Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 19 of 136 (631967)
09-04-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DrJones*
09-04-2011 12:37 PM


Problem Reader
Dr Jones writes:
For example: any of Buz's posts where he strings together multiple alliterative words without actually saying anything.
Jonesy, if you were just a tad more literate yourself, you could easily read what I was saying and become wiser.
Show the folks here an example of something you have a problem with and I'll PM to you what I was saying.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by Buzsaw, : Title Update & scratch sentence
Edited by AdminPD, : 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DrJones*, posted 09-04-2011 12:37 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by DrJones*, posted 09-04-2011 11:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 22 of 136 (631972)
09-04-2011 11:48 PM


The Dilema
Mmm, I've been thinking about why more savvy and intelligent creationists don't come and why ones who come don't last long.
Most are not thick skinned enough to put up with the way they're treated here.
Most creationists believe there's a higher intelligence in the Universe than that of mere men on this tiny speck. Most know that there are reasons to believe. The faith of the more intelligent creationists is not blind. They are aware of the evidence of the supernatural.
Why should they care to bang their heads against the EvC wall where the boss and most of the members do not allow for debate on that evidence in the science, mean spiritedly denouncing any and all evidence cited? Creationism involves a creator. There is ample evidence of the supernatural working in the world and the Universe. Creationists, more-so than skeptics recognize that fact.
You want more intelligent creationists? Change you attitude in how you moderate and how you treat them in the debates. Stop censoring them.
You're also loosing some good evolutionists. Why? For the most part because good savvy creationists to debate aren't here. All they need do is lurk as guests a spell to find that out.
Most evolutionists here are not meanspirited. Most are respectful. If the moderators would exert more effort in attending to the few who are disrespectful instead of badgering the few creationists that stay, it would be nice.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2011 12:10 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 24 of 136 (631974)
09-05-2011 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
09-04-2011 11:48 PM


Re: Let Creationists Be Creationists
Effective creationist debaters are going to give the constituency here a run for the money, so to speak. Imo, Admin just can't tolerate that. I've noticed over the years that when a creationist begins making points, Admin goes into action, more-so than usual.
I remember when I was debating on the alleged properties of space to expand, curve etc, applying a lot of logic along with the limited understanding I had. The thread went many pages. It wasn't long after that that I received my 2nd permanent banning., the first being not long after my win in the EvC's first debate with Jar on Biblical creationism & the LoTs.
Those were the days when, at least I could debate some evidence to the supernatural and refer to the Bible in science.
I'm saying, give effective creationists some leeway. Let them debate CREATIONISM. Don't expect a Biblical creationist to think or debate the secularist science methodology. What sense does that make? A creationist is a creationist is a creationist. You want some life here? Stop shooting yourselves in the foot, running creationists off for debating Creationism!
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 09-04-2011 11:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 09-05-2011 6:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-05-2011 7:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 41 of 136 (632137)
09-05-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
09-05-2011 7:30 AM


