There are a lot of things you,the gentle reader, can learn from Nick and creationists like him.
These are in no particular order:
1. Don’t let him get you to agree to his assumptions.
Nick started all this by trying to get me to assume two universes: one universe and another universe with a god.
I stopped him right there and only agreed to a universe, putting the burden of proof for the god on him.
Despite his round and round, response after response, he never gave any evidence for that god. In fact, several times he blamed me for not playing his game.
So, remember this, kiddies: don’t agree to assumptions.
2. It’s not your job to make his case for him.
Evidence does not require your participation. Nick had ample opportunity to present his but ultimately failed because he wanted me involved.
Thousands of scientific, peer-reviewed papers are published every year in science journals. None of them require the reader to participate, only to evaluate the evidence presented.
Nick tried and tried to get me to answer his questions so he could steer the conversation into his “logical” conclusion.
Don’t fall for this trick, any more than accepting his assumptions.
He should have just given me his evidence, but all he had was “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”
3. Hold him to his promises.
Nick promised evidence for his god but never gave it.
He just said “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … God.”
So I reminded him, again and again. Each time, because he promised.
So hold his feet to the fire. Make him keep that promise. And if he doesn’t, then he’s a liar and you want nothing to do with him.
4. Don’t let him make wild assertions.
Every time Nick made an assertion, I pointed it out. So should you.
Nick’s evidence for his god was “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”
He accused me of making assertions on his “point blank” one. It’s funny that he would do that, perhaps he wasn’t acting in good faith, which brings me to the next point….
5. Stop the discussion when you believe the other person is arguing in bad faith.
Nick went far afield in his writings but never really got to the evidence. All his talk was just a waste of my time. The zenith of his argument was when he said “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”
It went downhill from there. And he was not operating in good faith.
You’ll know it when you see it.
6. “I don’t know” is better than “I am going to point blank assert.”
Repeat after me: “I don’t know is acceptable. I don’t know everything and that’s OK.”
Now repeat this, too: “Point blank assertions are making stuff up. That’s lying because I’m either too lazy to admit I don’t know or just plain dishonest and can’t accept not knowing.”
Choose to be honest by admitting that you don’t know.
Does his god exist? I don’t know but he was the one that failed to give evidence for it.
7. Don’t let him try to lay the burden of proof on you when he’s the one making claims.
In his last email, Nick tried to lay the burden of proof on me and I ignored it because he had failed, over and over, to fulfill his burden of proof with evidence of his god.
8. Nick was more concerned with winning than the truth.