Anyone else notice this pattern?

quote:

---

It's good that you admit you are condescending but maybe you are confusing it with being judgmental, or maybe you are both. I don't care either, I don't have much to do with those of your superior attitude when you don't understand a goddamn thing about the effect you have on others. It's called EMPATHY. Did you study that in your fine education?
If this sounds angry, it is. I don't have much empathy or understanding for you and this is the effect you have on those who don't take kindly to your attitude.
What are you people trying to prove??????????????????

---

Sympathy would probably be more accurate.

quote:

---

I don't think you understood my point which is: when you point out to creationists their misconceptions about creation (not the other way around), how do you respond to them on their chosen subject?

---

As several have mentioned, I do not respond on their subject but on the flaws of their subject. If someone claims a magical sky pixie created dinosaurs and humans to live together over a 3 day time frame, then I point out the inconsistency of that view with the evidence.

quote:

---

For instance, I post a statement that I believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If you don't think this is true, how would you respond?

---

Well, that would be a red herring and I would call it as such. The only relevance it would have is if the Christian tried to use it to putty in the plot holes of their world view to try and explain away imperfections and mutation. Outside of that specific niche it would have no use in the conversation. Sometimes it is brought up to fill those plot holes, other times it is brought up to try and build an ad hominem about a fallen mind trying to grasp their particular magic sky pixie.Of course, if they prefer to debate philosophy to science we could have a field day with that particular act of the Christian pixie's bad parenting skills.