Summations Only

In other words you have absolutely nothing to defend against the responses to your lameass post. Why don't you just admit you have nothing to defend your post accept for whining.It is kind of tough for you to stop debating here since you never started.

Percy, you also make Chuck's point. You begin your message, ascribing to Chuck's stuff which supports your positions. Then when Chuck goes about Chucks valid points supporting our positions , rather than taking note of his constructive criticism, you personally attack him, decrying his reasons as childish and idiotic .Bottom line: Chuck, your job in PAF is not to balance out the moderation, but to re-iterate my lop-sided application of it, in favor of the evolutionist constituency.ABE: That two members cheered Chuck's childish and ideotic OP message, implies that two members share Chuck's alleged childishness and ideocy.Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted

quote:

---

None of your marine scientists have an interest in falsifying the evidence so abundantly cited via observable photography supported by the numerous cited corroborative evidences by me

---

Link?As a marine biologist by training (a long time ago) who works in a related field, I'd be really interested.Don't forget, I'm still waiting for other links from the Buzsaw archive.

quote:

---

Two more unsupported assertions.

---

This thread was stared with ten (count 'em) unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

There are more hateful bigots on your side of the isle than the creationist side. The terminology of many of you describing creationists, such as yours above depict that hateful bigotry.

---

bigot
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
(from Bigot Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)The way I read the definition, a bigot would be completely unmoved by mountains of evidence against their point of view.Let's see who the bigots are and show us your mountain. We (well, they) have shown you theirs...

quote:

---

Too much of your alleged evidence is based on abstract manipulative quantum and relativistic arguments. As an artist can paint an abstract modern art painting into just about any form of image that he desires, so with abstract means of claiming evidence.

---

Such as?Which part to you have a problem with? Genetics? Chemistry? Geology? Physics? Mathematics? Archaeology? Biology? (I'm sure I've missed some)Which parts of these interlocking and mutually supportive fields of study are abstract manipulative quantum and relativistic arguments? The fact that they all support each other suggests that all of them are?

quote:

---

On the contrary, again, you and your relativistic forum majority simply waive off the physically observable cited evidences, such as fulfilled prophecies, archeology and complexity that is supportive of the existence of the Biblical supernatural, etc.

---

Fulfilled prophecies. still waiting for your guide to the Buzsaw archives for more on this one.Archaeology. As I understand it after you helpfully suggested I go and do my own research - there is more evidence contradicting details than supporting the biblical account. The great majority is neither directly disproven or has any evidence to support it.If you're worried about the relativistic forum majority, please - invite your friends. I'd love to hear from them as well. Debate is no fun without an opposing viewpoint.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

​

Philip K. Dick

Something that you and other creationists should keep in mind.

No commentary needed.

It is rather hard to keep both sides content when their way of reasoning, their acceptance of evidence, etc, are completely polarized to each other. It's downright impossible to have no bias towards a side in this topic, and the quality, level of bias, and ignorance of a post can look very differently from the either side of the debate. Add a few years of debating the same thing.. It doesn't surprise me tensions are rising, by the very nature of the debate itself.Oh, and a note to Buz, Percy already had responded to Chuck a few times constructively. He posting the original list that concerned fundamentalists , and gave a unique response that took the list and reworded it to reflect the way atheists themself viewed the point Chuck. After that, Chuck was the first to accuse Pery that the moderation was lopsided, and he has not yet responded to any of the critiques of the list. No offense Buzz, but there's a bit of nuance in this because of these posts before Percy's last post.I admit he did not use the ''childish'' himself, but the tone of the list was pretty condescending overall, although it's based on a atheist list which had the same tone, but that list was made by somebody else entirely off the site. To conclude, this accusing is going into circles, and I think we're beyond pinpointing a scapegoat.I think the cheers/jeers system is not helping the atmosphere here though, glaring red - signs tend to tick people off far to easily, although the green jeers feel positive and encouraging. Maybe keep the cheers and thrash the jeers?Edited by WSW24, : better message titleEdited by WSW24, : No reason given.

You were one of those two, Buz........

quote:

---

As a marine biologist by training (a long time ago) who works in a related field, I'd be really interested.

