Dog piling

I have a message responding to points PaulK posted, opining his position which I plan to prepare for posting this evening. Off to a am important appointment presently. . Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

The problem with this is that it takes a LONG time and a LOT of posts to walk a creationist through the process of critical thinking.One post of Gish Gallop usually spawns 10+ posts of replies.Follow that up with one post of "Of course you guys say that, you are agents of satan".And suddenly have the forum has "exceeded their post limits" for that given thread leaving nothing but fly by night Creationists who drop one offs of PRATTs.

I look forward to reading your message.What thread will it be in? This one would be inappropriate since your Message 42 as well as PaulK's Message 43 were, for the most part, well off-topic for this thread.Maybe "The Powers" will grant special dispensation? psst ... If not, you could surrepticiously add a dog pile joke to the front of your message, then maybe they will just kinda miss the rest of your text. Just don't tell anyone where you got this idea.

quote:

---

quote:

---

PaulK I only wish that the pack would stop imposing their science on the creationist minority.
The pack I led by the pack leader/s gets to dictate what science is and is not, whose science is allowed for debate and whose is not.

---

​

So you want people to stop telling the truth and pretend that crap that you just made up is real science.

---

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?Some intelligent, educated and renowned creationists view some of conventional science's abstract methodology, defying logic, for arriving at truth as poor science.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The pack rejects any evidence implying the existence in the Universe of a higher intelligence. To do so shoots down their secularistic hypothetical perspective, rendering them, perhaps accountable to a higher power.

---

​

Again, you want people to prefer your inventions to the truth. And accept your opinions no matter how poorly-reasoned.

---

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.

quote:

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Case in point: THE EXODUS THREAD where not one of my acclaimed evidences were considered evidence by the pack.

---

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Indeed, it is a case which supports my reading.

---

That depends on whose/what hypothetical perspective you are reading.

quote:

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

CASE IN POINT: Message 252 after which I got ousted from science forums.

---

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

As does this. You cannot give a valid reason why the Flood should have the effects you claim. It is nothing but invention.

---

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.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yet the pack considers the Singularity event, having no space into which have happened, no time in which to have happened and no outside of into which to expand, as evidence based.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

By which you mean that "the pack" accept the opinions of leading, expert, scientists over that of some ignorant guy on the internet. This would seem to be a rational position.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

quote:

---

quote:

---

After 30 or so pages of debating the pack as to what property of space makes it curve, the pack's consensus amounted to something like, the property of space that makes it curve is that space curves.

---

​

No, it wasn't. That was the misrepresentation you kept appealing to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

So you ascribe to the property of space being that space curves as evidence that space has the property of curvature? So the pack is exempt from explaining how curvature of space curves space? Yet Floodists must know precisely what properties a pre-flood atmosphere and planet would be? Evolutionists dog pile on creationists, demanding evidence while they exempt themselves, .

​

quote:

---

quote:

---

The first ever EvC Great debate was when the pack's Pack Man Jar was to debate me, Buzsaw on the 3LoTs, whether my hypothetical creationist perspective satisfied the LoTs

---

​

And you managed a draw because you were fortunate enough to have a weak opponent. Despite the fact that your assertion is actually false.

---

​

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?

​

quote:

---

quote:

---

It wasn't long after I debated the pack on the property of space to curve that I was again permanently banned, still having no suspensions on my record. I'm not claiming to have won that debate. My claim is that my counterparts didn't win it either. Thus the length of it.

---

​

quote:

---

But you did lose. The length of the debate was governed only by your willingness to go on boasting nonsense. That only proves your unwillingness to accept defeat.

---

​

So the consensus that the only property of space rendering space the ability to curve is that space curve? That won the argument for the dog piling pack?

​

So long as the pack says so, I lost. LOL on that notion.

​

I've said all of the above to say that all we creationist minority members need is the for the pack to allow us to debate from the creationist hypothetical perspective, relative to science and evidence.

---

​

By which you mean that they should accept your fabrications as fact.
That isn't going to happen, and it shouldn't happen.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I know. Sigh. Nevertheless, a few of us thick skinned creationists keep on keeping on, the best we can over the years, on behalf of our creationist hypothetical perspectives, in spite of the handicaps imposed upon us by the pack.Perhaps the day will come when one or two of our counterparts will come to realize that some of our perspectives make more sense than what had been programmed into their packman POVs.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,

quote:

---

Of course you are telling untruths here. Moller is NOT renowned as a marine scientist. The existence of the coral forms has generally been accepted. What has NOT been accepted is the assertion that the coral forms were built around ancient Egyptian chariot wheels. And that is because the evidence that would allow us to conclude that has not been presented. Apparently the "renowned marine biologist" can't even give us the growth rates for the coral in question....

