Posted on 06/14/2008 8:25:27 PM PDT by 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/
That's just your opinion unless you have the explanation.
For the first time today I actually got queezy reading their posts. Seriously. There is a madness to their thought processes. They go back to a creationist talking points page and return rearmed. How do they not realize that they are just like the global warming goofs polluting science for an unscientific agenda?
Funny, you seem to forget that a distinctive role of science is the falsification of incorrect theories. This is what criticism of evolution does. Why do you want to make evolution immune from criticism, thereby taking evolution out of the realm of scientific investigation?
If you were teaching high school biology, what would you present as the single most powerful argument against evolution?
And since the Louisana law requires teaching the strengths, what would you present as the single most powerful argument in favor of evolution?
1. You wouldn't know science if it bit your witch doctor in the butt.
2. You are a foolish little person who argues for the sake of argument.
3. The quote above is the ramblings of a five year-old.
If you ever want me to respond to you again, please offer some scientific evidence to support your own position. What I think you were grasping for in your quote above is that scientists are professional skeptics and that they demand evidence of some thing's existence before believing it exists. This leads to scientists questioning the foundation of a new theory. Yes they sometimes disprove a theory, by proving it is false using their own evidence. Ethical scientists NEVER "falsify" anything. You need to look up the word "falsify".
Magic is the belief that you can cause things to happen in the material world using supernatural means, and communicate with the dead. "Magic" words and phrases are used called spells. You believe in magic as the origin of life. You feel comfortable defending magic and attacking science.
You are a very primitive thinker, not unlike the ancient Babylonians who wrote the story you accept as your cosmology.
As much as I feel sorry for you, I feel much sorrier for the mother in whose basement you reside.
1. You wouldn't know science if it bit your witch doctor in the butt.
2. You are a foolish little person who argues for the sake of argument.
3. The quote above is the ramblings of a five year-old.
If you ever want me to respond to you again, please offer some scientific evidence to support your own position. What I think you were grasping for in your quote above is that scientists are professional skeptics and that they demand evidence of some thing's existence before believing it exists. This leads to scientists questioning the foundation of a new theory. Yes they sometimes disprove a theory, by proving it is false using their own evidence. Ethical scientists NEVER “falsify” anything. You need to look up the word “falsify”.
Magic is the belief that you can cause things to happen in the material world using supernatural means, and communicate with the dead. “Magic” words and phrases are used called spells. You believe in magic as the origin of life. You feel comfortable defending magic and attacking science.
You are a very primitive thinker, not unlike the ancient Babylonians who wrote the story you accept as your cosmology.
As much as I feel sorry for you, I feel much sorrier for the mother in whose basement you reside.
You really need to check out the "Go God Go" episode of "South Park". There are plenty of atheist weirdos out there as sensitive about their atheism as the over-sensitive religious people. I consider it intellectual weakness regardless.
I have never watched "South Park" and I don't intend to start now. ; - )
That’s too bad. It’s the most intelligent show on television today and about the only venue where conservative/libertarian humor is done right.
It's been a couple days now, and you haven't given us your take on the mimimum age of the universe as computed using trigonometry. Nor have you named the missing mechanism required by evolution but not observed operating in the present, nor have you listed an example of a rate of change found in the fossil record that exceeds rates of change observed in the present.
Actually, you’ve done nothing but attack from the beginning and I haven’t seen any “defending” posts. Last you demanded a copy of their emails. So you don’t say I’m the one writing them, why don’t you email me, I’ll forward you theirs and you can email them back and verify. Hope you took my advice and got a book on evolution, so you could see the facts that you had wrong. Funny how those who reject evolution generally know more about it, and approach it with more intellectual honesty, than those who subscribe to it.
Thanks Razzle,
I agree that it’s much easier to point out the ridiculousness of Darwinism. The Biblical points were brought for a second reason, though, proof of the Divine. The funny thing is that the first column had nothing to do with evolution. I specifically stated in it that I wasn’t getting involved in a discussion on evolution b/c everything in the column holds true whether one believes in evolution or not. All it was about were logical proofs for Divine existence.
That was lost on them (I think purposely, though perhaps b/c they’re so caught up in the religion of darwinism, unlike Darwin, who was not). So I followed up with another column on the science, which does challenge evolution.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3550
Abiogenesis is in fact an impossibility. But the biggest problem evolutionists have are the lack of real transitional fossils. We have a plethora of ape fossils (supposedly the early stages, according to evolutionists) and a plethora of human fossils (supposedly the latter stages) but nothing in between. That should be quite telling, or what happened to all those middle generations supposedly spanning tens of thousands of years (seeing that we have what supposedly came before them)?
It’s also interesting how the main evolutionist on this thread has to bring up a thousand irrelevant points, make challenges regarding factual statements like “chemistry and biology are two different fields of study,” etc.
Anyway, for a recent debate on the issues, in which it’s clear that most evolutionists know little about evolution, feel free to see a rough transcript of an entire debate.
http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/yomin-postelnik-debates-with-atheists
Of course Soliton has to turn your point that science seeks to disprove incorrect theories, as was clear to anyone who can read, into accusations that scientists falsify things. He then has to post the same tripe twice to himself (see 2 posts below yours) while attacking your mother, I guess in the hopes you don’t notice because you’re not pinged (as he quotes you and then posts to himself).
Don’t you just love the superior logic of the evolutionists? Isn’t it great how they always stick to facts and logic instead of maligning, spinning and twisting and going off on tangents?
At least they don’t call you, googlestalk you or spoof your IP. You need to write a column that challenges them for that.
Oh, I see he did at least have the courtesy to ping you before double posting it to himself. He’s a pillar of integrity.
They aren't "function" of evolution; They are the processes that comprise evolution. Together they define what evolution is. What I asked you for is an example of a process required to make evolution work that hasn't been observed.
If you think punk-eek is a problem for evolution, then give me an example from the literature of punk-eek that shows change occurring at a rate faster than rates observed in the present.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.