|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1524 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who is getting tired of Ken's ridculous post? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
The title of this topic:
quote: Regardless of whatever Ken's mental problems may be, he apparently does have the awesome psychic ability to compel many members to read and reply to his messages, and to cause them extreme mental anguish in the process. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Oh, I certainly agree that he is ill-mannered, but it was his other issues, as well as his strange lack of emotion, that makes me think he might have brain damage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
"Extreme mental anguish?"
I hope not! Responsive Creationists are pretty scarce these days, so who can blame us for trying to converse? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-09-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
Dear Ladies and gentlemen:
I do thank you for your concern but I wanted to clarify the dialogue in this string. 1: re: the alledged brain damage Actually, there is none. I scored high on the Thinkfast neurobic software game (see: http://www.brain.com) which was designed by the military I understand for pilots in order to gauge and expand their mental abilities (my friend had a copy and I liked it so much I bought it too). I have also scored high on another psychometric software package as well. 2. re: the alledged lack of emotion I see no reason to let others dictate my emotional state. In short, I believe it is often not what happens to you that decides your fate in life but often it depends on how you respond to what happens to you. I also believe we have a lot of control of how we respond especially if we are strengthened inwardly by God. 3. My intelligence. I am not one to put much stock in IQ test and equating them with intelligence although they have some validity in certain respects. My IQ though is 130. 4. re: My alledged inability to get along with others. I have just insisted on fairness in some regards and Percy seems to have agreed with me recently in this regard. I also have radically different beliefs than most people at this forum and some people allow themselves to be offended because of this. I also am not afraid to call people on their bad behavior although I do realize this may have repurcussions. I also have a strong conviction in regards to the veracity of my beliefs based on personal and careful study and my own personal experience which butresses my study. I would also say that my friend who is a professor at the University of Rochestor said I would make a perfect administrator due to my diplomatic nature. I realize, though that debate and promulgation of ones beliefs often can raise others blood pressure. I also realize that it is often necessary in debate to be assertive and sometimes to be very assertive. I will say though that never did I resort to ad hominems and regrettably I cannot say the same of many who debated me. I would agree with the gentleman who says I have an ability to get others to read and respond to my post. My intention though was not to provoke the hard core evolutionist but to influence the individuals who are more open. I realize, however, that my material did and will continue to provoke the ardent evolutionist for as long as I post here. I would also say that I work in a environment where personal skills are the difference between success and failure and I am doing very well when I am engaged in my work endeavors. SUMMARY I think that some people need to focus more on the subject matter being discussed rather than focusing on me. If I die tomorrow the evidence that is before all of us and its implications will still have be addressed. [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
I think that some people need to focus more on the subject matter being discussed.. Perhaps if you were to actually follow your own advice others would not be enticed to wonder why you are unwilling or unable to give direct responses to issues addressed to you. The prolonged stupidity of claiming that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution and then failing to respond to a fundamental question on whether the earth is an open system as defined in the second law is a case in point. I take the rest of your post with a pinch of salt. Your performance seems strongly at variance with your claims; I choose to assess you by your performance on this board.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Brain damage can be very specific, Ken, and people with it are often very intelligent and highly functional. I can think of several likely reasons that someone would not begin to use the correct reply button when asked to: 1) They have some frontal lobe damage which makes it difficult for them to suppress an old habit (using the general reply button). 2) They are just being a prick about it and are not using the correct button simply because they were asked to do so. 3) They are just not all that quick on the uptake and don't learn things very quickly. If it were me, I'd want the brain damage excuse.
quote: Ken, I had to hound you for days, posting the same simple, yes or no question nearly ten times to get you to answer. You compared scientists to a murderous religious government, a incredibly insulting, rude, and inflammatory statement, yet you refuse to either retract it or defend it. You pretty much post bare links instead of debating, amd when your opponent wants to discuss a portion of the link you sent them to, you either ignore the post completely, respond but fail to address the issues, or post a sermon. If this isn't you behaving badly in the debate, I'd like to know what it is.
