Restrictions in the Science Forums.

By Sylas's response to this I see he doesn't agree, but essentially that's what we need, is to redefine the science approach. That is not to say we want to redefine science. An approach to the science debate should not accomodate only secularists, but Creationists, including ID ones as well. We have a different approach to interpretation of what is observed and just because it involves in intelligent agent existing in the universe other than mankind's variety/level of intelligence as we observe on earth should not exclude it as a scientific approach.As Faith has succinctly stated, this need not leave us with an approach based on faith alone, but with our Biblical id interpretation of what is observed being the premise to our approach rather than a miniscule singularity point/dot which is yours.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Sure you can. We do it the same as you do BB. We start with God/ID/Bible and produce evidence that lends credence to that, some of which could, in fact, be interpreted in favor of BB, or of ID Biblical creationism, depending on your perspective. We've done this but you cry foul because our premise is not BB (in your view, the only bonafide science). We both know there was once a flood. We cite the Biblical reference and you cite ice age melt, et al. Both premises have some unanswered questions, but it only those of ours that count as significant, so far as debating science goes in your eyes. But if the Biblical account is accurate and there was a different world climate and atmosphere preflood, I've tried to show that that would affect the evidence in favor of the Bible and that it would taint your evidence. Again, you pshaw that as nonsense. Then when we pshaw the singularity BB as nonsense, we are the alleged violators and our arguments are calously rejected as buligerant violations. Again, I repeat......ID creationists are the ones here held to the higher standard, so high, in fact that we are disqualified and banned for airing our premise and evidence presented.I've gone to great lengths debating space, honing in on the definition of space.....arguments based on the ability or inability for it to expand, but those arguments get me banned, when in fact many of the same arguments are being used all over the internet on websites and forums, et al. Because they're not mainline science arguments, I get banned for using them, so I must go to SFN And Debates or some other place to air them now. Imo, nobody here has imperically proved that space cannot be boundless and static as per my arguments.
You people are the loosers, because now, you're not going to get some of the arguments proposed which inspired some important debates so many participated in. For yeall's info, it was this Biblical fundamentalist fundie ID creationist, who emailed Lyndonshire and persuaded him to come on here for that lively and informative tired light debate. He reluctantly, but graciously came on in spite of his busy schedule. Otherwise that thread, which you people found of interest wouldn't have occured. It was my original Exodus Case thread that brought Lysimachus, his brother and others onto this site for the interesting and informatiive threads on the Exodus, Wyatt, et al. These debates spawned a number of subsequent debates on those subjectsNow that I'm, banned from Biblical Accuracy, no more on that stuff here on my account.Oh well, in the mean time, It's fun and informative frequenting food, fantasy and faith forums.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

My apologies for the delay in responding, Faith. Outa sight, outa mind as I was doing other stuff. I agree that your proposal is a very good one and would eliminate a lot of bickering between admins and IDists in this area.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

That you consider all that supports BB as imperical, that means there is iyo, no other valid argument. There should be posted at the registration to EvC to that effect and that all other viewpoints need not apply to science forums for if you debate other viewpoints your arguments will be in violation and you will be suspended or banned.For example, it was my arguments for unbounded space that began my problems, though the arguments I presented were not soundly refuted. I did the great debate on the scientific thermodynamic laws relative to my ID hypothesis. None refuted that, either in that debate nor the subsequent 300+ message GD thread that followed. Admin now calously pshaws that fully legitimate debate run solidly by GD rules as a non event because their/your man clearly lost that debate. I say until those arguments of mine are refuted, those supportive arguments for my ID premise are equally as imperical as yours for BB. You hold us to a higher standard so far as what is considered imperical by you and grant yourselves loads of leeway, imo.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Buz's out of context phrase which Sylas uses: We do it the same as you do BBSylas's missusage of the that of context phrase: This is wrong. Buz has never grasped the model, or the evidence, or the reasons why it is so dominant for scientists. His inability to understand what makes an argument empirical is why he has been restricted, and this inability is also the heart of his perception of injustice.Buz's full context from which the phrase was taken: We do it the same as you do BB. We start with God/ID/Bible and produce evidence that lends credence to that, some of which could, in fact, be interpreted in favor of BB, or of ID Biblical creationism, depending on your perspective. We've done this but you cry foul because our premise is not BB (in your view, the only bonafide science). We both know there was once a flood. We cite the Biblical reference and you cite ice age melt, et al. Both premises have some unanswered questions, but it only those of ours that count as significant, so far as debating science goes in your eyes.Buz requests that Sylas address the full context from which the phrase was taken. LOL! You get banned or restricted. Thanks Sylas. It might not be right away, but I'll be thinking about something suitable for a thread topic.Edited typographical errorThis message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-22-2005 09:31 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Sylas, with all due respect, you again took my comment which you addressed out of the context in which it was posted so as to descredit me. Had you addressed the comment relative to the context it was taken from, your maligning comments about me would not hold. This seems to be your subtile modus operendi with me to discredit my arguments rather than to address the specific critical points of my posts.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

He did so quote me out of context, the important contexual reason for the statement which was: For example, .................. The next paragraph was the supportive data showing that I used unrefuted scientific arguments for my ID premise, supportive to the statement he used to malign my conduct. But that's ok. He's running from it and I'm done talking about it. Time to move on. The statement in question was about my arguments for my position and how I was using legitimate debate conduct in debate. He failed to acknowledge this in his response, ignoring it completely. I contended that my unrefuted arguments were as empirical as BB arguments until they were refuted.Forget it! Enough has been said and people are getting irritated.

In effect it has excluded the other viewpoints I was debating, since, regardless of my valid arguments, BB supportive arguments to BB have been deemed empirical, thus excluding ID arguments such as those in my second paragraph as credible, regardless as to whether mine have been refuted or not by my counterparts. Thus I am accused of repetitively and dogedly contending for my unrefuted arguments in debate. Can we drop this now, or am I still not clear in what I'm trying to convey? Sylas doesn't want to address it further and neither do I.Edited for spellingThis message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-24-2005 10:14 AM