I'm not. If he won't even make a good faith effort to address the issues that lead to his banning - and we've just seen him refuse to do that - he'll just take readmission as a vindication of his bad behaviour and go on pulling the same crap.
I would say that one major point of disagreement seems to be the use of critical evaluation of evidence. i.e. is the claim asserted as evidence true, or at least very likely to be true, and does the claimed connection really stand up.
Buz seems to hold that such evaluation is inherently wrong - at least when applied to his claims. Certainly he complains bitterly that such considerations are applied to his "evidence", and holds that the findings of the enquiries should be ignored. His claims in the Exodus thread, for instance, were eviscerated on these very grounds. Which is why the more scientifically inclined members hold it as a major defeat for Buzsaw - while he claims it as a victory.
quote: How much value should be placed on Testimony in science?
The motto of the Royal Society is "Nullus in Verba" which may be rendered "take nobody's word for it". A foundational principle of science is that unsupported testimony should not be taken as significant evidence.
quote: GDR, keep an eye on my debate with Moose regarding fossil dating. I debate the true creationist POV.
By which you mean YOUR POV. Which the vast majority of creationists would reject. By what standard is it "the true Creationist POV" ? Does that mean anything more than "Buzsaw believes it" ?
quote: Of course you all think my science is inaccurate. Why should any evolutionist agree with someone else's hypotheses?
I think you mean that we KNOW that much of your "science" is inaccurate. For instance we know that your claim that palaeontologists date fossils be working out the age of the particles of sediment, going back to when the original rock the sediment was eroded from is not true. In fact we can say with reasonable certainty that it is an invention born of prejudice and wilful ignorance, with no concern for the truth.
So this is the "ideological" difference, that you find so important. Evolutionists, in general, care about the truth. You care only about your own beliefs.
quote: You should judge not judge my posts on the basis of the accuracy of them in the views of members debating on a totally different ideology about science. I will be applying some sensible arguments supportive to the creationist paradigm with Moose regarding fossil dating problems.
In other words your arguments should not be judged on their truthfulness nor even whether they really make sense (it does not make sense to ASSUME that palaeontologists are idiots who cannot see the problem with your method of dating fossils and actually use it, for instance - even for someone who does not know that the assumption is false). On what criteria should your arguments be judged then ? It seems the only one you will accept is "Buzsaw believes it". That is hardly a reasonable "Science Paradigm"
Seems to me that he confused a creationist site with a reliable source. Not an easy mistake to make for anyone who is actually informed on the creation/evolution debate.
Seriously, anybody who honestly thinks that rocks are only dated by index fossils and index fossils are dated solely by evolutionary theory is scarcely any less ignorant and deluded than Buz. (And that only because index fossils are one method of relative dating).