I've been entangled in a predictable, laborious back and forth with a young earth creationist on Blog Village (btw, if you haven't joined the Blog Village list yet, you should; it's a great community and Dirty Butter is a gracious host).
My question was very simple originally: How can you deny decades of evidence? It is a sincere desire of mine to know how people can avoid reality in any case. This is but one aspect. My question was honest and I was not searching for a point by point debate.
I should have known better. We've run through the gammit: molcular machines and irreducible complexity, radiometric dating, the exclusivity of the scientific community, the evolution of the eye, the universe filling population, copy/pastes from creationist websites, methodological naturalism, the scientific concensus, the media's two-sides, molecular homology, logic games, etc, etc.
Then I get this last night:
Anyone who is so narrow-minded as to think there are not two sides to this issue really deserves to have their comments deleted; however, being that if I were to do that you would probably begin personal attacks on me I won't do that.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Matthew effect. Being that the science as a whole has closed its mind as you have, evolutionists automatically get more recognition.
Not only am I narrow-minded, I am probably a troll as well. And "evolutionists" have more fun.
I can understand frustration in any debate, but I have a hard time reconciling personal attacks or threats:
I will never take the liberty of a personal attack as you have done, as I do not know you as a person. I respect people's opinions enough that I will hear them out even if I do not agree. I have never deleted a non-spam comment on my blog just because it conflicts with my feelings or opinions.
It is sad that you threaten to do so. When you publish something on the web that you know will spark debate, prepare for it, and accept it when it comes. That's a blogger's (and any writer's, for that matter) responsibility.
I am not arguing to convince you; I know that is not possible. I am arguing to provide real evidence and resources for others that may read your opinions and feelings and construe them as evidence.
When you put yourself out there with an opinion, always expect that someone holds a contrary notion, and potentially will voice their opinion in return. The blogosphere, in particular, thrives on this concept.
To begin threats of moderation because you disagree says something about the confidence you have in your argument. I have no desire to insult anyone, but as I said, I find it difficult to allow the misinterpretation of evidence to propagate.