Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 5:32 AM
23 online now:
Dr Adequate, PaulK (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,011 Year: 7,047/19,786 Month: 1,588/1,581 Week: 410/393 Day: 1/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Petition to get buz full access again.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 3 of 57 (632062)
09-05-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
09-05-2011 2:00 PM


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

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 23 of 57 (632908)
09-11-2011 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chuck77
09-11-2011 4:47 AM


Posting lengthy proposals for topics that fail to meet the requirements, and then refusing to edit them to meet the requirements is not going to endear anyone to the moderators.

The sanctions against Buz are a result of the problems he causes. A good faith effort to address those problems is required. Displaying obvious bad faith is just asking for the sanctions to continue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chuck77, posted 09-11-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 26 of 57 (632918)
09-11-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Admin
09-11-2011 7:46 AM


Re: Correct Information
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Admin, posted 09-11-2011 7:46 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Admin, posted 09-11-2011 8:40 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 30 of 57 (632925)
09-11-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
09-11-2011 9:10 AM


Re: Correct Information
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 09-11-2011 9:10 AM jar has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 51 of 57 (633610)
09-15-2011 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
09-14-2011 11:47 PM


Re: Buz's Science Paradigm
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"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2011 11:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 54 of 57 (633685)
09-15-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Admin
09-15-2011 9:05 AM


Re: Empirical Evidence
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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Admin, posted 09-15-2011 9:05 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019