Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 12:03 PM
34 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,027 Year: 7,063/19,786 Month: 1,604/1,581 Week: 426/393 Day: 17/43 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Petition to get buz full access again.
jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 57 (632066)
09-05-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
09-05-2011 2:00 PM


In each posting there are three participants, the poster, the person directly addressed and the far larger audience that reads but does not comment. It is that latter audience that is important.

It is important in my opinion to allow people like Buz to post there material if for no other reason than that it allows others to respond. That far larger audience that reads but does not participate is the real important one and it is that audience that is reached.

Buz provides necessary posts that provides a contrast needed.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 09-05-2011 2:00 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 57 (632070)
09-05-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by fearandloathing
09-05-2011 2:19 PM


I think it is unreasonable for Moderators to request Buz to provide something that he does not understand, is not capable of understanding and that does not exist in the first place, something like evidence.

It's reasonable for posters to point out that Buz or any Creationist for that matter has not presented evidence and explain why, but it's unreasonable to expect them to be able to comply.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by fearandloathing, posted 09-05-2011 2:19 PM fearandloathing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by fearandloathing, posted 09-05-2011 2:34 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 57 (632880)
09-10-2011 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
09-10-2011 9:48 PM


Buz writes:

Admin requires evidence in science but in spite of the Free Online Dictionary definition he adamantly excludes anything supernatural as having possible evidence.

Specifically what definition is that Buz?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 9:48 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 11:48 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 27 of 57 (632919)
09-11-2011 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
09-10-2011 11:48 PM


Buz writes:

Buz writes:

Admin requires evidence in science but in spite of the Free Online Dictionary definition he adamantly excludes anything supernatural as having possible evidence.

Specifically what definition is that Buz?

You should know what it includes and what it excludes from The Free Online Dictionary. , Jar. \[/qs\]

I'm still confused about what you are claiming Buz.

quote:
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

evidence [ˈɛvɪdəns]
n
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication his pallor was evidence of ill health
3. (Law) Law matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc. See also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence
(Law)
turn queen's (king's, state's) evidence (of an accomplice) to act as witness for the prosecution and testify against those associated with him in crime
in evidence on display; apparent; conspicuous her engagement ring was in evidence


Here are the definitions from your link.

Now I don't see the supernatural mentioned anywhere, and only one definition mentions science.

So which of those definitions were you referring to when you asserted "Admin requires evidence in science but in spite of the Free Online Dictionary definition he adamantly excludes anything supernatural as having possible evidence."

Where did Admin ever say that it was impossible for the supernatural to be evidenced?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 11:48 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 57 (632924)
09-11-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Admin
09-11-2011 8:40 AM


Re: Correct Information
I think a big issue involves the question of whether someone places SOURCE over CONTENT.

In many groups, the SOURCE of something is more important than the actual CONTENT transmitted. Testimony rules supreme. A great example is the use of the films marketed by folk like Ron Wyatt, Walt Brown, Lennart Möller and others as "evidence". The films actually are simply testimony, no physical evidence is ever presented but the SOURCES are considered sufficient.

Lennart Möller as an example is often referred to as a "scientist" when he has no real training or experience as an archaeologist and that is the area the films supposedly address.

Testimony.

How much value should be placed on Testimony in science?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Admin, posted 09-11-2011 8:40 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2011 9:23 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019