Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who is getting tired of Ken's ridculous post?
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 31 of 47 (91294)
03-09-2004 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by nator
03-08-2004 6:56 PM


What a mind!!!
The title of this topic:
quote:
Who is getting tired of Ken's ridculous (sic) post?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 03-08-2004 6:56 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 03-09-2004 7:37 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 47 (91328)
03-09-2004 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Chiroptera
03-08-2004 7:32 PM


Re: just ill-mannered
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2004 7:32 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 47 (91329)
03-09-2004 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Adminnemooseus
03-09-2004 12:47 AM


Re: What a mind!!!
"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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-09-2004 12:47 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 47 (91819)
03-11-2004 6:42 PM


TO: ALL
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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by wj, posted 03-11-2004 8:54 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 03-11-2004 10:29 PM kendemyer has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 47 (91870)
03-11-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by kendemyer
03-11-2004 6:42 PM


Re: TO: ALL
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by kendemyer, posted 03-11-2004 6:42 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 47 (91913)
03-11-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by kendemyer
03-11-2004 6:42 PM


Re: TO: ALL
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by kendemyer, posted 03-11-2004 6:42 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by kendemyer, posted 03-11-2004 11:31 PM nator has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 47 (91942)
03-11-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nator
03-11-2004 10:29 PM


TO: Schrafinator
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 03-11-2004 10:29 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 03-12-2004 7:58 AM kendemyer has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 47 (92052)
03-12-2004 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by kendemyer
03-11-2004 11:31 PM


Re: TO: Schrafinator
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by kendemyer, posted 03-11-2004 11:31 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by kendemyer, posted 03-12-2004 2:18 PM nator has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 47 (92084)
03-12-2004 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by nator
03-12-2004 7:58 AM


Re: TO: Schrafinator
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 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 03-12-2004 7:58 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 03-12-2004 3:08 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 41 by Loudmouth, posted 03-12-2004 3:23 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 42 by nator, posted 03-12-2004 7:10 PM kendemyer has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 40 of 47 (92092)
03-12-2004 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by kendemyer
03-12-2004 2:18 PM


Objections fo Macroevolutionary Theory
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by kendemyer, posted 03-12-2004 2:18 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 47 (92094)
03-12-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by kendemyer
03-12-2004 2:18 PM


Re: TO: Schrafinator
quote:
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.
  —kendemyer
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:
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:
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by kendemyer, posted 03-12-2004 2:18 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 47 (92116)
03-12-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by kendemyer
03-12-2004 2:18 PM


Re: TO: Schrafinator
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by kendemyer, posted 03-12-2004 2:18 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by kendemyer, posted 03-12-2004 7:38 PM nator has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 47 (92120)
03-12-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
03-12-2004 7:10 PM


Re: TO: Schrafinator
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 03-12-2004 7:10 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Lindum, posted 03-12-2004 8:23 PM kendemyer has replied

  
Lindum
Member (Idle past 3396 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 44 of 47 (92122)
03-12-2004 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by kendemyer
03-12-2004 7:38 PM


Re: TO: Schrafinator
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by kendemyer, posted 03-12-2004 7:38 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by kendemyer, posted 03-13-2004 2:50 PM Lindum has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 47 (92247)
03-13-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Lindum
03-12-2004 8:23 PM


TO: Lindum
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Lindum, posted 03-12-2004 8:23 PM Lindum has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Brian, posted 03-13-2004 2:58 PM kendemyer has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024