meaning of "troll" is the same as Modulus and the usual derivation is not from the mythical beasties, but from an alternate spelling of "trawl" (as in "trolling for flames").
quote: I am doing a little study on how many trollish messages my Cavediver science thread garnered per page. Perhaps I'll do a thread on it. We can seriously study what trolls are, who they are and how frequently they stall movement of that lengthy thread. We can see which side of the isle does the most of this.
Given the fact that the thread was mainly composed of your attempts to deny the obvious fact that your ideas were in conflict with thermodynamics - a fact already established in earlier discussions - I somehow doubt that the study will be in any way objective.
quote: One peon high school graduate holding at bay a pack of science higher educated counterparts for 30 plus thread pages can't be all that ignorant.
Buz, stalling a thread by failing to clearly explain what you mean (the thermodynamics thread) or by repeating arguments already rebutted (the Exodus thread) is hardly evidence of your success in argument.
quote: Perhaps, were it not for the bonafide trolls who contribute little or nothing of substance, the threads would be substantially more concise, interesting and informative. So far my troll analysis of the threads bear that out.
I hope that your "troll analysis" will at least include an explanation of the criteria you use. But the "results" seem to bear little relationship to the reality.
Nevertheless you can't honestly claim that the length of the thread is entirely do to your successful arguing AND largely due to the people you call trolls. You can't claim credit (!) for stalling the thread AND blame others for it at the same time.
quote: The majority of members voted Buzsaw back in science whether or not they agree. So you think they want an arrogant ignoramus back in their science forums to debate on science topics?
Apparently those that voted for, do. Though I must admit that my personal assessment of you is significantly worse than that. For instance I think that your "troll analysis" will be a petty vendetta that will completely ignore your own major contribution to the problem. (THe same contributions that you claim credit for !)
For instance I see a bit of a stall in your Great Debate with Moose (apart from the time between messages). Is Moose a troll or is the stall entirely down to you ?
Edited by AdminModulous, : offtopic content hidden - AdminModulous
quote: The reason remains that I'm not allowed in science, that I kick too much evo butt in them. Admin always sees to it that any effective threat to his own must be run off, no matter what it takes.
As usual Buz you are making up bullshit. You aren't allowed in the science threads because you're so BAD at arguing. In fact your recent behaviour suggests that you know that you are making up claims that would be found to be false if people were allowed to check them. People can draw there own conclusions from your refusal to provide links to back up your claims about past discussion (those of us that know that you are telling untruths especially).
You need to understand that passing off falsehoods (often obvious falsehoods) as facts is NOT a valid way of arguing. You need to understand that things aren't automatically true because you would like them to be true. You need to understand the importance of reasoning. And you need to understand that worshipping you is not a valid method of understanding reality - or the Bible.