Summations Only

In the Dog piling, Dog Piling I said this in Message 42:

quote:

---

The first ever EvC Great debate was when the pack's Pack Man Jar was to debate me, Buzsaw on the 3LoTs, whether my hypothetical creationist perspective satisfied the LoTs

​

There was to be two judges to judge the debate. Pack Man Jar boasted that he'd trounce the creationist man in a couple of messages. I was to compose the OP. The rest is history, Pack Man Jar calling it quits on page two. As for the judging, nary a peep.
Consensus: Pack Man Jar did poorly.

---

One of PaulK's responses in Message 43 was this:

quote:

---

And you managed a draw because you were fortunate enough to have a weak opponent. Despite the fact that your assertion is actually false.

---

It is not a draw when your opponent is on the defensive, most of the time on the ropes and counted out in page two when he called it quits. That is not a draw.Now, Paul claims that the reason I did not lose was that I had a weak opponent. OK, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I would like to attempt a GREAT DEBATE with Cavediver, atheist apostate from Christianity, once professing to be an evangelical Christian.I believe that the reason I won that debate handily is that truth is like a lion. Turn it loose and it will prevail over just about anything. The truth lion is in some respects caged here on this site. Thus my sudden permanent bannings back then, having no suspensions previous and now my ouster from science now because I refuse to kowtow to debating on the terms of conventional science.Was it that Jar was a weak opponent or was it that my hypothesis satisfied the 3LoTs more-so than Jar's conventional science theory? Methinks, perhaps, the latter. I would like to see how it fairs with Cavediver, who we all respect as the site's most astute authority on the scientific methodologies, including the more complicated more abstract ones such as relativity and QM.Mind you, I'm not boasting, as Jar did before the debate ensued that I will win. Was PaulK right that my opponent was weak, or it is that the Biblical Buzsaw hypothesis is more compatible than Jar's conventional science theory?I'm not trying to be Mr smarty-pants. I'm thinking that the sort of arguments that defeated Jar can at least keep me on par or better with Cavediver in that they believe alike, pretty much on this topic.The topic will be Which satisfies the three basic 3Lot's the best, the Buzsaw literal rendering of the Genesis record or BB and the singularity events espoused by conventional science? I would do up an OP to kick it off. I would like to have two judges Lyx2no and ICANT if they would be agreeable, one representative of conventional science and one creationist. The judges could do some messaging among themselves and see how it would come out if they saw the need to. I am confident that these two members would be objective and fair, not that there would be others equally so, but these came to mind.I would like for this debate to be as slow and casual as need be, in that this is a very busy time for me and in that I will likely need to do some research. I will need to pray and think a lot, perhaps before moving forward, being a slow thinker and having no college degree etc. Sometimes when I pray, in the middle of the night's wee hours God's light bulb lights up in my mind, how to respond to difficult challenges.Imo, logic can go a long way, coupled with prayer and some basic knowledge of how the 3Lots apply. If Jehovah be the true ID majestic manager of the Universe, Jehovah be the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. He's revealed himself to me in wonderful ways, as he promised, something like, "you draw near to me and I will draw near to you, and "Jehovah's eyes walk to and fro throughout the earth, showing himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is perfect towards him." II Chronicles 16:9(NOTE: I ran out of spaces in my Title so I left out an "is" and abreviated "Temporal" to "Temp")
Edited by Buzsaw, : Cap Great Debate.

---

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

The Buz/Jar "Great Debate": Great Debate, Intelligent Design, Supernatural And Thermodynamic Laws (between Buzsaw and jar only)The follow-up "Peanut Gallery" topic: Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamicsI'm in no rush to promote this topic, but everyone can look at the previous material.Adminnemooseus

---

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

But the consensus of PaulK and others is that the reason I won that debate is that Jar was a weak contender and not that my hypothesis best complied with the LoTs.That debate was a long time ago. A new debate with the cite's most prestigious physicist would either support or falsify the consensus that the reason I won the debate was a weak opponent; (ABE: not that my creationist hypothesis is more compatible with the basic laws of science, more-so than the theories of conventional science. ) Over time I have learned some things and made some adjustments in my understanding of science and the Genesis record, relative to this topic. That may have a bearing on some debating in the Peanut Gallery as well as how my arguments are aired.I wonder what Cavediver thinks about this proposal. If he is confident that the conventional science theories on origins are so great and that ID Genesis stuff is totally unscientific, let him show his stuff whereas the allegedly weak opponent failed. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted by color

---

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

Hi Buzsaw,You're currently barred from the Science Forums and that is unlikely to change.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread copied here from the Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Clearly if you have an object of infinite energy, then if you transfer a finite amount of energy from it, it still has an infinite amount of energy.Now Jar is, I think, wrong to suggest that this violates the first law of thermodynamics, because the system starts and finishes with an infinite amount of energy. His references to "infinity plus one" don't necessarily apply; the use of cardinal numbers would seem more appropriate then the ordinals, in which case infinity plus one is infinity. But the existence of such an object would allow you to violate the second law of thermodynamics. All you need to do is take an ordinary fridge and hook up your infinite source of energy to it as a power source; and the resulting system immediately violates the Clausius statement of the second law. After one cycle of the fridge, the power source is still in the same state (possessing infinite energy) hence the system as a whole operates in a cycle; and the fridge transfers heat from a cooler to a hotter body, or it wouldn't be a fridge.---I think I may have too much time on my hands.

