Who is getting tired of Ken's ridculous post?

People, the more I interact with Ken the more likely I think it is that he has some brain damage.I'm statring to think about that old taunt, which in this case might actually be true:"I wouldn't want to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person!"

Oh, just because his grammar and spelling is good doesn't indicate anything WRT brain damage. Brain damage doesn't have to affect these things, or intelligence, for that matter.Damage to the brain can be very specific, affecting, say, the attention span, or logical abilities of a person only. A person can become obsessive, or emotionally volatile after brain damage, as well.The fact that he seemed to have a very hard time learning which reply button to use and was often kind of incoherent leads me to suspect some kind of damage.We'll never really know, of course, so this is all speculation.

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.

"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]

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

I also am not afraid to call people on their bad behavior although I do realize this may have repurcussions.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Loudmouth:You may want to brush up on the second law of thermodynamics. The way in which creationist misuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LoT), you would not be able to go from a single cell zygote to an adult human. This is disorder (the food you eat) to order (your body).

​

How about you use the 2LoT the way that it was actually devised, as a transfer of energy. For a non-organic example, if everything were going to disorder, then there should not be separate fresh water and brine water (sea water). It is the INPUT OF ENERGY FROM THE SUN that drives this system, as it drives ecosystems across the globe. If energy is available for work, order CAN AND DOES come from disorder. This does not violate the 2LoT. People who say that evolution violates the 2LoT are full of it and do not understand the laws to begin with.

---

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre: Regardless of whether or not evolution (or a ferilized egg growing into a baby or a seed growing into a tree, etc.) violates the 2LOT is sort of beside the point, considering that creationism depends on miracles from on high. When have these ever been replicated in the lab? Where is the "credible evidence" for the creation hypothesis?
The Bible, of course, is so stringently scientific. It declares that people have been created from dust, folks rise from the dead, the Sun stands still in the air, and plenty of other phenomena that seem to defy what we know about science. Conveniently, the Bible tells us that believing without seeing is the noble way to approach its claims.

​

Materialistic science is based on the assumption that if natural law were subject to the whims of a supernatural entity, we would see evidence of this. Why has science only uncovered material mechanisms for all phenomena? Why does it seem that natural laws are the balance between regularity and randomness in our universe, not any willful being controlling things?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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 would say that at times you can be very reasonable and other times you are very unreasonable.

---

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:

---

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 also am not afraid to call people on their bad behavior although I do realize this may have repurcussions.

---

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:

---

Ken: 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.

---

quote:

---

Please explain (not that you will) (I was right! You DIDN'T explain this!) what was "diplomatic" about your "Taliban" comment, and futher, what was "diplomatic" about your refusal to defend or retract it.

---

quote:

---

Ken: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.

---

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.

---

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.