A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[bhsmte]

It's a difference between disagreement and mockery, ridicule and personal attacks on the individual, all which are typical of those who oppose those who embrace a theistic view of creation. The behavior of those who oppose those who embrace theistic creation has anger a common part of their behavior on the forum. Each person decides how to react to opposition, to disagreement.



I'm made of the stuff which disagrees respectfully and doesn't use ridicule, malice or personal attacks in my behavior toward those who might have a different viewpoint than me. I've explained my position and the basis for the term 'Darwinist creationism' and will continue to use it in discussions. If you don't accept or like it, I suggest you refrain from discussing the concept with me.

Yes, I have heard that rhetoric before, the victim card, because people point out you misrepresenting and ask you pointed questions.

Now, back to the question and it is quite a simple one. That fact you can't answer it directly is quite telling. What are you afraid of?

And by the way, you can talk about whatever you like, even your personal inventions. Just expect others to provide some objective critique to your personal inventions, it goes with the territory.

Now, are you willing to admit, that what you call; Darwinist Creationism, is your personal invention?

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, I have heard that rhetoric before, the victim card, because people point out you misrepresenting and ask you pointed questions.

Now, back to the question and it is quite a simple one. That fact you can't answer it directly is quite telling. What are you afraid of?

And by the way, you can talk about whatever you like, even your personal inventions. Just expect others to provide some objective critique to your personal inventions, it goes with the territory.

Now, are you willing to admit, that what you call; Darwinist Creationism, is your personal invention?

I've explained Darwinist creation multiple times to you and my basis for the concept. You've chosen to reject the explanation. This of course will not prevent me from presenting my viewpoints.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've explained Darwinist creation multiple times to you and my basis for the concept. You've chosen to reject the explanation. This of course will not prevent me from presenting my viewpoints.

That is because it is an attempt to belittle evolution. It is disrespectful. If any of us described Christianity in that way we would be banned.

It is also as has been explained countless times dishonest. One of the main rules here for debate is to be respectful. Do you want me to quote it for you?

 

[justlookinla]

But no one has done those things to you. We have expressed disgust at your behavior but we have not stooped to calling you names, saying anything bad about your personal life or your family or any other attacks that could be called "personal". We have focused on the your bad behavior and that is all.

Your frequent use of the term 'liar' and your frequent outbursts of anger is seen throughout your posts. As I pointed out earlier, we all choose how to respond to those with whom we disagree and that's how you choose to respond. It doesn't change a thing though concerning the disagreement.

No, that is not true. If you disagreed respectfully you would use the proper terminology. You do not get to make up your own terms in a debate. That is not respectful and it is an attempt at ridicule.

The proper terminology for presenting a viewpoint of creation is creationism. Darwinism has it's creationist viewpoint just as religion has it's creationist viewpoint and just as the ET seeders have their creationist viewpoint.

I'll continue to present my viewpoint of Darwinist creationism, you continue to respond and react as you choose.

 

[bhsmte]

I've explained Darwinist creation multiple times to you and my basis for the concept. You've chosen to reject the explanation. This of course will not prevent me from presenting my viewpoints.

Yes, I reject the explanation, because no where in Darwinism, is creationism discussed. Creationism has a specific meaning, which I have posted several times and the word created is not mentioned either.

So, lets get down to brass tacks. You have a personal label you call Darwinist Creationism and you have posted that countless times on these boards, correct? Now, I have searched the internet high and low and I don't see the term; "Darwinist creationism" or a definition for the same anywhere.

Therefore, I will ask you one more time; will you admit, Darwinist Creationism is your personal invention, or will you continue to avoid this simple question?

Granted, the vast majority of people on this board already know the answer to the question, I am just curious whether you are capable of answering the question with a yes or no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your frequent use of the term 'liar' and your frequent outbursts of anger is seen throughout your posts. As I pointed out earlier, we all choose how to respond to those with whom we disagree and that's how you choose to respond. It doesn't change a thing though concerning the disagreement.

Please quote one. I point out when people lie. I try not to use the word "liar". I do get a bit miffed when someone is breaking the rules of his very own religion by being dishonest. Or when reneging on an agreement. I don't think you can find one case where my reactions were unwarranted.

