Lekatt, Dropzone is talking about Nolies, not you. **You’ve ** already paid.
Sorry if your feelings are hurt that we didn’t all go “ooh” and “aah” upon reading your thoughts, but that’s how it is in Great Debates–you’ve been here long enough to know that. If you merely wanted admiring “oohs” and “aahs”, you should’ve posted your thoughts in MPSIMS.
And the reason why it didn’t go over bigger than it did is because…we’re sitting around the kitchen table having this terribly serious conversation about Using Science and Logic to Discuss Evolution, and you put your head in the door and witness to us on your reasons to believe in a Creator, none of which involve either Science or Logic, it’s all about Faith. “Hey, guys!” you tell us brightly. “All you gotta do is just look around at the universe and see what a marvelous place it is, how perfectly designed, how well-ordered! How can you guys not believe in God?” And–maybe it’s just me, but I distinctly heard Robert Goulet singing in the background, "Every time I hear a newborn baby cry, or touch a leeeeeeeaf, or see the SKYYYYYYYYY…then I know WHYYYYY…IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII…BEEE-LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE…"
Hence our giggling.
But hey, we’re not laughing at you, we’re laughing with you.
Well, maybe I’m not paying close attention, but I haven’t seen a whole lot of this from Nolies. Got some examples?
Normally, yes, someone who comes in here and starts twisting statements around and posting blatant falsehoods gets called on it toot sweet, but you are correct in your perception that Guests tend to be (almost automatically, I am interested to note in the past year) cut a lot of slack, especially if they’re not obviously trolling but are merely obviously clueless. The assumption is that either they’ll disappear after 30 days and thus not be worth the pixels to debunk or otherwise call them on it, or that they will pay up, and will then be subject to all the usual Great Debates corrections, up to and including Pit threads in their honor. So either way, it’s usually not worth the effort to get up out of the armchair and post a “hey waitaminnit!”
And I haven’t noticed that subject matter dealing with God or evolution gets treated with kid gloves around here. Actually, I’ve never noticed any subject in GD that gets tiptoed around–folks here have historically been unafraid to peel off the jacket and wade right in at the drop of a SCOTUS cite.
I said in my post that it was only my opinion, but nice of you to point out my assumptions were assumptions. We humans live with our assumptions daily, most of science and religion and everything else are assumptions. It is only when we start taking our assumptions seriously that we get into trouble.
The science which makes everything from alarm clocks to atomic bombs work… is just an assumption, just an opinion?
I’d put money on the fact that science aproximates the objective Truth far better than your flights of fancy.
Sorry, you don’t get to create some wacky fantasy and then claim some sort of odd artistic freedom in the creation of your reality. Without data you’re just telling stories. And while that may be quaint and fun to do around a bonfire in the woods, it’s kinda silly to be doing on the SDMB.
Methinks I barked too soon. After all, if nolies believes this stuff, and I think s/he’s being honest about what s/he believes, then I reckon I’m in a hard position if I want to insist that s/he’s posting material s/he should have reasonably known to be false.
My gripe is with Duane-Gish-esque tactics of ignoring refutations, refusing to look at other poster’s cites, and persisting in rehashing notions that those refutations and cites have ostensibly debunked.
To me that qualifies as posting ideas which the poster should know to be false.
But yeah, I reckon that box has Pandora’s nametag all over it.
Also, as long as this thread is, I may be conflating some material posted here with posts on another parallel thread.
I beg you pardon? I am most clearly laughing at his attempts to join this trainwreck.
(And while I realize your “lawn chair” comment was probably directed to activities on Randi’s site, it is still not appropriate to post that on this board.)
.
Unfortunately, neither falsehoods (regarding a topic of debate) nor misrepresentations of other posters (regarding debate topics) are explicitly against the rules. (It is sufficiently difficult to deternmine what some of these people are saying without attempting to discern whether their misrepresentations are deliberate or formed from their own lack of comprehension.) We pretty much expect that the people who debate dishonestly will have their heads handed to them by the other posters all the while they hide behind their self-erectred facade of false superiorirty where they pretend to themselves that they are “winning.”
As long as a poster does not engage in deliberate personal insults or other direct violations of the SDMB rules, the basic options for other posters are to either tediously refute their errors (for the peanut gallery at home) or dismiss and ignore them as not being worth the effort. It is your choice as to which method you prefer to employ.
Lekatt’s long history leads me to the conclusion that, since no one will accept his odd statements, no child at home is endangered by his posts and I will not encourage one more ten-page trainwreck attempting to apply logic and knowledge to oppose his firmly cherished beliefs. YMMV, obviously.
.FinnAgain, you are free to engage lekatt if you choose. It is my firm conviction that it will be the most frustrating experience of your SDMB sojourn (possibly of your life). He will not be moved and he will not understand your arguments. If you choose to debate him, keep it polite.
However, I don’t agree with the “not upset” part. An average open-minded person can read the opinions of others and not become emotional about it. Accept it or not, question it, or just file it away in their minds for future referance.
People who feel threatened by another’s opinions will become angry, hostile, abusive, and/or use condecending laughter to show their distain. People often party and laugh their way through hurricanes, grave yards and horror flicks, hiding the hope that nothing will happen to them.
Alternatively, I recall the 250 lb. ex-SEAL cop at a wedding who simply laughed off the drunken skinny kid with 6 months’ Tae Kwon Doe “training” who kept “challenging” the cop and claiming that the cop was just afraid to fight him.
Your “guaranteed to ruffle the feathers” comment reminded me of the skinny, drunken, clueless kid and prompted my reply.
Laughing at him is much more polite than beating him to a bloody pulp.
I’m talking about the cop at the wedding, of course. All beatings here are bloodless and the beatee usually seems to not know he’s being beaten.
If you merely wanted admiring “oohs” and “aahs”, you should’ve posted your thoughts in MPSIMS. 