quote: Please explain (not that you will) what was "diplomatic" about your "Taliban" comment, and futher, what was "diplomatic" about your refusal to defend or retract it.
quote: Un-fucking-believable. Ken, I had to hound you for days to get you to answer a simple question. I would dearly LOVE to "focus more on the subject matter being discussed" than on you, but you refused to respond to any question in any substantive way. The only reason we started talking about your behavior and personality was because we were rather impressed that someone would behave as poorly as you did and break as many of the forum rules as you did in such a short amount of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
TO: Schrafinator
I try to be judicious in regards to those whom I respond to in terms of the length of my response. If a person uses ad hominens, rants, or is exhibiting other undesirous behavior in regards to being a reasonable discussant I tend to give very short answers or ignore them after a fair warning. Sometimes, I give bare links if I am pressed for time or the person is merely looking for information and is not particularly looking to have a discussion or debate. I would say that at times you can be very reasonable and other times you are very unreasonable. I think your "neurological analysis" (or should I say ad hominem) of me via the internet are examples of your less reasonable moments. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
See, Ken, it seems you haven't learned much.
In my previous message, I provided VERY SPECIFIC counters to your claim that you are "diplomatic", and you ignore them. I also provided VERY SPECIFIC examples to your own bad behavior in debate, yet you ignore those, too, painting yourself as some kind of innocent victim. You have brought ALL of this on yourself, Ken.
quote: That's pure bullshit. Please tell me what is unreasonable about the following posts; they are most of the the initial responses to your claim that the Earth is a closed system. People only started to become frustrated with you when you refused to correct your mistake regarding the 2LoT or defend your position:
quote: quote: quote: Ken. You give bare links ALL THE TIME. Perhaps you are pressed for time because you opened too many threads, hmmm? Also, the reason people post all of those responses, and specific questions to you is because they want to debate with you. Links are fine to reference more detailed information, but when people come back with specific questions or comments about the contents of those websites, you ignore the questions. This is a refusal to debate in good faith.
quote: I am very reasonable all the time, Ken. It is you that forces your debate opponents to such extremes because you refuse to debate in good faith. ------------------------------------- Now, let me REPEAT the most important parts of my previous post, which you ignored, true to your form:
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
TO: Schrafinator
When a person saying some entity is like another entity he is not necessarily saying it is identical. I know that macroevolutionist try to keep criticisms of the macroevolutionary hypothesis out of the schools and journals. I know that the Islamacist prevent academic freedom and freedom of the press too in the countries they control (I am not against a board having one position or a private science journal having one view expressed if they are being reasonable especially). I would also say that materialism has only become dominant in the countries it has practiced represssion (Soviet union, North Korea, etc). We also know that when materialist and communism mix it is disastrous whereas when communal living and Christianity (JPUSA, etc)or Judaism (kibbutz) exist it is not so disastrous. I do not think you can get away from the fact that a large percentage of macroevolutionist profess to be materialist in outlook. We also know that the communist have almost inevitably freely chosen materialism and the macroevolutionary hypothesis and they have been butchers in history. Am I saying that all materialist are butchers? No. Am I saying that often when a society forgets God it turns into the "Lord of the flies?" especially when they have had no or very poor western/Christian influence? Yes, I am. I you you might not like these unpleasant facts but sometimes diplomats don't sugar coat the truth. Lastly, I addressed you 2LOT objections via teleonomy (SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? - ChristianAnswers.Net ). And so far nobodody has offered a credible abiogenesis scenario so materialism is still trying to build a macroevolutionary hypothesis in the middle of the ocean. I would also say that nobody had addressed the information in these links: http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php andPage not found - Apologetics Press and http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.html - therefore have made the ocean trench they are trying to build their castle on even deeper. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-12-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
kendemyer writes: I know that macroevolutionist try to keep criticisms of the macroevolutionary hypothesis out of the schools and journals. It is important to note that it isn't "criticisms of the macroevolutionary hypothesis" that should be kept out of "schools and journals". There are plenty of known problems for scientists to work on in the area of macroevolutionary theory, and there can be no legitimate objection to presenting and discussing these issues in public school science classrooms. The actual objection is to the introduction of faux problems with little or no scientific foundation. This characterizes all objections originating from the Creationist perspective. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: As has been cited many different times on this site, christian cultures have committed evil as well. Hitler, for one, wanted to create a pure CHRISTIAN nation. Perhaps we can both agree that humans can be evil, no matter the conditions and philosophies they are taught. I am saying that power corrupts regardless of creed or theology. This has been shown to be true throughout history.
