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/
Email me. I’ll send it to you and you post them. I don’t know what your problem is on these threads.
If it turns into a loose discussion but everything is civil that’s a good thing.
***My understanding of the mods’ approach to caucus and ecumenical threads is that civility is a requirement on the restricted threads but not on the open threads. Your concern for keeping it civil suggests that you did not intend this to be an open thread by the RM’s standards.
My questions and statements are quite clear. I started out defending you but you have yet to specify exactly how you have been attacked. Now why would you send the info to me and ask me to post it? What reason is there for that ‘round about way of doing things? Your very manner seems deceitful.
No kidding. But read his posting history. It's full of it. This is just a typical response.
Like so many evos on FR when pressed for their credentials.
It turns out that most of them have no scientific background. It’s a belief system that they adhere to and claim they are right because of the appeal to authority, which they so despise when others do it.
I just love how the non-scientists tell the scientists that they are wrong just because they disagree with them.
It turns out that most of them have no scientific background. It’s a belief system that they adhere to and claim they are right because of the appeal to authority, which they so despise when others do it.
Do you really want to compare credentials?
I just love how the non-scientists tell the scientists that they are wrong just because they disagree with them.
We see this a lot on these threads. In almost all cases it is religious fundamentalists telling scientists they are wrong. You are one of the prime offenders.
Because of this uneducated nitpicking a large number of scientists have left FR.
//Evolution sprang out of geology//
Do you have citations for this?
That's been going on as long as there have been scientists. Even the scientists tell the scientists they're wrong. The non-scientists aren't in any better shape - they can't even agree on exactly what it is the scientists are wrong about.
It's my own. At the time Darwin took his voyage, his only scientific training was in geology. By Darwin's time geology was dependent on fossils for identifying and sequencing strata. Geologists used fossils to determine relative ages of strata, but had no way of determining absolute ages.
One of the books Darwin took with him was Lyell's, which promoted uniformitarianism and implied a great age for geologic features. Thinking about gradual biological change was a parallel thought to thinking about gradual geological change.
Those are my words, but not my ideas. You can find them in any history of science.
From your post it seems you are either trying to change the subject of your assertion (that Evolution sprang out of geology) or you believe that evolution originated with Darwin.
Such common knowledge as you suggest, it should be very easy for you to provide at least a few citations here on your own.
Okay so you are not going to provide any citations for your assertion on where evolution sprang from.
Actually I expected as much.
http://darwinthegeologist.org/
http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4296
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/planning.nsf/viewAttachments/GFRH-79LDXM/$file/charles-darwin-and-geology.pdf
http://www.crystalinks.com/darwin.html
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/GalapagosWWW/Darwin.html
http://www.amazon.com/Charles-Darwins-Notebooks-1836-1844-Transmutation/dp/0801416604
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/theory.html
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/person.asp?LinkID=mp01196
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574327/charles_darwin.html
http://www.sc.edu/library/spcoll/nathist/darwin/darwin5.html
I could go on, but it would be a waste of time. I forgot that you are Running wolf, the banned Freeper and retread. Exactly why you are allowed back under a new name is beyond me, but we’ll see how long it lasts.
There is nothing there that establishes ‘evolution sprang from geology’
Obviously you dont understand and/or are unaware of the history and origins of evolution.
Of course you did not forget, your intent is to silence all doubters and opposition.
I can live with who I am, and if somehow I was not here it would not change anything. I was not banned.
What is far beyond me, is the lengths evolutionists are allowed to go on this forum and what they get away with under the guise of science.
For 95% of you, the post history says it all. And you, coyote and the vast majority do not ‘do science’ here, at your anti-freeper site darwin central, or at any other forum you may post on.
Darwinism, evolutionsm, and all its variants are essentially hamanistic relgions in the name of science.
You are wrong.
It is now official policy that science is not a religion. See the following post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2031294/posts?page=116#116
It is now official policy that science is not a religion.
***That happened on this very thread, in post #116, and it’s why I’m asking the moderator for his criteria in determining that policy. It seems ironic that the same folks who want protection using a caucus type of system on science threads are the ones who claim that it’s official policy that Scientism is not a religion, as if the Religion Moderator on Free Republic was the Final Authority on the subject of whether something is a religion.
Mark 4:22 “For there is nothing hidden but it must be disclosed, nothing kept secret except to be brought to light.”
1 Cor 4:5b He will bring into the light of day all that at present is hidden in darkness, and he will expose the secret motives of men’s hearts.
I am just tired of science threads being trashed by fundamentalists who interject their religious beliefs into non-religious discussions.
They have driven away a lot of scientists from this website. In the real world the same attitudes have driven away a lot of folks--whose votes are ever more critical--from the conservative cause.
I happen to believe that conservatism does not equal anti-science fundamentalism, and I am resisting that equation wherever I can.
OK?
As I said, if I had remembered who you are, I would have realized that responding to you is a waste of time.
I’m sure they’re being prayed for, though.
Ok, we can all see your motives and that’s a good thing. My motives are actually very similar. I also would hope to see a flowering of scientific discussion on this website. I see that folks who believe in scientism have a harsh, materialistic, survival-of-the-fittest demeanor that drives many from discussing philosophical implications on this website. I think that scientism is rapidly becoming a religion, and that’s part of the reason why the adherents want to have a caucus-type protection for their discussions. I think we simply need just a little bit more structure in how we set up the crevo discussions and things should go just fine.
In actuality, my secret motive comment was not aimed at you, it was aimed at the other recipient.
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.