Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,234 Year: 5,491/9,624 Month: 516/323 Week: 13/143 Day: 3/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Dating: Creation Vs Evolution: Buzsaw & PaulK
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 6 (632674)
09-09-2011 11:09 AM


PaulK wants to spin off my Message 43 which is the last message of the ongoing Great Debate with Moose into a Great Debate on the topic of fossil dating relative to creation vs creationism.
I have been balking. Via PMs Paul and I have been hassling over whether a proposed debate should be moderated. I've argued that I should not be singled out to be moderated in a Great Debate. My concern has a lot to do with the fact that I have been banned from the science forums, including Biblical Accuracy & In-errancy. It has a lot to do with how I was rigorously moderated by Admin in the latter pages of the last Exodus debate.
Concern also relates to Admin's stance on what constitutes evidence of the existence of a supernatural realm in the Universe, his being that there is none.
This proposal is a proposal to engage with PaulK in a Great Debate on fossil dating relative to the evolution vs creationism paradigms.
My terms of this proposal is that the literal rendition of the Genesis record is to be on the table, no holds barred; that evidence of the supernatural is to be on the table and that the literal event of a global Genesis flood, i.e catastrophic consideration will be on the table.
One of my objections to moderation was that it was unprecedented in past debates, including EvC's first ever Great Debate on the topic of the LoTs. Paul did cite one GD between Razd and Bluejay where AdminPD admonished RAZD, informing him that FGs applied to the great debates. Since during my 8+ year sojourn debating at EvC, my suspension record has been impeccable, IMO, FG violations should not be a moderation concern. Paul has assured me via PM that he will object to any undue moderation.
Paul has PMed me that if we do a debate it will be a very short one of six or eight messages in order for him to wind it up. Let me remind Paul that in the first GD between Jar and me, Jar made a similar boast after which he was on the ropes throughout the debate, calling it quits on page two. I'm in no way suggesting that this will be possible with PaulK. I am aware of the extent of his scientific knowledge, intelligence and debate skills. He will indeed be a formidible opponent.
Creationists, like Israel's army facing the mighty Philistines along with their giant, Goliath are kowtowing to evolutionism and BB theory, dropping the ball. David, with the blessing of Jehovah, the Biblical god, his expertise as a herdsmen in the wilderness with his little stone sling and the balls so to speak to engage Goliath on behalf of Jehovah and Israel's army, was able to prevail for the cause of Israel and the Biblical god.
I'm in no way boasting a win. My hope is to engage PaulK in a rigorous debate, applying some research which I've done on my own, armed with truth, confident that the Biblical Genesis record is a reliable record and trusting God for wisdom and guidance.
Perhaps Paul's assertion was that the debate would apply only to Message 43. It is not my intention to restrict my proposal to that message. It is to allow for Paul to cite all aspects of fossil dating just as it is to allow for me to my premise some of my arguments on the Biblical record and any other data supportive to my origins hypothesis.
If, IMO, any undue moderation ensues during this debate, let it be understood that objections will be aired, including ending a pre-mature end to the debate. Under these conditions, I no longer object to the debate being subject to moderation by any moderator, given that Paul did cite one instance of an admonishment by a moderator.
This debate must needs be casual. It assumes that there will be no time or length limitation and that Paul understands that I am a very busy person; my time available for participation being very limited, depending on business concerns and other activities that I am committed to.
There may be intervals of inactivity between messages, due to the extent of Paul's scientific education vs that of mine, given the extent of my education was 3 college semesters in a Bible college. Thus there may be intervals when I will need time to research so as to adequately respond to the opponent's points, etc
If this proposal is granted, I invite PaulK to begin by a response to Message 43.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-09-2011 2:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13085
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2 of 6 (632709)
09-09-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
09-09-2011 11:09 AM


Hi Buzsaw,
Until you reach a consensus with other members as to the nature of scientific evidence you cannot discuss science topics at EvC Forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2011 11:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2011 7:09 PM Admin has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
(1)
Message 3 of 6 (632742)
09-09-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
09-09-2011 2:53 PM


Message 43
How do I go about that when you refuse to promote my evidence thread so as to hash the evidence issue out amongst the members who want to debate it?
My understanding from PM exchanges with PaulK is that he has no problem with debating me applying the true creationist paradigm to my input. I have done some research on the conventional MOs of various corroborative methods of dating so as to focus on those, notwithstanding ID input on my part is to be tolerated. .
I've offered to put all of the methodology on the table but as a trade off, I need the freedom to apply the true creationist ID paradigm. \
Admin, it's not generally me that the others complain about. Rather it is members like Don Bertot and IAG who are allowed in science.
Taz has been begging for the opportunity to debate me and other creationists on the canopy hypothesis and PaulK has sent PM after PM, a dozen or so to get me to debate this topic, allowing for moderators if need be. I finally consented and here we are. (abe: Crashfrog begged to debate on evidence. There's a fairly good assessment of what the other members want. What more do you want? )
What's the matter, Admin? Are you afraid lil ole man Buz with a few semesters of Bible school will best your physicist type Goliath, backed up by the possibility of a moderator in case the ole man who's had an impeccable 8 year suspension record will run amuck on FGs?
I don't see anything in the FGs about the sort of evidence the creationists cite on behalf of our ID ideology. Perhaps if that's what you want that it would be another rule to enforce on all, rather than exclusively on me.
I was up until 3 AM fine-tuning my OP for PaulK, assuming that his urgency about this would be a factor in getting it promoted.
Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted by parenthesis

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-09-2011 2:53 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 09-09-2011 7:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13085
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 4 of 6 (632748)
09-09-2011 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Buzsaw
09-09-2011 7:09 PM


Hi Buz,
I outlined what an opening post needed to look like in Message 3 of your What Constitutes By Definition, Evidence Of Supernatural Phenomena topic proposal, and there was a little more information in my other posts. If you would like to try again then let me know and I will reopen the thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2011 7:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2011 8:02 PM Admin has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 5 of 6 (632750)
09-09-2011 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
09-09-2011 7:55 PM


Admin writes:
I outlined what an opening post needed to look like in Message 3 of your What Constitutes By Definition, Evidence Of Supernatural Phenomena topic proposal, and there was a little more information in my other posts. If you would like to try again then let me know and I will reopen the thread.
My respose is the same as that one, Admin. Scrap it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 09-09-2011 7:55 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 09-10-2011 9:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13085
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 6 of 6 (632807)
09-10-2011 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
09-09-2011 8:02 PM


Buzsaw Restricted from Proposed New Topics
Hi Buz,
Creating thread proposals that moderators have to review and that you then "scrap" when provided feedback is taking up valuable moderator time. I'm removing your permissions in the Proposed New Topics forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2011 8:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024