My understanding of the Great Debate forum is that it is not a science forum. It appears that admins are afraid for their science Goliath, Cavediver's ability to debate against the creationist deadly sling stone hypothesis of little David, Buzsaw.Cavediver, what say you about a Great Debate; not to defy admins, but I'd like to know whether you would favor a Great Debate between you and me on the challenge posed?The problem with the open forum debate is the dogpiling factor. A one on one with EvC's physist is what is needful. It appears that the secularists are afraid they will loose on their 2nd shot at falsifying the Buzsaw Hypothesis on origins and science. The facade of their unscientific theories is telling here.

---

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

The problem is that you don't know how science works and the admins need to keep things clear. If he had let you put this into science, newcomers would have thought that people here don't know how science works, it has nothing to do with admins being afraid. We can still debate there, it's just that here you don't need to show evidence or keep the discussion focused (something you wouldn't have done anyway). We know by experience that you wouldn't respect the science forum rules anyway.Having Cavediver discuss physics with you would be like putting a good chess player against someone who doesn't know the rules of chess, it would be pointless. Cavediver wouldn't win this debate since there would be no debates, just 2 people talking past each others.

This is just one example of how my hypothesis has been adjusted and fine tuned since the first Great Debate and why a new Great Debate with a stronger opponent is needful. My position now has been updated to an unknown amount of non-infinite energy but all limited to that of the source, requiring work and rest by the source so as to manage the energy, compatible to 2LoT. If Jehovah's energy were infinite, there would be no need of rest.Biblically, Jehovah is almighty, in that he controls/manages all available energy existing in the Universe.

---

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

I think what everybody is afraid of is another tedious Buzsaw exchange, where you assert without evidence the patently impossible, allow requests for supporting evidence to go unanswered, and then when they can be ignored no longer you just assert that you've already provided the evidence and they can go back and find it... somewhere.If you could learn to produce both an argument and the evidence to support it, perhaps in the same post, I think you would find that you were more interesting and thus that more people were willing to debate with you. As it stands, literally everybody knows how this is going to shake out - Cavediver will effortlessly refute every single one of your premises in his first post, and then the rest of the 300 posts will be you refusing to admit it and lying about the exchange.You're boring, Buz, and your position has not once ever changed in the light of information you were not previously aware of. All you do in response to disconfirming evidence is slink off until you figure everybody's forgotten about your latest embarrassment, and then you're back with the same old shtick. Why would anybody talk to you?

Hi Buzz.Could you present the evidence you would use if this debate gets off the ground so newcomers can a a concise point of reference?

This topic is about the basic laws of science which I am well aware of. How do you think I trounced educated and science apprised Jar if he knew more about the LoTs than I?I am fully aware of the rules of the game. What you people appear to be really afraid for is that I know too much real science for you to risk a Great Debate between me and your best player. No?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

No.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That was not quite my point.My point is that if the infinite source of energy transfers energy to object number two, then eventually both will be at an equal energy level and at that point it will no longer be possible to transfer energy.If the infinite source of energy decides to moderate the energy transfer, stops transmitting energy, then the infinite source of energy becomes irrelevant.Edited by jar, : add an s to stops

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

(quotes are from 2004 topic as well as current topic. Source will be noted.)To start with, I am theological by belief, though allowing for philosophy rather than undefined orthodoxy. In other words, I try and use logic when at all possible. In order to discuss such a topic as this, we need to concede that God exists. Those disagreeing with that belief can't really engage in this debate...since Buzsaw is using his belief as one of the initial argumentative points. Thus, God is allowed, but I maintain that since we are discussing closed systems, human wisdom is our only source for defining Gods characteristics.Any sort of divine revelation or rhema word of knowledge simply cannot be considered ...in fairness to all participants. (Unless we all agree, of course.)Personally, I am in favor of using the Bible to describe or define the God we are agreeing to. Again, however, humans disagree on many points. We need to keep this in mind and agree to disagree.OK, now for my 2 cents as I jump into waters I have not swam in before. First, I want to elaborate on my point that human wisdom is all we have to define supernatural characteristics. What other source could we possibly use? Buz, I know you will argue that the Holy Scriptures will provide these answers, and welcome your contributions regarding this matter. I am not sure that we can put God in a box. To say that He is part of a closed system sends alarm bells to my intellect.In 2004, Buz, you quoted Dr.Grote Reber.

quote:

---

Time is merely a sequence of events. There is no beginning nor ending. The material universe extends beyond the greatest distances we can observe optically or by radio means. It is boundless. The energy from hot material is recycled by electrodynamic (not thermodynamic) means. The material from dying galaxies is recycled into new galaxies. Details of material and energy distribution change on a small scale. Over any large volume and long time the gross features of the universe remain stable. I am not offering a finished product. I am attempting to instill thinking about the Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe.

---

Keep in mind, however, that if we include God in this closed system known as "all that there is, seen and unseen" that we would be drifting more from monotheism into pantheism.Jar argued that in a closed system, an infinite A cannot transfer energy to B without adding energy to the system. (essentially an infinity+1 math argument) My observation is that in a closed system, if A is infinite there is no B. Only A. (Pantheism)We measure the size of the universe in light years. The distance that light travels and the time that it takes to get from point A to point B. The paradox of infinity in regards to the universe is that light theoretically travels an infinite distance between one point in the object to another point in the object. Yet we can only measure in terms of finite reality.Buz, I noted your arguments in 2004. I cant disagree with them nor prove them in any way. For now, we are in a state of philosophy regarding these hypothesis.Feel free to explain what more you may have learned since 2004.