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/
> The genius uses his real name as a screen name and has his own wiki entry: (snip)
> He is also scientifically illiterate and because of this does more harm to his friends than his enemies (snip)
> FR is regularly used by wannabe writers as a source of free publicity. Take a look at his claim to fame post, and even if you agree with him, you have to see that he is a horrible writer.
Mate, to be frank: I find personal-attack posts like yours to be a crashing bore. I bet others do, too.
You’re saying he deserves to be harassed because he has the guts to use his real name and his world view isn’t up to your personal standards? I would say that he should expect it, since there are so many judgmental a-holes in the world, but that doesn’t mean he deserves it.
The thing is I can defend what I say within the rules
No, I'm saying that this person is so unaware, or so in need of attention, that he or she uses their real, very unique name on the internet, and is surprised when people harrass him or her. My 12 year old niece knows better. And also, he or she wants to claim erudition when he or she misstates basic scientific facts in its article.
> The thing is I can defend what I say within the rules
Then do so. You’ve been around long enough to know how it’s done properly.
I am a geologist in training and know much of the fossil record and do not believe in Darwin. Nor do dozens of scientists who got their degrees from accredited universities.
That isn’t what your first post sounded like at all. I agree that the responses are to be expected if you put yourself out there. As for his writing; you can disagree with his conclusions, I know I do, but he writes well enough.
[... I find personal-attack posts like yours to
be a crashing bore. I bet others do, too...]
Ditto!
See "Strata Smith" and get back to me when your training is complete.
Read this man’s original post. He is just simply ignorant of scientific method and loose with fact. He then uses FR to promote his writings.
If you are a “professional writer”, then you should be able to defend your writing against criticism.
You seem like you enjoy insulting people by stating the obvious. I am not going to tell you if I am an old earth or young earth creationist because it does not matter in mu point that evolution is one of the least probable events that can occur.
What is your explanation for the evident increase of complexity in fossils from older strata to newer ones? How old do you think the Earth is? If Darwin was wrong, how do you explain the origin of species?
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml
Darwin himself could not explain the appearance of life from nonliving matter and no one has come up with an answer as of yet. Even if we could get this event to happen we would need it to occur millions of times in different locations to ensure a rich enough source of DNA/RNA to continue the increase in complexity and counteract localized extinction events.
You are apparently young, so I will be as kind as I can.
You will never have confidence in your own beliefs until you adopt an epistimological methodology. You can simply adopt faith, which is believing what you are told by an accepted authority or believing what feels good, or you can adopt scientific methodology and at least test your beliefs against empirical evidence.
As a geologist in training, you apparently have some affinity for science. I suggest it as your epistimological paradigm.
Most creationists have been forced to accept "micro-evolution" because it has been so thoroughly demonstrated as fact. They resist "macro-evolution" because it has implications for creationism as described in The Bible.
All normal matter is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. This includes the Pope, a turnip, and the gravel in your driveway.
Being alive then is not what we are made of, but an arrangement of those things or a process involving those things
We can show that chemicals combine in predictable ways based simply on their outer shell electrons. We can create the chemicals of life in a lab. We can demonstrate scientifically, evolution up to the point of viruses. On the other side of the inanimate/ animate divide is generally accepted "micro-evolution"--accepted even by ID and Creationist proponents.
The "holy grail objection" of Creationist/IDers is proof of the animation of inanimate matter. I believe we will be able to produce simple life in a laboratory soon based on the current state-of-the-art biological paractices. But even before that, as a rational, science-leaning, seeker of knowledge have you:
Ever wondered at the fact that the introduction of a chemical that interupts the process of a critical enzyme causes life to cease and the once living thing to become just a mass of chemicals which breaks down into component elements? In other words, we have known that the reverse of the process of life, death, is chemical or physical. Why shouldn't the process of life be the same?
Why do you have to be condescending?
You yourself said I believe in the future science will.... You have total faith in science and the physical world around you.
I'm sorry. Are you going to address my statement?
Also it is impossible for me to argue with an evolutionist because any evidence I give will be cited as some sort of logical fallacy.
Mr. Postelnik, your article exhibited a gross ignorance of logical argumentation exceeded only by your gross ignorance of the subject matter you discussed, Mr. Postelnik. If people respond negatively to such a an article as that, you shouldn’t be surprised.
To everyone else here, your replies of encouragement and support speak well of you all, but sadly Mr. Postelnik is taking advantage of your kindness. His claims of harassment are unfounded whereas he’s attacked other’s wikipedia pages with libelous claims (his IP was logged doing this), spread a press release about this so-called “attack” he’s suffering, and has threatened legal action all because he wrote a really poor article riddled with errors and is upset anyone would actually point those errors out.
Your argument that “You throw a person into a blender you have done nothing to change the physical make up of their body, yet they are now dead.” is exactly the point. God isn’t involved.
If God isn’t necessary to end a life process, why do you think it is necessary to begin it?
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.