Atheists are amazing.
They are capable of debating you without you even being invited to their debate or even being aware of the debate or what even happened during the debate.
This is exactly what happened to me on December 4, 2016 in an online debate with Robert Baty.
- I was not even invited to this debate
- I was not even aware of this debate
- I was not even allowed to respond to the debate
How can someone even call such a slick atheist move a “debate”? This is obviously a move to make atheists’ enemies look bad. But, in the ened they are the ones who have egg on their face.
I wrote to this Robert Baty in an email telling him to add my comments to his blog, which he did, with a rather apologetic tone in his email. Hm-hm.
Nevertheless I have a few things to add to this so-called debate.
Robert Baty: There’s another point to make, too: You didn’t tell us, two years ago, that your paper that got rejected had already been rejected by several other journals.
Then, you put the blame for the rejection solely on a reviewer googling your name and finding out you are a young-earth creationist.
But you have had plenty of papers (none of them having anything to do with young-earth creationism, of course) published in various professional journals in the years between 2011 and now, in spite of all the creationist nonsense you have posted hither and yon across the Web, and even in spite of the asterisked disclaimer on your UNMC staff page that says you disagree with “some of the statements on evolution” in papers you helped author.
I have had several papers published in professional refereed journals which have to do with origins research. For example a promoter mutation simulation which disproves evolution. I presented this simulation to an evolutionist. He exclaimed that my simulation proves that genetic information isn’t built up during the simulation, therefore, what is the whole purpose of the paper? It didn’t occur to him that that’s what the science shows.
What exactly happened in that specific journal was that my atheist boss called the journal and asked what the exact reason for the rejection of their paper. The paper didn’t touch on evolution or origins. The science was great. My atheist boss even said that paper was his best paper. What the journal told him was that a reviewer googled my name and rejected it off the bat not because of the science but because of my religious convictions. So this way the clown did his evolutionist colleague a big disservice by rejecting the paper in a most unscientific way!
Baty: “One year ago” at that time would have been 2013, but according to what you say above, your troubles with your supervisor began as soon as you arrived in 2011, he was *not* satisfied with your work, and you had *already decided* to look for a “position elsewhere”.
So which is it, Matthew?
Both scenarios can’t be true; at least one must be false.
If you remember, we were pretty skeptical of your claims even then — that you had lost your job and couldn’t get your paper published — just because of some stupid creationist argument you had tried to make on some obscure Yahoo group, way back in 2007.
Interesting, you just shot yourself a self-goal: you call your own yahoo group obscure. That’s funny. 🙂
Anyway, the emails that you post to your little “obscure” yahoo group are visible on the Internet. My boss did a thorough Internet search looking after me, looking at my facebook posts, my Youtube videos, my Journal of Creation papers. He could have easily found the emails on your obscure email group.
I told my boss that I wanted to leave because of a constant slew of anti-Christian remarks, cussing, sex jokes and the like. I told this to him in August, 2011. Now, afterwards he gave me two months to find another job. Which is why in September, one month after I told him i wanted to leave, that he did this Internet hunt after me and found all my creationist material. For a quarter of an hour he was shouting at me, insulting my religion, telling me not to 5h:+ into science. Pretty nice of him, right? I find it remarkable that you don’t even notice my former atheist boss’s unethical behavior. Atheism has no morals.
And to this you say:
There may be reforms needed in academia — one that immediately springs to mind is that research institutions need to be more careful in their hiring practices, because you are just a lawsuit waiting to happen — but, ethically speaking, I think the greater need is for you to reform yourself.
Meaning that obviously you’re advocating for asking people their religious orientation so that they would avoid hiring creationists. Note that 40-45% of Americans don’t accept evolution, so this would mean massive anti-Christian discrimination.
This is what this elitist hate-filled atheism of yours is full of.