It is not my place to try to convince you. I have done my part and I will keep you in my prayers now as I said. So please just move on in peace and love my brother, you are wasting your time I assure you.
But you forget the lurkers, who are always with us. 76 of them right now (as of the moment I started this edit). How you conduct yourself in discussion (this is a discussion forum, not a circle-jerk. If you are looking for a circle-jerk, then find a creationist forum where non-creationists are immediately expelled the moment they raise any kind of question (several members here have had that experience) while the creationists are encouraged to circle up to their hearts' content. Of course, they'll never learn anything either.
Creationist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International and associated with Answers in Genesis also expressed concern about the negative effects for the Christian message when onlookers watch a Christian use bad claims and arguments (which is true of all creationist and most Christian arguments, but Sarfati was careful to not go there). From his feedback letter (AiG Negative Feedback, 02 December 2002 (link broken)) in response to Kent Hovind's angry letter denouncing the AiG article, "Claims We Really Wish Creationists Would Not Use":
quote:"As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ‘the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said—that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not ‘evidence’."
"But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a ‘legitimate’ excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an ‘advice’ article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being ‘slaughtered’ in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?"
" ... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. ... We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments."
His colleague, Dr. Don Batten, said of Carl Baugh, a very rich source of really bad creationist claims:
quote:It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!
Both of those leading creationists were issuing the same warnings that I have been for decades: using false claims can only do harm to your cause and to your own faith. It has been said that creationism is perhaps the greatest leading contributor to the spread and growth of atheism.
By demonstrating to the lurkers the weakness of your position, you are making your own contribution to that effect.
Sorry child. I Cor 13:11. It's time for you to stop thinking as a child and speaking as a child and to become an adult.
A couple decades ago, a rabbi co-wrote a book, Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, To Think About God. Basically, many adults have very childish ideas about "God". Why? Because they had developed those ideas in childhood and have never revisited those ideas to make them more mature.
That is one of the reasons why I urge believers to think about and question their beliefs. So they can replace their childish ideas with a more mature approach to their faith.
Well, for one thing knowing that you have an audience can keep one from blatantly dishonest shenanigans (though not immune to inappropriate drunken posts).
For example there's that local YEC activist I had a 20-year email correspondence with. He was the most pathological liar I have ever encountered. And the most dishonest. As long as he knew that nobody else was watching, he felt free to engage in the worst and most vicious mocking and lying. He was the one who demanded answers to his proselytizing "impossible questions" while being completely unable to answer of my simple questions to him like "What do you mean by that?" BTW, he did not understand his own questions but was just regurgitating them in typical creationist fashion -- for an example, refer to my page, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?, which has direct bearing on your own plan to lurk in alleyways near schools in order to accost children with your religion.
If he knew he had an audience, he would have behaved better, but he didn't so he didn't. He did bring in third party "atheist friend", but it was obviously just him wielding a sockpuppet.
The other example is my malicious ex-wife. Even after two decades, the only time she behaves like a normal person is when other people are present so she has to behave in front of them.