Creeper versus Radar: The Movie
I am posting a comment and then commenting on that comment, with my words now in blue...for those who are unfamiliar with the long, long discussions on this blog, creeper is a long-time commenter with whom I have often disagreed. Unfortunately the discussion has become personal in that he has accused me of being a liar:
Anonymous said...
1. First of all, thank you for being honest about the fact that you simply made the 11% up.
I didn't "make it up" but rather, as I explained, saw no poll specific to the question in Barna and tried to do some math to come up with an approximate number. My later post shows that the estimate was way too high, but I was using the Barna figures rather than just making something up.
I'm still a little puzzled why a "quick and off-hand guess", as you put it, would result in something like 11%, instead of a round number, like, say, 10% or 15%. I suspect that you "calculated" it somehow, but later realized that your calculations were simply wrong.
I hoped you were capable of reading the entire post, "Debates, we have debates! Christians in US prisons? " in which I go over the numbers?
Not that it matters; your admission that it was fiction settles the matter much as we suspected.
You were the guys who gave some ridiculous number like 76% of the prison population was Christian...I used published polling numbers which were not specific and tried to use them to come up with a figure based upon them. If there was any fiction, it was the 76%, which was probably some guy finding that number associated with the entire country and then applying it to jail populations.
2. I take it that you're now happy to characterize the US as a secular nation, not a Christian nation?
Wow, who is trying to be deceptive now? The polling numbers show that the USA is a religious nation that associates itself more with Christianity than other religions, even if most of them are not actually Christians, and that a very small percentage are secularists.
I mean, 9%... that's not exactly a million miles away from the number of full-on atheists, is it? And a whole lotta confused people who think they're Christians but aren't... They go to church and all that (at least so they say), but for you they just don't count... They will not be happy campers when they find themselves in hell.Secular nation it is.
It would be hard to say what percentage of those who associate themselves with Christianity are actually born again. Get this straight, "Christian" = disciple. There are plenty of people who have named the name of Christ and believed in Him but don't care to try to live their lives out for Him.
If I were in charge of polling I could ask the questions that would sort these numbers out, but I'm not so I can only use Barna or a similar poll to try to figure out the numbers. Maybe there are 9% of the population who are disciples. Is the percentage of non-disciple believers somewhere around 15% or so? The numbers are hard to interpret since the questions are not asked properly. But 76.5% of the population associate themselves with Christianity somehow, which means that we are not a secular society, we are a religious one.
3. "Not sure why that is such an issue for some of these commenters. But I will tackle this, since Creeper has been kind enough to focus on one issue and stay there, rather than sending us off down a rabbit trail."Seeing as I listed this as part of a lengthy list, I don't see why it needs to be a priority over all the other issues. It was merely a nicely visible example of you making stuff up and using self-serving definitions as the wind blows. Your confession is appreciated.
I confessed nothing. You are being deceitful.
4. Radar now: "I have tried to find a percentage of evangelicals in prison and have not succeeded. I suspect that, due to the nature of the description of an evangelical, that most evangelicals found in prison were converted after incarceration. I would welcome a good source of information that could nail that down more thoroughly but so far haven't found one."
Radar not so long ago: "My figures show that up to 11% of the prison population is Christian, many of whom were converted after being jailed." ("A town where God was not allowed (or, an EAE paradise)")Does this count as bearing false witness? Is lying okay with you?And if lying is okay with you, does that mean you're still one of those "real" Christians you're talking about? Or is it okay if you're doing it for Jesus? (One of those weird "absolute laws"...)
Lying? You are spinning this whole thing very deceptively, probably because you wish to take attention away from the issues that make you uncomfortable. I have already explained in detail that I was estimating that number based on figures found in Barna which means that I was certainly neither lying nor making something up. Second, that statement is true. "Up to" means "equal to or less than" and the numbers I have found and posted in "Debates, we have debates! Christians in US prisons? " do, in fact tell us that the number of Christians in jail populations is less than 11%, thus making my statement factual. Therefore, what I posted was true based upon the information I could glean from the resources at hand and I will stand by that statement and the contents of my subsequent post in which I drilled down on those numbers to come up with a better estimate if possible.
5. "Let's see, first, I was hoping to debate on more interesting issues like how does a naturalistic atheistic evolutionist explain the ex nihilo appearance of 1) matter and 2) life?"Well, I was just responding to some of those points yesterday (see the comments on your post "Why did the Ice Core man get 'Iced'?"), so respond whenever you'd like. For starters, who says matter came from non-matter (ex nihilo)?
Why would you post comments on a recent post back on an old one like that? I'll take a look eventually (maybe the weekend), but my recent posts like "Can science and Christianity mix? " and "But is evolution actually science?? " is where that particular discussion is now and I you didn't respond there other than to say you could easily debate me and then slip away.