The proper terminology for presenting a viewpoint of creation is creationism. Darwinism has it's creationist viewpoint just as religion has it's creationist viewpoint and just as the ET seeders have their creationist viewpoint.

Creationism refers to people who believe in a God creating something. That is not in evolution anywhere. You do not get to make your own terms.

I'll continue to present my viewpoint of Darwinist creationism, you continue to respond and react as you choose.

So even though it is against the rules here you will continue to flout them?

Posting Netiquette
Christians
Discussions with non Christians must be respectful keeping in mind that just because someone has not yet accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior does not mean that the Lord won't draw him/her at a later time. (Col 4:2-6)
Christians are stewards of Christ and His word and as such it is expected that all non Christians be treated respectfully by speaking the truth in love (1 Peter 3:15).
Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard given that this is a Christian site. Non Christians, lurkers, the weak of faith, etc. are reading your posts which means that the impression you give is what they see.

 

[justlookinla]

Please quote one. I point out when people lie. I try not to use the word "liar". I do get a bit miffed when someone is breaking the rules of his very own religion by being dishonest. Or when reneging on an agreement. I don't think you can find one case where my reactions were unwarranted.

Of course in your mind, your reactions and calling people liars are warranted. You were speaking of being respectful in your last post and now you attempt to justify your actions by blaming someone else.

Creationism refers to people who believe in a God creating something. That is not in evolution anywhere. You do not get to make your own terms.

I have the freedom, as you do, to present my views and conclusions on the forum. I'll continue to do that.

So even though it is against the rules here you will continue to flout them?

Is it against the rules to call people liars? Are you going to continue to do that?

 

[bhsmte]

Posting Netiquette
Christians
Discussions with non Christians must be respectful keeping in mind that just because someone has not yet accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior does not mean that the Lord won't draw him/her at a later time. (Col 4:2-6)
Christians are stewards of Christ and His word and as such it is expected that all non Christians be treated respectfully by speaking the truth in love (1 Peter 3:15).
Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard given that this is a Christian site. Non Christians, lurkers, the weak of faith, etc. are reading your posts which means that the impression you give is what they see.



And, some leave quite the impression.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course in your mind, your reactions and calling people liars are warranted. You were speaking of being respectful in your last post and now you attempt to justify your actions by blaming someone else.

I note that you did not quote me saying "liar". That means the rest of your post is simply an attempt to cover up your lack.

I have the freedom, as you do, to present my views and conclusions on the forum. I'll continue to do that.

Yes, you are free to break the rules of the forum and argue rudely. I guess if you can't win with facts and logic you will use any strategy that works. I found that the truth works the best for me.

Is it against the rules to call people liars? Are you going to continue to do that?

It is against the rules of this forum to say "You are a liar". It is not against the rules of this forum to point out lies when they are told. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Posting Netiquette
Christians
Discussions with non Christians must be respectful keeping in mind that just because someone has not yet accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior does not mean that the Lord won't draw him/her at a later time. (Col 4:2-6)
Christians are stewards of Christ and His word and as such it is expected that all non Christians be treated respectfully by speaking the truth in love (1 Peter 3:15).
Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard given that this is a Christian site. Non Christians, lurkers, the weak of faith, etc. are reading your posts which means that the impression you give is what they see.



And, some leave quite the impression.

He ignored that when I quoted it to him. He will probably ignore it again.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, I reject the explanation, because no where in Darwinism, is creationism discussed.

Yes, Darwinist is very specific concerning the creation of all life; "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations". That's new life forms being created through a creationist mechanism particular to Darwinism.

Creationism has a specific meaning, which I have posted several times and the word created is not mentioned either.

And I've explained many times why I use the term. You disagree with it, so don't use it. But I have the right to give my views concerning creation, as do others on the forum, even if there's disagreement.

So, lets get down to brass tacks. You have a personal label you call Darwinist Creationism and you have posted that countless times on these boards, correct? Now, I have searched the internet high and low and I don't see the term; "Darwinist creationism" or a definition for the same anywhere.

Yes, lets. The issue is simple, what is the viewpoint of the creation of humanity using the Darwinist creation model.

Therefore, I will ask you one more time; will you admit, Darwinist Creationism is your personal invention, or will you continue to avoid this simple question?

And I've answered you every time and presented my conclusion for Darwinist creationism. The term, with it's creationist implications will continue to be used.