---

There are some sort-of-wheel-shaped coral formation in the Gulf of Aqaba. It is claimed that these must be the remains of Pharoah's chariot forces from the Exodus. And that's really about it for marine biology. Buzsaw's preferred source (preferred because the original discoverer is so disreputable that even mainstream Creationists think that he's a dubious crank), Lennart Moller, supposedly has some qualifications in marine biology, but so far as I know he hasn't applied this knowledge to the coral at all. I would think that identifying the species and giving a decent estimate of the growth rate would be a decent check on whether these formations could possibly be old enough for the claims to be true.Contrary to the impression Buz tries to give here, he doesn't like his claims being investigated because they often turn out to be false. In fact that seems to be one of his complaints about the thread. Which - in my opinion is the reason that he won't give you the link.So here it is Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

I think that's Buz's point, and he's expressing indignation at the implication.But what I was really wondering was whether "ideocy" could be the Discovery Institute's way of disguising theistic implications in the word "theodicy", which is the subject of Chuck's "ideotic" first point in the O.P.

And the other was just teasing.

You are correct Sir. But I would only expect such from chuckles. Post crap then whine because no one likes him.

Sorry for contributing to that For the same reason that big name Creationists tend to avoid written debates like the plague, I'd imagine. The medium allows anybody to take the time to do some research and supply supporting links for their position. This biases against those who have no research or evidence to support them. And I'm sure you are willing and able to provide supporting links to back up your opinion? It's all a matter of record here, after all. Actually, we are perfectly content to debate peer reviewed work from scientists who are for creationism. It's just unfortunate for you that these are like hen's teeth, and given their rarity we evolutionists are already familiar with most of them and have not found them persuasive. I'm 100% certain that when evolutionists post evidence in support of evolution that this has not proved 'good enough' for you, either. Others have commented that no amount of bias can prevent you from presenting the evidence. The worse case around here is that moderators are editing or deleting your posts to removed presented material - and if that was your charge I'm sure you'd have ample evidence to back it up.This latest post of yours seems to be an inflammatory attack copy-pasted from elsewhere rather than a stellar contribution towards the overall discussion. Nope - it lets both sides express itself. It does not allow either side to engage in posting unupported assertions, repeat themselves over and over again, post copy and pastes without attribution. Actually it does allow all of that, it just discourages it.If you are going to claim you have evidence to support creationism, you will be expected to present that evidence along with your argument as to way it is evidence that supports one particular view over another. If you can't handle that, and evidence seems to be suggesting that creationists generally can't, then I suggest you move from written debate to spoken debate. There's more scope in a spoken debate to, as Billy Flynn would say, engage in a bit of Razzle Dazzle. The Gish Gallop, for example, is much more effective in spoken debates where the opponent simply does not have the time to research and address all the spurious claim being made. I've been shot down plenty of times at this forum. It comes with the territory of expressing viewpoints that are contrary to other's views. It comes with the territory of debate. If you can't handle people taking shots at you, get out of the sky. Actually, yes. We don't want, however, your constant whining about how unfair it is that people are free to respond the supposed evidence and views in a negative or rebuttal-orientated way. Your views are not sacred, they are not immune from criticism. Those who believe that science supports creationism are welcome to the science fora to put their views forward. It is just, I'm sure, an unfortunate set of circumstances that have meant that those that have so far tried have been unable to keep the argument up - or have resorted to non-scientific reasoning to try and support their position. The charge of ignorance is often put up when a creationist is ignorant of some facet of evolution or logic or what have you.The unwilling to learn charge is given when, despite having been corrected on said facet of evolution, the creationists continue to make erroneous statements about evolution. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority want to be able to debate using Gish Gallops, hit and run tactics, by creating grotesque strawmen and other dishonest tactics that work in spoken debates. If you'd like to debate in a more honest and open way - you'll be perfectly welcomed here.And even if you don't, we'll probably allow you to stay, but there may be some mocking. If there were such a thing as a creationist who argues in good faith, who didn't spend large quantities of time complaining about how unfair things are around here, who presents evidence for creation and attempts to muster an argument around that, who understands evolution and argues against actual evolution rather than some bizarre strawman -- I'm sure we'd allow them to be themselves.Unfortunately, so many creationists just don't live up to those kind of standards. You seemed to have started off looking like you were such a creationist, but over time that image has been tarnished. They all tend to say the same things. They should be entitled to bring up the perceived problems with dinosaur/bird evolution in a thread about the origins of humans. They should be able to bring up thermodynamics and complexity in a thread about whale evolution. They want to say that the Bible contradicts Darwin and that prophecy disproves Einstein in a scientific debate about cytochrome c.In short - they want to be able to have free reign over the forum - they want the debate rules applied so as it favours them, their tactics and their style. The alternative is appreciating the rules of the site and adjusting ones style to accommodate those rules.You have been made a moderator, you have been given access to the moderator forum. Buz was given moderator status. This is because your alternative viewpoint is desired. You use your platform instead to post generalised complaints, rather than raise specific problems with suggestion on how you feel they should be handled and why.If you want to see a biased forum, try evolutionfairytale.com. How many evolutionists have been made moderator over there?