Why would you go back to Ice Man to debate other issues? Is it because you want to keep discussing ice cores and get away from the real issues? You want to display a big face on a wall and ignore the man behind the curtain? You did mention you had work issues, and I understand that, but if you really have some good stuff to say, say it up front where the discussion is rather than burying it way back on old posts somewhere.
I also notice that you don't mention wanting to discuss other matters, such as a young Earth being supported by tree rings and ice cores. Let me guess: you realized that that doesn't add up for a YEC position either..."Or why won't they acknowledge that they are beginning their interpretations of evidence from a point of view (some of them do, but many run from this) but instead try to pretend that they have the only point of view?"I think we've addressed this numerous times, Radar: yes, there are plenty of world views, and we're absolutely not averse to acknowledging that we have points of view, contrary to your claim. When it comes to science, however, the world views stay at the door, and certain methods are used - by Christians, Jews, what have you. These methods were even used by all the non-atheist scientists you listed not so long ago.
I have posted many quotes and comments from scientists that refutes what you are saying about world views. I have come to realize that you are too stubborn to admit that you filter through a world view, or you are just incapable of seeing it, or you fear to admit it because it brings in secondary questions you don't wish to acknowledge, let alone answer. I guess there is no point discussing it with you in this case. Talk about fallacies, you live in one!
They are put in place so that one can compare findings instead of constantly "agreeing to disagree", which would bring scientific progress to a screeching halt. This is why large numbers of Christians, Jews etc. freely engage in the scientific method while keeping their religious beliefs at home.The only people for whom this is a problem are people like yourself who have a preconceived notion of what the results should be and are disappointed when the facts don't match their views.
Hahahahahaha! This is a classic pot-calling-the-kettle-black. Preconceived notion is your middle name.
Believe me, if YECs could present a 6,000 year timeline that actually could account for ice cores, tree rings, and radiometric dating, I would be quite interested and open-minded.
I don't believe it for a minute. So far you have ignored any evidences that would disagree with your world view entirely.
The chances of such a timeline being created in light of the overwhelming evidence indicating an old Earth are vanishingly small at this point, of course, even if you did claim, for some odd reason that I can't fathom, that you had provided a link to it. What was that about?
It was about giving you a chance to look at evidences that are at odds with your belief system.
-- creeper
When you call a man a liar deceptively, that makes you the liar. I am publically challenging your statement. I have shown evidence that I did not lie. Until and unless you repent and admit your fault I consider you a liar and a fraud for making that charge against me.
Anonymous said...
1. First of all, thank you for being honest about the fact that you simply made the 11% up.
I didn't "make it up" but rather, as I explained, saw no poll specific to the question in Barna and tried to do some math to come up with an approximate number. My later post shows that the estimate was way too high, but I was using the Barna figures rather than just making something up.
I'm still a little puzzled why a "quick and off-hand guess", as you put it, would result in something like 11%, instead of a round number, like, say, 10% or 15%. I suspect that you "calculated" it somehow, but later realized that your calculations were simply wrong.
I hoped you were capable of reading the entire post, "Debates, we have debates! Christians in US prisons? " in which I go over the numbers?
Not that it matters; your admission that it was fiction settles the matter much as we suspected.
You were the guys who gave some ridiculous number like 76% of the prison population was Christian...I used published polling numbers which were not specific and tried to use them to come up with a figure based upon them. If there was any fiction, it was the 76%, which was probably some guy finding that number associated with the entire country and then applying it to jail populations.
2. I take it that you're now happy to characterize the US as a secular nation, not a Christian nation?
Wow, who is trying to be deceptive now? The polling numbers show that the USA is a religious nation that associates itself more with Christianity than other religions, even if most of them are not actually Christians, and that a very small percentage are secularists.
I mean, 9%... that's not exactly a million miles away from the number of full-on atheists, is it? And a whole lotta confused people who think they're Christians but aren't... They go to church and all that (at least so they say), but for you they just don't count... They will not be happy campers when they find themselves in hell.Secular nation it is.
It would be hard to say what percentage of those who associate themselves with Christianity are actually born again. Get this straight, "Christian" = disciple. There are plenty of people who have named the name of Christ and believed in Him but don't care to try to live their lives out for Him.
If I were in charge of polling I could ask the questions that would sort these numbers out, but I'm not so I can only use Barna or a similar poll to try to figure out the numbers. Maybe there are 9% of the population who are disciples. Is the percentage of non-disciple believers somewhere around 15% or so? The numbers are hard to interpret since the questions are not asked properly. But 76.5% of the population associate themselves with Christianity somehow, which means that we are not a secular society, we are a religious one.