Granted, the vast majority of people on this board already know the answer to the question, I am just curious whether you are capable of answering the question with a yes or no.

Your personal discomfort with the term is more than just claiming that I 'invented it'. Your personal discomfort with the term is because it presents the truth that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint and the future implications that may have on teaching Darwinism as true.

 

[bhsmte]

He ignored that when I quoted it to him. He will probably ignore it again.

Ignoring provides a short term refuge, but the hole just keeps getting deeper.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The same basic concept is in both, thus the 'ism'.

The basic concept of creation, i.e., the creation of humanity, has various views, each an 'ism' of creation. Darwinism has a certain creationist viewpoint, i.e., how humanity was created solely by naturalistic means, thus a view of creation-ism.

But the differences between them are still so great you can't use the terms interchangeably.

Fine, social and socialism then.

 

[justlookinla]

He ignored that when I quoted it to him. He will probably ignore it again.

I think I respond respectfully to any and all on the forum, not returning mockery, ridicule and personal attacks with mockery, ridicule and personal attacks. If you have an example where I've responded in any other way, please post it.

Want me to post a couple of your posts where you've called me a liar?

 

[justlookinla]

But the differences between them are still so great you can't use the terms interchangeably.

Fine, social and socialism then.

Nope, not going to play that game. I've explained why I use creationism in reference to the various creation beliefs. If you disagree with it, you disagree. It's certainly not our first disagreement and will probably not be our last.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, Darwinist is very specific concerning the creation of all life; "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations". That's new life forms being created through a creationist mechanism particular to Darwinism.



And I've explained many times why I use the term. You disagree with it, so don't use it. But I have the right to give my views concerning creation, as do others on the forum, even if there's disagreement.



Yes, lets. The issue is simple, what is the viewpoint of the creation of humanity using the Darwinist creation model.



And I've answered you every time and presented my conclusion for Darwinist creationism. The term, with it's creationist implications will continue to be used.



Your personal discomfort with the term is more than just claiming that I 'invented it'. Your personal discomfort with the term is because it presents the truth that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint and the future implications that may have on teaching Darwinism as true.

Since you can't answer the question directly, there must be an important reason, why someone would refuse to do so.

Discomfort? Lets say I have this thing about being accurate and honest, and you have your own needs to fulfill and justlookinlaism, helps provide what you need.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nope, not going to play that game. I've explained why I use creationism in reference to the various creation beliefs. If you disagree with it, you disagree. It's certainly not our first disagreement and will probably not be our last.

Creationism has become a label for a specific idea so much so that even if your use of the word were legitimate, it would be misleading as people associate it with something different that you supposedly want the word to represent. Thus, you need to use a different word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I respond respectfully to any and all on the forum, not returning mockery, ridicule and personal attacks with mockery, ridicule and personal attacks. If you have an example where I've responded in any other way, please post it.

Want me to post a couple of your posts where you've called me a liar?

But you haven't and we have explained how and why you are not being respectful.

Most creationists bring mockery and ridicule upon themselves. They get treated more politely here than they deserve. If you want to debate science you should stick to science, when you don't you can get rudeness as a result. Be honest and debate respectfully and you will get the same in return. You were even told many times that you were being rude and disrespectful before others started to act the same way towards you. Now that you are reaping the ridicule that you started you are as bhsmte pointed out playing the victim card.

And yes, I would like to see a couple of posts where I call you a liar. Remember pointing out the fact that you lied is not calling you a liar.

 

[justlookinla]

Creationism has become a label for a specific idea so much so that even if your use of the word were legitimate, it would be misleading as people associate it with something different that you supposedly want the word to represent. Thus, you need to use a different word.

No, it succinctly explains one view of how mankind was created. It's a great term, IMO.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope, not going to play that game. I've explained why I use creationism in reference to the various creation beliefs. If you disagree with it, you disagree. It's certainly not our first disagreement and will probably not be our last.

Play that game? You have been playing your own game all along. Adding words to the definition of Darwinism, inventing Darwinist Creationism when Darwinism does not use the word.

You have been called on it directly, deal with it and try not to play victim, because your ability to freely misrepresent, is clearly pointed out.

Ok, carry on, what else about justlookinlaism is on your mind?