Summations Only

Actually, it's in the Free For All forum because Buzsaw, though courteous and sincere, tends through his remarkable insistance about some things to draw a thread's focus away from the topic and onto himself. The primary issue concerns the connections he sees between evidence and conclusions that no one else sees, which wouldn't be so bad by itself, none of us are perfect interpreting evidence, but in Buzsaw's case his questionable conclusions from questionable evidence are followed by pages and pages of claims that he's therefore proven his point and bested the evolutionists and need say no more. Naturally this tends to tie threads in knots. Underlying this all is what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding concerning what makes any particular evidence relevant to an issue.The history is that this is the second time Buzsaw has been asked to cease his participation in the science forums. After the first time Buzsaw requested readmission, stating that he now understood he needed to provide evidence, so I granted the request. But the result was that Buzsaw merely began using the word "evidence" a lot without actually producing any evidence that supported his positions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I need to remind all that the topic of this thread is which is more compatible to the Lots, the Buzsaw unique rendition of the Genesis record regarding origins, being a literal rendition or the conventional science theories of the alleged singularity event, followed by the alleged BB and the ToE.The topic should not be restricted to a secularistic application of science. Though I have cited physical evidence of the existence of Jehovah, it is a given that no secularist minded member will be expected to acknowledge any of it.I am a true Biblical creationist. That involves the meta-physical, coupled with the physical, both shown to be existing in the universe.
Imo, it is disingenuous for members to personally attack me in this thread, given the nature of it.The thread is not about me. I refer to the first person some, because of my unique literalistic rendition of the Genesis record, not depicting YEC, etc.The thread is not about debating evidence. That has been debated in other threads. It is a debate on which position is more compatible to the basic laws of science, the LoTs. It does not necessarily mean that either position must comply 100% to the LoTs, but which position is most compatible to the LoTs.

---

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

Well that's easy then. One position has scientific theory and experimental evidence on it's side and the other is supported by bullshit and your arrogant ignorance about science. As an example: you bringing the ToE into a cosmology discussion.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

There is no other kind of science.And your wishing and pretending won't change this.

---

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

And again that is another of your lies. This has nothing to do with secularism since theists also point out that you post nothing but bullshit.In addition, unless you can provide a link to your cited physical evidence of the existence of Jehovah I'll say you are lying yet again.

---

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

So then, you have some biblical laws of thermodynamics? Or are you referring to the secular laws of thermodynamics?

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

No surprise, since none of your threads are ever about evidence.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This is why I will not debate you. Science, by definition, is secular. You are asking people to argue against a paradox.

Taq, you have quote mined one small sentence from my message so as to obfuscate the message and demean the messenger.You and others responding to this message need to read, carefully, the contents below before misconstruing the message into something other than my point.

quote:

---

I need to remind all that the topic of this thread is which is more compatible to the Lots, the Buzsaw unique rendition of the Genesis record regarding origins, being a literal rendition or the conventional science theories of the alleged singularity event, followed by the alleged BB and the ToE.
The topic should not be restricted to a secularistic application of science. Though I have cited physical evidence of the existence of Jehovah, it is a given that no secularist minded member will be expected to acknowledge any of it.

​

I am a true Biblical creationist. That involves the meta-physical, coupled with the physical, both shown to be existing in the universe.
Imo, it is disingenuous for members to personally attack me in this thread, given the nature of it.

---

The term, science is not necessarily secularistic. If a metaphysical realm of beings exist in the universe, scientific study and debate can be engaged in so as to determine whether or not such entities exist.This thread is intended to determine whether the Biblical metaphysical paradigm or the conventional paradigm on origins best accommodate the basic thermodynamic laws which are observed in the universe.Thus, you and the others responding to my message need to understand and acknowledge that this debate is not limited to the secularistic application of science.This is also why, imo, creationists should be allowed to size up our paradigm against that of the secularists in the science forums. With that restriction, half of our minds are tied behind us as Rush Limbaugh puts it.

---

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

That's not such a stupίd question.The first two laws can be expressed in the form of statements about closed systems: for example you might state the First Law as: Now it is true that if you substituted "open" for "closed" in that sentence, it would not be true. But that is not to say that the law does not apply to open systems.Let me give you a parallel example. The Second Law can be expressed as (amongst lots of other ways of expressing it, including statements about closed systems): It is expressed in terms of refrigerators. But this does not mean that the Second Law only applies to refrigerators. We can derive consequences from that statement which apply to everything. More or less by definition. If the universe was open, you'd have to have something which was not part of the universe, but which could communicate with it --- stuff could travel from the not-part-of-the-universe to the universe and/or vice versa.But in that case, in what sense would the not-part-of-the-universe not be part of the universe?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hey Buz
Haven't we been through this before? Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin TheoryHas your position changed at all since that discussion? Or are you still advocating some supernatural-outside-the-universe source of energy that is continually pumping more and more energy into the universe as and when required?

Hi Straggler. Thanks for weighing in and citing the closed archived thread.I assume your question relates to Message 1. To my recollection, I've never advocated an open system which entailed any out-of -universe energy.My position has consistently been that Jehovah, the source of energy dwells with his entourage of angelic beings within the Universe system, managing the system to suit his purpose, eternally.The OP of that thread, Message 1 clearly states that the amount of energy in the system never increases or decreases. What made you think otherwise?

---

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

Crashfrog, two things. If I be boring, why do threads which I engage in get the intensity red lines appear quite consistently?If I tend to slink off, why do threads which I engage go on and on? There comes a time to stop beating dead horses and leave off debating any topic. No?A third point: When have any of you secularist athiestic types ever admitted to any evidence supportive to the Biblical record in the 8 years that I've been here? LoL, it's a given. It will never happen, no matter how accurate or supportive to my paradigm it be. You, the admins supportive to your POV and all secularist members here know it. It's an established matter of fact.

---

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

I fail to see how the context of the entire post changes the intent of the quote. Science is necessarily secularist. That is the whole point. As an analogy, you are asking us to use non-mathematical calculus. It is a contradiction in terms.It would seem that the whole point of your debate is to demonstrate that something is true irrespective of religious beliefs. That makes it secular, and it is also the the basis of the scientific method. IOW, you will try to use science until it can't be used to show what you want to show, and then you substitute science with faith. Sorry, but I see no reason that anyone would want to participate in a debate where you get to change the ground rules on the fly. So you want to pit faith against science. Good luck with that.

2 reasons:1: We hate seeing you so stupid. Some of us are actually here to set the record straight. Ya know, teach and learn?2: When people stop debating you are stop participating in the threads you muddy up, you claim victory. We can't have that.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square