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]

Stop playing games. You ignored all my points countering them and repeat the same line “experts disagree.” What about all the experts on the other side, the ones who actually use fact instead of dogmatic adherence to an illogical view that never holds up in debate, that being Darwinism.

Concerning the classification of H. ergaster experts agree that it is intermediate and a transitional.

Creationists disagree for religious reasons. For religious reasons they can't abide by transitionals--and so they make up all manner of excuses to ignore the data.

I'll listen to the scientists.

[Yomin Postelnik]

I think I said it best on another thread, so I’ll repeat it here. The part about going haywire doesn’t apply to you, as you haven’t, and you’re being civil, but the part about denial does. I presented a logical point and instead of presenting an argument or accepting it, you’re launching into a tirade about creationists not having logic (interesting, when you’re the one who can’t answer the logical point) and that you’ll listen to scientists (discounting, of course, all scientists who disagree), proving that Darwinism is indeed a very brainwashing faith (typical Darwinian we’re right even when shown to be wrong, we have “faith” in our scientists - I know those aren’t the words you’d choose to describe your philosophy, but you’ve shown them to be true).

Anyway, here’s what I wrote with regard to the religion of Darwinism and many of the points have just been shown to be true by your reaction:

The adherents to evolutionism include many militants who definitely accept Darwinism by faith and go haywire like a Mooney being decultified when challenged by valid counterarguments.

That said, I wouldn’t call it scientism, as in truth, their religion is the opposite of real science. They have a closed minded and one sided dogmatic allegiance to a pseudo science that refuses to allow them to consider any alternatives. When they lose on science they take to personally maligning or otherwise attacking their opponets. I’d specify that their religions are Darwinism, Algorism, Fakegaygeneism, etc., but not sciencism, because they are against science (maybe anti-logism).

[Coyoteman]

That said, I wouldn’t call it scientism, as in truth, their religion is the opposite of real science. They have a closed minded and one sided dogmatic allegiance to a pseudo science that refuses to allow them to consider any alternatives. When they lose on science they take to personally maligning or otherwise attacking their opponets. I’d specify that their religions are Darwinism, Algorism, Fakegaygeneism, etc., but not sciencism, because they are against science (maybe anti-logism).

Getting back to the point we were discussing:

By 1.9 million years ago, another lineage of the genus Homo emerged in Africa. This species was Homo ergaster. Traditionally, scientists have referred to this species as Homo erectus and linked this species name with a proliferation of populations across Africa, Europe, and Asia. Yet, since the first discoveries of Homo erectus, it had been noted that there were differences between the early populations of "Homo erectus" in Africa, and the later populations of Europe, Africa and Asia. Many researchers now separate the two into distinct species Homo ergaster for early African "Homo erectus", and Homo erectus for later populations mainly in Asia. Since modern humans share the same differences as H. ergaster with the Asian H. erectus, scientist consider H. ergaster as the probable ancestor of later Homo populations.

H. ergaster had a rounded cranium and a prominent browridge. Its teeth were much reduced in size, especially when compared to Australopithecus. Several features that distinguish H. ergaster from H. erectus are thinner bones of the skull and the lack of an obvious sulcus, or depression, just behind the browridge.

By 1.6 million years ago, an advance in stone tool technology is identified with H. ergaster. Known as the Achulean stone tool industry, it consisted of large cutting tools, primarily hand axes and cleavers. Originally thought to be responsible for the spread of early humans beyond Africa, it is now known that the migration out of Africa predates this tool industry.

At the top-left is the amazingly well preserved KNM ER 3733 cranium. Second from the top is the type specimen of the Homo ergaster species, the KNM ER 992 mandible. At the bottom is the famous Turkana Boy KNM WT 15000, a nearly complete skeleton dating back to 1.6 million years [see the original website for illustrations].

What evidence do you have to present that shows H. ergaster is not a transitional?

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[Yomin Postelnik]

Refuted already, in great detail. Please answer the questions instead of spamming an old post.

Anyway, you won’t, so have a happy 4th and I wish you well.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Now there’s a great post.