Cubist
Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007
|
cdanner, if you look on page two of this thread, you'll see a post of mine (timestamped Mar. 16 2010,04:32) in which I had some highly relevant, substantive questions for a gent named bjray. Alas, bjray never saw fit to address those questions -- heck, he never even acknowledged I'd asked him anything! This, in spite of the fact that bjray claimed he was interested in discussing science.
Hmmm.
It's worth noting that this is a pattern of behavior which has been seen over and over and over and over and over and bleeding over again: It starts with J. Random Creationist posting a message about how he's interested in science and how awful it is that 'evolutionists' just don't want to judge Creationism on its merits and yada yada yada. This message yields several replies, some of which seriously address various aspects of Creationism; others of which blatantly sneer at J. Random Creationist and/or Creationism in general and/or both; and still others of which contain both blatant sneering and serious responses which directly address the question of Creationism's scientific validity. After these replies are posted, J. Random Creationist complains about the mockery while declining to address the serious critiques of Creationism.
See any problems there, cdanner?
Do you see how that sort of behavioral pattern might -- particularly if it's repeatedly observed! -- inspire people to look upon Creationists' you evolutionists are all big meanies an' you don't wanna discuss nothin' serious-like protestations with decidedly jaundiced eyes?
Speaking entirely for myself, cdanner, I think you're Just Another Whining Creationist. Because thus far, your behavior exactly and precisely matches the "ignore substantive responses and whine about the mockery" pattern which I've seen so goddamn many times before, from so goddamn many other Creationists before you. Your stereotype-matching behavior does not surprise me, any more than the Sun rising in the East surprises me. At this point, cdanner, I honestly believe you have no intention whatsoever of actually engaging in substantive discussion of anything that impinges upon Creationism; rather, I believe you will (if you choose to stick around, which is far from certain) continue to post whiny, oh-woe-look-at-how-poor-innocent-truthseekers-are-being-abused you evolutionists is all big meanies screeds which conspicuously fail to address any substantive points in the responses to you.
I don't like to think that of you, cdanner -- given my druthers, I'd prefer not to have that sort of opinion of anybody -- but your behavior here supports and justifies that opinion. You have complained about how mean/prejudiced/whatever those mean ol' evolutionists are, and you have conspicuously failed to participate in anything resembling a substantive discussion of scientific issue related to Creationism. So when the rubber hits the road... no, cdanner, I do not care to entertain the notion that the Sun might rise in the West -- sorry, I mean "that you might actually be the innocent truthseeker and willing participant in discussions of science that you present yourself as".
I don't expect you to care about what I think of you, cdanner. Still and all, if I actually am wrong about you, it's at least possible that you might care... and should that be the case, there's something you could do to sway my opinion. Scroll back to page 6 of this thread, cdanner, there's another post of mine (timestamped Mar. 25 2010,02:49), this one addressed to you. This post has some questions about the concept of Complex Specified Information, which I hoped you might be able to answer. Perhaps you might want to take them up at your earliest convenience?
cdanner, we shall see if you ever actually elect to answer my questions, or if you will, instead, follow in the well-trodden footsteps of bjray ancd, well, bloody near every Creationist who ever lived.
|