quote: What we want is your involvement with these issues. In the proper forums, you can refer to links but you also need to give us a synopsis of the main points and how you think it is important to the overall discussion. I could just as easily say "No creationist has ever refuted the massive evidence in support of evolution at this link: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy." It doesn't make for good debate, it just creates a battle of the links which people may or may not read. Also, if you are able to synopsize the information in your links, that lets us know that you understand the material being debated. At times (eg, 2nd law of thermo) your lack of knowledge about certain subjects prevents good debate. Oh, and statements like "therefore have made the ocean trench they are trying to build their castle on even deeper" only makes you sound like you want to call people names instead of actually debating science. This is why some people become are less cooperative in these threads, because of your haughtiness. Remember, the meek shall inherit the earth. [This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-12-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You know, Ken, I have tried and tried and tried to be really honest and straight with you.
I have practically begged you to debate in a productive manner, yet you continue to avoid my direct questions, ignore my debate points, and post bare links with out accompanying discussion. Why should I go to your links, Ken, when I know damn well you won't respond substantively to any comment or criticism I have with their contents? Responding to your posts is an exercise in futility simply because you refuse to debate in good faith. You are not worth my time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
Dear Schafinator:
I do not think you want to deal with the near past in terms of materialist. Perhaps, you do not know much about Russian history or the history of Eastern Europe and Asia. I do not think, however, you want to learn. If you want to play the selective perception game in terms of the near past, I do not see much point in talking about the more distant past with you. You seem to not want to rationally compare Christianized cultures with materialist ones. I certainly am willing to say wrongs happened and do happen in Christianized countries, but I know they compare very favorably with cultures where the materialist had power. So if you do not want to look at my links that is fine. I do not think we are not going to have a productive conversation anyways. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-12-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3417 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
Ken,
Your tactics are transparent. If you ever faithfully debate the scientific assertions you've previously brought up, people might then respond to your theological/moral/political questions. So far it's more of a ken canter than a gish gallop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
Dear Lindum:
I know the materialist cannot debate effectively regarding the cultures they have been involved in that did not have a strong Christianized past. It remains a historical fact that the materialist have the most bloody past compared to other societies. There just is no way the materialist can effectively debate in this arena. Jesus said, "By your fruits you shall know them." I know the materialist fruit is very bitter. As far as the 2 main post I have set up in the "free for all" section I really have not seen any real attempts at substantive post to respond to for the most part. I did, however, try to dialogue with those who were perhaps acting in good faith. Based on his post to the board, I did think schafinator was a somewhat of a controlling blowhard and being that I don't particularly like such behavior I gave him his "yes or no answer" within my links instead of outside it like he demanded. He seemed very obsessive about getting it his way and eventually I gave the yes or no answer outside the link to get him out of my hair. I also think my links gave some useful commentary in addition to its "yes or no" answer. As far as me using tactics over substance, I would say I have given adequate material to refute the macroevolutionary hypothesis. I would say that there seems to be entirely too much focus on me and my alledged underhanded tactics rather than dealing with more substantive matters. I believe the focus on me is due to the fact that those who oppose my material cannot effectively refute it. Sincerely, Ken
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024