Re: Let Creationists Be Creationists
Admin writes:
The thread is here:
Great Debate, Intelligent Design, Supernatural And Thermodynamic Laws (between Buzsaw and jar only)
And the post mortem thread is here:
Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics
Who judged you the winner?
Mmm, nobody! Before the debate commenced it was established that there would be two judges after our debate to cite the winner.
As could be expected, alas, no judges judged anything. Why? Because even by Jar's own constituency, the consensus was that he did poorly. They essentially judged the debate. It's quite clear who was the winner. Jar was on the ropes, so to speak, throughout the debate. It was Jar, the one who, before I submitted the OP, boasted that he'd put me away in a couple or so of messages. The rest is in your link. (Thanks.) Sometime, on page two, Jar said that he'd had enough, after which I good-spiritedly thanked him for engaging, etc.
Admin writes:
Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Let them debate CREATIONISM. Don't expect a Biblical creationist to think or debate the secularist science methodology. What sense does that make?
If creationists concede up front that "creation science" is not science then there would be no point in debating them. This debate only exists because of creationist insistence that creation science is every bit as scientific as the science taught in public school science classrooms, the science taught at non-religious universities, and the science pursued in research laboratories around the world. Once creationists accept that "creation science" is not science in the way the rest of the world understands it then the debate is over.
See, Admin? This is what you do to us. You know full well that we creation science advocates do not concede that creation science is not science. You're spinning that falsehood out of whole-cloth.
Given the amount of science that people like AIG, ICR, Moller et al have done at great expense, effort and time, both in the lab and on the field, I've been trying for years to get you to rightfully acknowledge that creationist science is indeed science by definition, whether it be conventional main line or creationist.
Just because creation science lacks all of the government funding, foundational funding and other funding etc, does not eliminate it from being science, by definition.
The scientific research of scientist Lennart Moller, his team vessel and other equipment on both land and sea was not a vacation event. It was field science, after he published his findings via photography, literature and other media.
I have the video of ICR's scientific field research of the Grand Canyon strata and of the Mt St Helen's suddenly formed gorge, etc.
How skeptics view the science research does not render the research to be non-science. I've been rightfully explaining that science like this has produced more physical (I say physical) scientific evidence supportive (I say supportive) to creationist hypotheses than the zero event of the BB has of physical scientific evidence.
You have the authority here at your relatively little science board to doggedly concoct your own exclusive definition of science. I'm saying you are shooting yourself in the foot, bemoaning the fact that effective and astute creationists aren't signing up to endure the lop sided and censored MO which you are enforcing.
Admin writes:
I think you, and Chuck77, don't understand the implications of your own arguments.
Methinks, before you try to remove the splinter in our eyes you remove the beam in your own as the apostle, Matthew put it in 7:3.
I hope that you view the above comments, and others as constructive criticism; not intended to be meanspirited; meant for good and not personal attacks.
Proverbs 27:6
quote:
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; But the kisses of an enemy are profuse.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-05-2011 7:30 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 136 (632622)
09-09-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
09-08-2011 9:02 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Percy writes:
I think Dawn is making a reference to a character I've never heard of ("Joey") on a show I've never seen ("Fullhouse", by which I think he means, "Full House", and I've never seen that either). He referred to Joey and the show and the phrase "You say this guy's name was Bill?" a couple days ago in Message 11 in the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread. Dawn is making the point that some people have inadequate comprehension skills and so are unable to identify the key points, in this case, Dr Adequate in attempting to understand Buzsaw.
What I'd like to see is Dawn Bertot interpreting Buzsaw for us.
Hi Percy.
I'm trying to correlate the first paragraph of your message. Would you please explain it to me so as to correlate the sentences in it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 09-08-2011 9:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 136 (632745)
09-09-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
09-09-2011 8:18 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Percy writes:
Buz just offered up another example in Message 70:
Buzsaw in Message 70 writes:
I'm trying to correlate the first paragraph of your message. Would you please explain it to me so as to correlate the sentences in it?
Correlate? CORRELATE???
My guess is that Buzsaw didn't understand something about my first paragraph, and he's asking me to clarify, but he's not specific, and after reading that paragraph over several times I'm unable to identify a place where I was unclear or ambiguous. I might have been wrong in my conclusions, but I think I was very clear.
I'm confused as to how the message 11 which you cited correlated the statement relative to Dr Adequate & me.
Also I didn't correlate "Fullhouse, Joey" et al with that about Dr Adequate and me. You didn't link what you were referring to as to Dr Adquate's message. All in all, it made me wonder if you had had a few too many.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:18 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 136 (632832)
09-10-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by DrJones*
09-10-2011 3:41 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Dr Jones writes:
Buz frequently suffers from word-of-the-day-itis. He'll discover a new word and use it, usually incorrectly, where ever he can. For example; his use of correlate in this thread.
Correlate; Co-relate; Questioning how one sentence co-relates to another in the same paragraph is an incorrect application of the word? Please explain.
    Message 64.
    2. Quick; what message does he refer to regarding Dr Adequate attempting to understand Buzsaw?
quote:
I think Dawn is making a reference to a character I've never heard of ("Joey") on a show I've never seen ("Fullhouse", by which I think he means, "Full House", and I've never seen that either). He referred to Joey and the show and the phrase "You say this guy's name was Bill?" a couple days ago in Message 11 in the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread. Dawn is making the point that some people have inadequate comprehension skills and so are unable to identify the key points, in this case, Dr Adequate in attempting to understand Buzsaw.
  —Percy
Edited by Buzsaw, : Change "Jonsey" to "Jonesy"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by DrJones*, posted 09-10-2011 3:41 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 4:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 87 by jar, posted 09-10-2011 5:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 88 by DrJones*, posted 09-10-2011 6:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 136 (632869)
09-10-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Huntard
09-09-2011 9:50 AM


