Where do all the creationists go?

Could take even longer than that - his Caps Lock key appears to be sticking randomly.Buggrit! I forgot! Arguments have more merit when typed in capitals! Of course they do!

This creationist is looking for an active forum where bonafide ID creationists may freely discuss and debate scientific issues freely on the basis of ID interpreted science without the threat of suspension from the forum director and owner. I've put up with this man for nearly two years and had enough. If he'd go fishing and let Moose and the others run the show here, I think it would then be a forum where creationists would feel welcome. I've been able to work problems out with most everyone here but Percy, who shows up when he thinks he's needed to jump in on behalf of his own with this stuff about "you're not debating on what we consider to be THE SCIENCE so either shape up or ship out." But then when I debate escatological Biblical stuff like the Olivet Discourse prophecy, stuff which I've studied for 60 years and which I know, Percy arrogantly moves in to defend the feeble arguments of his own till the cows come home with nobody to call him on his posting and administrative behavior.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

So, what you're saying is that you want to debate science without having to meet the standards of science?Why on Earth should anyone be expected to oblige you? If you want to debate ID like it's science, then you need to win that debate first. But you keep losing that debate, so you don't get to talk about ID like it's science. That's what it means to lose a debate. It means people are unwilling to accept your position as a legitimate basis to build other arguments on.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-16-2005 23:43 AM

One rule which applies in this forum is defending a claim when requested; or at least acknowledging that you are unable to do so. It looks like a quote, but I can't find it. The grammatical error makes it unlikely to be Percy's exact words. (No offence intended, but it's true. Percy tends not to make many such errors.)It also looks like an inaccurate reflection of the actual issues Percy has raised from time to time. You can debate whatever you like, as far as I can tell. We are all expected to follow some conventions which contribute to substantive engagement. One of those conventions is giving the basis for a claim like this when requested.I like to step in officially as admin to admonish those who are unreasonable in dealing with creationists... and I've done this to Percy before. I'll do it again, if warranted.If Percy has been unreasonable then I am more than willing to step in on your behalf. But I also admit up front that I have an enormous respect for the manner in which Percy usually engages.If you are sick of this and just want to find some other forum, I can understand that. Good luck, we'll miss you. If you would like to take advantage of a friendly admin, please cite a post clearly where you feel that you have been unfairly or inconsistently treated. I know you've been asked this before, and that you feel you have obliged. Alas, I don't follow all threads and issues.But if you want, I'll follow this one right here. I need something more definite to work with please, like a link to a message.Up to you. You are not obliged to pursue it, but if you wish, my offer is on the table.Cheers -- AdminSylas

I'm saying I want to discuss and debate science on the basis of an eternal universe with boundless space and on similar basis of scientists, engineers and other intelligent folk who do not interpret science on BB theory without harassment and threats of suspension. The great debate, for example, was not about whether my hypothesis could be verified, but on whether it violated td laws. Jar, my great debate opponent failed to refute that.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Nonsense, Buz. Your hypothesis was busted on the first post. From then on it was simply Buz denying reality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Don't get into it Jar - he just want to needle you. People can check the thread and see for themselves.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 17 February 2005 19:41 AM

You'reright. I won't comment any more.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks much, Sylas. My intention here was to address the op of this thread. I had wanted to be done with the other buz thread, but don't want to hyjack this thread with this stuff, so I'll address your post on the other buz thread as briefly as possible, if that's ok. Frankly, I've had it with this kind of personal stuff and don't intend to go at length with it.
............................................................................................Charles.......Thanks, but I don't say stuff to "needle."This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-17-2005 20:07 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Brad, do you speak any other languages? Perhaps you would be better off explaining your posts in German or something because your English generally leaves something to be desired.

I dont understand why or how you desire me to explain how technology can be configured to relate any old or new biograms WITHOUT providing intellectual space for discontinuity systematics as this is not a matter of native spoken language, if I understand you correctly, but simply a matter of dedicating funds to apply the likes of below as easily as Ben showed me how to size the picture.

You know you really should not deface your text books like that Brad.

quote:

---

I dont understand why or how you desire me to explain how technology can be configured to relate any old or new biograms WITHOUT providing intellectual space for discontinuity systematics as this is not a matter of native spoken language, if I understand you correctly, but simply a matter of dedicating funds to apply the likes of below as easily as Ben showed me how to size the picture.

---

..well...obviously.. i mean.. c'mon... duh...This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-17-2005 23:49 AM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

And in order to assume that basis in arguments, you have to defend that basis in an argument, and win.That's how it works. If you attempt to defend a steady-state, eternal universe in arguments and fail, you don't get to simply assume it as a basis for other arguments. Sorry, but that's the price of losing. You're free at any time, I suppose, to discuss what it might be like in a hypothetical steady-state universe; but you need to make it clear that you're not talking about the universe we inhabit, because then the discussion becomes evidentiary and not hypothetical.Honestly if you wanted to speculate about what it might be like in a steady-state universe, I'm sure you could find a bunch of people to do that here. It would probably be interesting. But if you want to proceed from a basis that the universe we live in now is steady-state, then you need to win that argument first. You don't get to simply presume it as a basis for other arguments until you win.