Being attacked by Militant Atheist Group - Advise?

Yomin Postelnik

[Yomin Postelnik]

Hi everyone,

I'm just wondering if anyone had this experience before. I wrote a column about the proof of the existence of a Divine Creator (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2029192/posts ) and am now getting google stalked by an Atheist Group in Austin, in addition to phone calls and emails.

I'm not going to stop saying/writing what I believe or stop speaking out against these tactics, but was wondering if anyone here had experience and knows what to do about google, etc. I know some of us may disagree on the issues, but I don't think there's much debate about these tactics.

The full story of what happened is available here: http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/on-the-lies-and-harassment-tactics-of-martin-wagner-and-russell-glasser/

[Coyoteman]

I have used hard science effectively to refute your positions. You’ve been pretty quiet. Care to explain why? You’re trying to make it sound as if authority and say-so power are all that count. Are we feeling the need to “beat up” (or convince ourselves we’ve beat up) on someone who is smaller than us, less prepared or experienced to debate on scientific grounds?

Dave, you have become boring. You haven't had a new idea in a couple of years, nor have you learned a whit of science.

Arguing with you is slightly lower on my to do list than dusting my dental floss collection.

[TigersEye]

No oversimplification was possible. I used your logic and constructed an edifying analogy. The analogy is not the question your logic is. In your whole rambling screed you completely avoided answering the substance of my challenge.

The word evolution is about change not origin. Change can be studied without regard to origin.

I'd avoid it too if I were you. There is no way to bob and weave around the plain definitions of the words.

How can agnostics and atheists challenge Christians with silly questions like "who made God" and "how can God be infinite" when you can't answer the same questions about our universe?

I guess you'll have to find some and ask them.

[TigersEye]

Am I to understand, then, that you do not consider the transformation from non-living to living to be change?!

I suppose that is what you understand evolution theory to be. In spite of every evidence against it starting with the definition of the word 'evolution.'

[Soliton]

How would you set about proving a thing which natural science cannot test?

Now that you have admitted that ID/Creationism is not scientific, the argument is over. It is pure supposition based on faith. Great. Teach it in church and leave science for science class.

[Soliton]

You can’t observe evolution before us, so you must imitate it in the lab, controlling for all the various different factors you don’t want to be there.

You are just plain wrong. Observation is how it all got started. Observation is occurring today. Your religious beliefs are blinding you to fact.

"Evolution 2008" just finished. There were tons of symposia on every conceivable aspect of evolution including direct observation. http://www.cce.umn.edu/conferences/evolution/symposia.html

These are real scientist using the same scientific method that created the computer you use, the car you drive and the medicine you take. IT IS THE SAME SCIENCE! You use it and then you abuse it. The ONLY reason you don't like evolution is because it disagrees with your personal faith.

[Soliton]

"I would have been right to do so." What do you mean by "right"?

The usual meaning, "correct".

[razzle]

My advice is to stick with the facts and not to use the Bible to argue with the darwinists/atheists. I also believe in the young earth but our case against darwinism is much stronger than proving a young earth.

[valkyry1]

No,

That is engineering technology and manufacturing.

And this is just one of many logical-fallacies/sleight of hand tricks evos engage in in an attempt to elevate their beliefs to a higher status. Like saying “evolution is a theory, gravity is a theory” in the same sentence.

[Soliton]

That is engineering technology and manufacturing

Engineering, technology and manufacturing are just applied science. Transistors are simple things that operate based on their atomic makeup. They wouldn't exist without atomic theory. Engineers are people who use science to make the world a better place.

[tacticalogic]

You should be less hasty in assuming your definition of science is the same as the Moderator’s. But I do not think it wise to try to force their hand in coming down on one side or the other in a matter of obvious emotional significance for many of you. Usually when trying to force a moderator’s hand, both sides lose.

The question doesn't seem to be "what is and isn't science", but "what is and isn't religion". Right now, the criteria seem to be getting defined so loosely as to cover as a matter of "faith" anything that involves "faith" in the absoute truth expressed in documents according to the interpretation of the person reading it.

It appears that "Constitutionalism" is getting pretty close to qualifying as a "religion".

[js1138]

There is little controversy in these.

That would be because people like you are either too intimidated to spar with Blam and SunkenCiv, or too stupid to understand their posts.

[js1138]

What you posted is irrelevant to my statements. Go back and read what I said, and read the citations that I provided (at your request).

There were lots of previous thinkers who realized the fossil record indicated a succession of fauna. Only a moron could look at that evidence and fail to notice that there was a sequence of strata, identifiable by distinctive fossils. Many thinkers considered the possibility of multiple, successive creations. (How they reconciled that with the Bible, I don’t know.)

It was geology, particularly the work of Nicholas Steno and William Smith, that required a theoretical explanation, which Darwin and Wallace were the first to provide.