Cherry Picked Faults
Huntard writes:
Let's give it a try shall we?
Buz writes:
The above ontological example...
Refers to a previously given example that tries to explain the way things are.
Buz writes:
...models the zero premise to BB theory.
The example Buz refers to is a model including and proceeding from the singularity of the Big Bang.
Buz writes:
It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from...
The way this model tries to explain the way things are is by using (assuming) the relative uniformity (of something), I think he forgot some words here. That made the singularity happen.
Buz writes:
...the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order...
This is basically Buz's understanding of the standard Big Bang model that he butchered. So, in it's place we will simply put "Big Bang model".
Buz writes:
more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Buz says it is more evidence for god than it is for "not god" basically.
Which leaves us with this:
What Buz menat to writes:
The previously mentioned example that tries to explain the way things are is the standard model of Big Bang theory. However, it is assuming the relative uniformity of (something, again some forgotten words). The standard Big Bang model, even if this were the case, is actually evidence of god, not an argument against him.
Is this kinda correct, Buz?
If you read my uniformity statement carefully in context, what the "something" is follows it.
Huntard, apparently you have the same comprehension skills that Percy accuses me of.
What you've done above is to segmentize apart phrases from my message so as to render it difficult to correlate the segments readily.
The statement should not be difficult to comprehend by anyone having a knowledge of the terms in it relative to the zero event, ontology sub-microscopic chaos, expansion, observable order, etc.
Buz's statement: "The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order............"
Huntard, there's no reason anyone familiar with the terms in this statement, by a careful and thoughtful read of it, shouldn't be able to comprehend it.
In it's original context, the "above example" was directly above the statement in the thread.
The zero event does premise the alleged BB expansion. No?
Anyone can cherry pick out the faults of others. Your message quoted above says this: "What Buz menat to writes:" .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2011 9:50 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by hooah212002, posted 09-10-2011 8:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 136 (633973)
09-17-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
09-09-2011 8:38 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Percy writes:
I should add that aside from Buz's weak grasp of terminology when he's talking about science, his command of English is excellent, and he is able to make perfectly understandable but completely nonsensical statements in perfect English. This is why some people have commented that they'd prefer to debate Buz because whatever he says, at least his grammar (if not his spelling, "imperical" being his most persistent example) produces easily recognizable English sentences.
LoL on your contention that grammar, perse, is what draws lively debates with Buzsaw on behalf of your board. The fact is, as evidenced in the Buzsaw profile archives, that what draws members to my stuff is my stuff; being unique, interesting and challenging, so as to liven up your board and draw in some lurkers.
Thus, and by Jehovah, god's providence, Buzsaw's membership is still active, after two permanent bannings by you.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 5:04 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 136 (633978)
09-17-2011 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by hooah212002
09-10-2011 8:35 PM


Re: Cherry Picked Faults
hooah writes:
Buzsaw writes:
ontology sub-microscopic chaos
What DOES this mean?
Out of context it means whatever the definitions of the words mean. In context it relates to the context. Read the context thoughtfully, and go figure how the words relate to the context.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by hooah212002, posted 09-10-2011 8:35 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Panda, posted 09-17-2011 6:23 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 107 by hooah212002, posted 09-17-2011 8:40 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 136 (633980)
09-17-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Larni
09-17-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Larni writes:
quote:
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
Larni, it appears that you have juxtaposed my statement with that on Dawn Bertot or someone else. I recognize the first paragraph as mine but the rest from someone else.
Had you linked the quote for clarification, perhaps your message could be comprehended
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 5:04 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Panda, posted 09-17-2011 6:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 102 by fearandloathing, posted 09-17-2011 6:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 103 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 7:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 136 (633993)
09-17-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by hooah212002
09-17-2011 8:40 PM


Re: Cherry Picked Faults
hooah writes:
I did read it buz. That's kinda why I asked what it means. Perhaps you could explain?
Then look up the words; think objectively; specify what it is that you need help on.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by hooah212002, posted 09-17-2011 8:40 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by hooah212002, posted 09-18-2011 7:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 136 (633995)
09-17-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Larni
09-17-2011 7:14 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Larni writes:
You do know that I have taken these choice paragraphs and put them into my sig as a delicious irreverent comment on people talking bollocks?
Rather than being part of the body of my post?
Did you, rather egregiously make use of the word comprehend?
Irony writ large, I think.
Abe: to reduce the chance of other hard of thinking posters making a similar error with my sig, could someone tell me how to ensmallen the text size?
Apologies for being a format duffer.
Larni, you know the rules. Whether it be in your signature or in your message you need to identify the writer of whomever you quote.
You've juxtaposed two different authors into one statement, designating neither to the writer/s.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 7:14 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Larni, posted 09-18-2011 6:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024