quote:
What is truth, Paul? Truth is relative to whose perspective truth is deemed credible. By all means, keep on telling your perspective of what is true. That's a lot of what debate boards are about. No?
In other words you assume that all truth is relative so that well-established science is on a par with some indefensible nonsense you just made up. Of course I disagree.
quote:
Some intelligent, educated and renowned creationists view some of conventional science's abstract methodology, defying logic, for arriving at truth as poor science.
Which only means that they attack science because it comes to conclusions they don't like.
quote:
Reasoned? Logic and reason are related. Again, whose hypothetical perspective is reasonable is debatable. We're demanding nothing of the pack. The pack is the unreasonable majority who's methodology often defies logic. The pack and their leaders demand their way or the highway.
As usual when you say that it is "debatable" you mean that you refuse to admit that you are wrong. And if you cannot understand a position, you cannot know that it is "lacking logic".
In short this is more of the same, whining that people do not unquestionably accept your silly opinions.
quote:
That depends on whose/what hypothetical perspective you are reading.
Of course I am assuming a basically honest reader rather than someone who unquestioningly worships you.
quote:
You mean, like the singularity, abiogenesis and multi verse theories, deemed by many as inventions arrived at via abstract methodology, defying logic, some, unsupported by basic thermodynamic scientific laws? Many don't think valid reasons are given to render the above the status of theory.
No, I don't. ALL of these are better supported than your opinion, which relies only on "Buzsaw says so". The singularity - assuming you mean the state at the start of the Big Bang = is obtained by applying known science. Naturalistic abiogenesis is not cited as a fact although we have evidence to support the idea that it happened and no better explanation of life on Earth. The multiverse is cited only as a possibility that is consistent with known science. None of these defy logic or thermodynamics.
If you could actually give a real valid mechanism by which the Flood would consistently mess up all the dating mechanisms I would admit that you have a point, But you don't even really try.
quote:
These are all elitist who have had their minds programmed through the assembly line of academia from kindergarten on up to graduate level; whose prestige, peer status and livelihood require pack supported hypothetical perspectives.
All unsubstantiated accusations.
quote:
The only problem is that the dog piling pack failed to empirically falsify my winning arguments after that debate. The pack, which agreed upon judging the debate resorted to ousting the winner instead. Typical. No?
In fact counter-arguments were given which you could not address.
quote:
I'm not asking anyone to accept anything relating to the creationist perspective as to whether it's evidence or not. All we ask of the pack is to allow us to air our POV, debating from our hypothetical perspective relative to evidence and science. Lennart Moller, renowned marine biologist claims to have photographed corral shaped forms citing numerous corroborative acclaims to evidence. From the perspective of many creationists, scientist Moller has cited evidence from scientific research. Counterparts argue that none of it is considered evidence, ordering Buzsaw to produce what is considered by the pack as evidence or leave off debating the topic,
Sp what do you mean by "allowing your perspective", if not agreeing with your false assertions ? Do you mean that disagreement should be censored ? If you put your claims out for debate or tender them as evidence then we MUST be free to disagree and even to show that they are false.
You refer back to the Exodus thread where I personally debunked much of your "evidence" and showed that the rest was of no real value in supporting the Exodus myth. And that is simple, absolute truth.
All you are complaining about is the fact that Admin wouldn't let you drag out the thread uselessly by repeating the same assertions after they had been dealt with. Since you dishonestly attempt to use the length of the thread to argue that you were doing well (when you were only dragging it out to avoid accepting defeat) Admin's actions seem quite appropriate. Certainly they were directed to making progress in the discussion. The fact that you diid not want the discussion to progress because your case had been shattered is irrelevant.
quote:
Back to square one. Whose perspective of what is true and renowned by whom? By some credible institutions, yes, Moller is considered renowned as a marine biologist, having the marine craft, equipped with the scientific technology to do scientific research and the knowledge to use it effectively in his profession.
That's simply a lie. Moller's speciality is Environmental Medicine.
quote:
Of course, the pack mustn't acknowledge any of Moller's corroborating evidences as evidence, supportive to Moller's photographed acclaimed evidence. No, none of that for the pack, who's secularistic mindset is at stake
All the "evidences" were shown to be either false, questionable and/or had no clear connection to the Exodus. That is simple fact.
quote:
Yah, I know, Paul. How many times do I have to be told? I shouldn't be responding to the pack's arguments relative to thread topics like this. These sorts of threads are deemed the pack's turf. That's considered whining; not debate. Whining is considered off topic by the pack.
Of course you are whining. You are attacking your opponents because you were badly defeated in a debate. You are complaining that your assertions are not unquestioningly believed. You are complaining that you are expected to produce real evidence for your claims when they venture into the domain of science. How is any of that anything but whining ?
™ Version 4.2