---

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.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.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, there's no point getting frustrated because people prefer facts and sound reasoning to your imaginings. That's the way it has to be on ANY forum which tries to get to the truth. So stop whining and demanding that the forum must be biased in your favor. Accept your (many) defeats and move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

My points posted above show how dog piling tends towards, pack tactics, somewhat like coyotes go after deer and other larger animals. By virtue of numbers the pilers working together and aggressively agreeing among themselves that their way is the only way allowed and alternative hypothetical perspective must be debated on the piler's scientific methodologies and viewpoints about what is acceptable in the science for and what should be disallowed.Unless the pack pilers consider evidence as viable debate creationists must be moderated motheringly, post by post, as per the Exodus Thread, etc.I am told by the pack's leader that none of the piler pack accept my acclamation of evidence. Therefore my evidence is considered nil, no matter how many I have cited corroborating one another.So AZPaul, though I still oppose limiting the dog pilers perhaps moderators would do good to keep a better handle on how dog pilers sometimes abuse their privilege, making unreasonable demands on the lone or minority member/s whom they are piling on. Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix quote]

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Science isn't like religion, Buz. Science has standards. I understand that just anyone can say "I'm a christian, yay!" and you can't tell them they are wrong. Sure, they may not be your brand of christian, but they sure as shit are christian.Science, on the other hand, has procedures. You're either using the scientific method, or you're not. You don't get to define evidence as it suits your worldview. You don't get to just say "I'm doing science, yay!" and qualify it as science.So no, there is no "hivemind" that you are alluding to. It just so happens that the "pack" knows the scientific method and we all use it properly. Of course we will all agree when you are wrong. maybe because.....you're wrong?I know this won't sink in, but hey, I try.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

So asking for actual evidence is an unreasonable demand?People should accept "acclamation of evidence"?Edited by jar, : fix quote box

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi RAZD. I hope all is well with you. Last we heard, you were out and about.Perhaps if the pilers and piled on were all moderated equally about poor quality in posting there would not only be less dog piling, but better quality of messages aired. Some of what I get from the pilers on would never be tolerated from some of us being piled on to.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Hi Hooah. None of the evidence cited in the Exodus thread or in matters about space properties, etc had to do with religion perse. All of my Exodus row of ducks-in-sequence pertained to physical evidence cited.Dog pilers often support one another's false claims that it's all about doctrinal religious stuff and not about visible evidence. Your misconception posted above appears to bear that out.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Wow. I knew it wouldn't sink in, but I didn't think it would completely go over your head....... No shit. I didn't say that it did.... Your ability to mangle even the simplest of phrases is truly amazing. Read again what I wrote. However, this time do it slower....and in full. You will notice, after actually reading (and hopefully comprehending this time) that I did NOT accuse your post of being "doctrinal religious stuff".Please, read before you respond.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

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 ?

PaulK, that is a baseless comment right there. It's no better than the one's you're critisizing. What makes you think the "leading" Scientists "opinions" ( a word YOU used) Yes, opinions are any better than the "leading" Creation Scientists'?Both Creation and "real" Scientists each have a set of opinions and facts to backup what they say, what makes the Scientists YOU believe anymore qualified than the one's WE believe. Don't tell me they have facts to back it up either, so do we, which you just discount as pseudo Science. So what seperates good evidence from bad? What makes Dr. Steve Austin, for example( who's a Geologist and provides evidence of a world wide Flood) personal work on six continents unreliable? Saying he's a Creationist doesn't count. He has done hands on research AND is educated:B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979So, why are the "opinions"(your words) of YOUR sources any better than ours PaulK? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Oh, and for anyone who missed it, what you guys are doing to Buz, is a good example of what "Dog piling" really is.Way to get into the TRUE spirit of the post. Thanks for the hands on lesson. Now we know!

I see this as both undesirable and simply not working well. These sort of restrictions penalize individuals for behavior presumably the community wishes participants to engage in (assisting others, trying to get threads back on topic) and would even reward individuals for behaviors the community doesn’t desire (game-playing threads, running opponents replies out).How would such a system not cause people to create multiple similar threads? If one only gets five replies then when done, they’re reduced to not being answered or starting more threads.I think you’re looking at this though the myopic lenses of having full access. You don’t see the issues which come with restricted access as they don’t much exist for admins.

Should I stop replying in this thread now that I've exceeded five posts? This isn't to snark, but to demonstrate the point.