3. "Not sure why that is such an issue for some of these commenters. But I will tackle this, since Creeper has been kind enough to focus on one issue and stay there, rather than sending us off down a rabbit trail."Seeing as I listed this as part of a lengthy list, I don't see why it needs to be a priority over all the other issues. It was merely a nicely visible example of you making stuff up and using self-serving definitions as the wind blows. Your confession is appreciated.
I confessed nothing. You are being deceitful.
4. Radar now: "I have tried to find a percentage of evangelicals in prison and have not succeeded. I suspect that, due to the nature of the description of an evangelical, that most evangelicals found in prison were converted after incarceration. I would welcome a good source of information that could nail that down more thoroughly but so far haven't found one."
Radar not so long ago: "My figures show that up to 11% of the prison population is Christian, many of whom were converted after being jailed." ("A town where God was not allowed (or, an EAE paradise)")Does this count as bearing false witness? Is lying okay with you?And if lying is okay with you, does that mean you're still one of those "real" Christians you're talking about? Or is it okay if you're doing it for Jesus? (One of those weird "absolute laws"...)
Lying? You are spinning this whole thing very deceptively, probably because you wish to take attention away from the issues that make you uncomfortable. I have already explained in detail that I was estimating that number based on figures found in Barna which means that I was certainly neither lying nor making something up. Second, that statement is true. "Up to" means "equal to or less than" and the numbers I have found and posted in "Debates, we have debates! Christians in US prisons? " do, in fact tell us that the number of Christians in jail populations is less than 11%, thus making my statement factual. Therefore, what I posted was true based upon the information I could glean from the resources at hand and I will stand by that statement and the contents of my subsequent post in which I drilled down on those numbers to come up with a better estimate if possible.
5. "Let's see, first, I was hoping to debate on more interesting issues like how does a naturalistic atheistic evolutionist explain the ex nihilo appearance of 1) matter and 2) life?"Well, I was just responding to some of those points yesterday (see the comments on your post "Why did the Ice Core man get 'Iced'?"), so respond whenever you'd like. For starters, who says matter came from non-matter (ex nihilo)?
Why would you post comments on a recent post back on an old one like that? I'll take a look eventually (maybe the weekend), but my recent posts like "Can science and Christianity mix? " and "But is evolution actually science?? " is where that particular discussion is now and I you didn't respond there other than to say you could easily debate me and then slip away.
Why would you go back to Ice Man to debate other issues? Is it because you want to keep discussing ice cores and get away from the real issues? You want to display a big face on a wall and ignore the man behind the curtain? You did mention you had work issues, and I understand that, but if you really have some good stuff to say, say it up front where the discussion is rather than burying it way back on old posts somewhere.
I also notice that you don't mention wanting to discuss other matters, such as a young Earth being supported by tree rings and ice cores. Let me guess: you realized that that doesn't add up for a YEC position either..."Or why won't they acknowledge that they are beginning their interpretations of evidence from a point of view (some of them do, but many run from this) but instead try to pretend that they have the only point of view?"I think we've addressed this numerous times, Radar: yes, there are plenty of world views, and we're absolutely not averse to acknowledging that we have points of view, contrary to your claim. When it comes to science, however, the world views stay at the door, and certain methods are used - by Christians, Jews, what have you. These methods were even used by all the non-atheist scientists you listed not so long ago.
I have posted many quotes and comments from scientists that refutes what you are saying about world views. I have come to realize that you are too stubborn to admit that you filter through a world view, or you are just incapable of seeing it, or you fear to admit it because it brings in secondary questions you don't wish to acknowledge, let alone answer. I guess there is no point discussing it with you in this case. Talk about fallacies, you live in one!
They are put in place so that one can compare findings instead of constantly "agreeing to disagree", which would bring scientific progress to a screeching halt. This is why large numbers of Christians, Jews etc. freely engage in the scientific method while keeping their religious beliefs at home.The only people for whom this is a problem are people like yourself who have a preconceived notion of what the results should be and are disappointed when the facts don't match their views.
Hahahahahaha! This is a classic pot-calling-the-kettle-black. Preconceived notion is your middle name.
Believe me, if YECs could present a 6,000 year timeline that actually could account for ice cores, tree rings, and radiometric dating, I would be quite interested and open-minded.
I don't believe it for a minute. So far you have ignored any evidences that would disagree with your world view entirely.
The chances of such a timeline being created in light of the overwhelming evidence indicating an old Earth are vanishingly small at this point, of course, even if you did claim, for some odd reason that I can't fathom, that you had provided a link to it. What was that about?
It was about giving you a chance to look at evidences that are at odds with your belief system.
-- creeper
When you call a man a liar deceptively, that makes you the liar. I am publically challenging your statement. I have shown evidence that I did not lie. Until and unless you repent and admit your fault I consider you a liar and a fraud for making that charge against me.