Here's my attempt at a list that is just as chock full of errors as Chuck's. I tried to make sure each item contained serious flaws or errors of fact or logic.

10. You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, yet you frequently blame Zeus and Thor for all the evils of the world.
    ​
9. You will not accept that people evolved from earlier life, but you have no problem believing the Xenu narrative of Scientology that we're all descended from ancient alien astronauts.
   ​
8. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in elves, fairies, and the Great Pumpkin.
   ​
7. You are outraged at the atrocities committed in Allah's name, but you want to bomb the followers of Zeus back to the stone age.
   ​
6. You reject religions that believe gods consort with mortals, yet you believe that lizards consort with water fowl to produce crocoducks.
   ​
5. You seek a science consistent with Genesis, but you reject thermodynamics, computer modeling and the law of gravity.
   ​
4. You are intolerant, judgmental and hateful, but you hate the military and the death penality and love gays and witches.
   ​
3. You reject much of modern science, but you believe everything the Pope says.
   ​
2. You believe unanswered prayers are because atheists pray to Satan.
   ​
1. You understand that atheists do not believe in God because they fear Him.

--Percy

"Constructive criticism" is criticism which suggests how the focus of criticism could be improved. But I don't see much of that in Chuck's post. For instance:

quote:

---

It's such a great debate site with great moderation supposedly, that it only lets one side of the debate express itself? Why can't Creationists express themselves here without being shot down? We are Creationists. Do you want our views and evidence or not? The answer is no, you don't. It's obvious this site isn't about learning thru discussion because if it was the non-Creationists here would be willing to learn about our sides views and accept our arguments on the entire forum, not just in certain sections.

---

I don't see what's constructive about this, or where there's a realistic suggestion for how the moderation of the board could be improved. How should the moderation be different? Does it mean that creationists should be allowed to violate whatever forum guidelines they please? Does it mean that creationists should be allowed to lie? To insult? How would that improve the debate?I know that creationists frequently have issues with moderation - evolutionists do too, incidentally - but what I never get from creationists is how they would like it to be different. Chuck comes close:

quote:

---

Why can't Creationists express themselves here without being shot down?

---

Really? Is this what you want, Buz? To be able to use Percy's website to say whatever you like with no opportunity given for anyone else to respond? How would that be a "debate"? I don't follow, I guess. Can you explain it to me? Shouldn't the truth be able to withstand all assault?

I've seen a few go off and start their own blogs, I think perhaps they prefer the safety of preaching from the pulpit than a two way conversation.There is something else though, the debate style is quite aggressive, it's adversarial, like the trial system. That system works well when there's well briefed advocates but it often fails those who try to defend themselves without the tools or the training.I quite often think that there's a place on these type of fora for the inqisitorial approach to establishing the truth. I find that I'm more often in the situation of wanting to discuss a problem or learn more about something, poke at an idea or explore a nagging doubt with insufficient knowledge of my own to get anywhere with it than put a flag on the hill top and settle down to defend it.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.