Who is getting tired of Ken's ridculous post?

To: Mr. HombreAdminAsgara's complaints would be more credible if she hadn't closed down a non-debate string in the link room. I see evolutionists have links to specific issues but creationist are not afforded the same opportunity.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-08-2004]

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 damageActually, 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 emotionI 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.SUMMARYI 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]

TO: SchrafinatorI 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]

TO: SchrafinatorWhen 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 and
Page 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]

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]

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

Dear Brian:Thank you for being such a gentleman and correcting my error. I certainly did not mean to call a lady a gentelman and it was purely an inadvertent mistake on my part. My apologies to schrafinator.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 04-08-2004]