Monday, February 18, 2008

Do as I say, not as I do

In case you haven't been privy to this, I've been going round and round with everyone's favorite atheist, The Barefoot Bum. He has been getting increasingly hostile to my responses, however, and I'm not sure how long it will last. I mentioned to him in a comment that I see that a lot with liberals and anti God people.

Every time I turn around they're leaving the kitchen due to heat issues. Here is his last comment:

Blogger The Barefoot Bum said...

At this point let me share with you all (the readers) a curious reaction I witness time and time again when more than adequately qualified individuals break from the (your) party line...

This is called the fallacy of poisoning the well.

Yet again you abuse my hospitality and the platform (by pointing out error?) I have offered you for your remarks with intellectual dishonesty. (most people refer to them as facts)

This is your last warning. If you want to discuss the substantive issues, and you're capable of showing the respect in my venue that I've shown in yours (I would have been kicked out long ago if I actually mirrored the so-called 'respect' he shows) you're welcome to do so.

However, if you continue to act like a spoiled, illiterate child (i.e. like him), I see no reason to continue to publish your remarks.

Do I make myself clear (yes dad)?

This would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous. First of all, we are talking about blogs with some of these folks that have to be screened with a fine toothed comb before I can even post all of what they have to say. Profanity and vulgarity are commonplace. One sided accusations raise no red flags. There's 'group think galore' going on with 90 percent of the comments. Nevertheless, I overlook all of this because I really do want to talk with these people and some are quite nice.

It's fun to talk to them, but frustrating to try and have an even debate when I'm handed Roberts Rules of Order and then the other side's book only contains one sentence, "anything goes."
Alas, here is my response to his comment. I'm publishing it here because I doubt he has the staying power to stick with this and I wanted you all to know I do...

My comment back on his blog:

Wow, ok, thought I had to be wrong in what it looked like but I wasn't.

Once again, Barefoot, you can dish it out as they say...your rules simply do not apply to you

Your last comment is back on track, but in your previous ones I have been called a liar, a dishonest intellectual, spoiled, illiterate child -- did I miss anything?

What I did not get, however, was an answer.

When you name call and accuse me of acting a certain way in my comments, don't forget that my "comments" are right there for everyone to see and read. And, when they do not seem presented any different than your own -- people are going to wonder what in the world you're talking about with all the paranoia. You risk losing credibility and appearing as though you just don't have an answer.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate thus far other than this bizarre, selective overreactiing

Do you not see why I said what I did about the defensiveness?

As for your staying on topic request, I've posted 2 lengthy answers to your comments on time and chance. And sent all my readers there (of the ones who want to continue this discussion) The one about time is already up at, and the one about chance will be added tomorrow.

I'm sure people would love to hear your responses, Larry, but, to be honest with you 100 percent of the emails and comment feedback from my blog (as far as attitude goes) has been about the love and patience shown you despite the condescending approach you may not even be aware you take.

Again, I'd love to hear your responses but I'm not going to play this childish game with you.

This is your last warning.

Just kidding...

I'll give you 2 more cause I'm trying to be nice.

Oh, one more thing (Isn't there always one more thing?) I'm going to go ahead and publish this comment on my blog as well, just in case you decide to take your ball and play somewhere else. I wouldn't want people getting the wrong idea that I ran for the hills for no reason...

that would be intellectually dishonest.

I'm bad! Bad pastor!


rob's rants said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

evan | | IP:

Here is a quick summary of answers to the most common misconceptions about evolution.

These misconceptions are:

-Evolution has never been observed.
-Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
-There are no transitional fossils.
-The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
-Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

This page is only a summary, and more detail is available on each of these topics throughout the main website.

Try to keep in mind that accepting evolution does not require you to give up your God or your religion. People have fought against scientific advances for centuries, and yet we now accept most medical discoveries and science without worrying whether they conflict with bits of the Bible.

WolfpackEE said...

Rob, glad to see you created another blog to cover more 'sensitive' subjects.

From atheists I've known in the past, belief in evolution was due to the fact they at first didn't believe in God. Meaning, they first assumed there was no God then needed something to support their belief. But it doesn't stop there, there are many scientific theories to explain away the existence of God.

Anonymous said...

-How does evolution not violate the second law of thermodynamics? The law is pretty basic - things move toward randomness not toward complexity.

I am an engineer, and to me, the 2nd law is the ultimate "proof" (if you need proof) that there was an intelligent designer. On its own nature cannot build complexity. When waves from the ocean hit a sandcastle it knocks it down... it does add another turret!

Anonymous said...

Rob- I will ask you and Barefoot the same question.

Barefoot I have struggled with this question for many years. I understand that there are arguments against the 2nd law of thermodynamics... but has man (using his vast knowledge) been able to create life?

In the the 150ish odd years since Darwin, scientist have repeatedly tried to "create" life using the conditions of the pre-historic earth. Why haven't they been successful? I understand that we have created and modified life once we have a seed (i.e test-tube babies.. and or genetic cloning), but we have yet created the most basic life-form from scratch.

What is most confusing to me is that during this time we have developed many of the theories that you describe... sent a man to the moon... developed nuclear power... mapped the human genome... but still no life.

How can we expect something to have happened spontaneously (even over many multiples of generations) if after 150 years we have been able to duplicate something that should (on the surface) be pretty basic?

WolfpackEE said...

There is a great site called Answers In Genesis that contains a lot of information in creationism vs. evolution. One article on the site is very informative and it's a list of arguments that creationists should not use.

The Barefoot Bum said...

Just so you know, Richard Dawkins is everyone's favorite atheist, and PZ Myers is everyone's favorite atheist blogger. I'm waaaaaay down on the list.