Should ID be taught in schools?

[Rex Kickass]

OR Sox4lifepa.

[Soxy]

Or that sketchy Chisoxfn character. . .

[Rex Kickass]

Or that winodj....

 

You just think he's a liberal.

[Balance]

With respect to the majority of the time it's a pretty simple pattern:

1) I create a post supporting a conservative viewpoint which almost always includes a factual basis. 

2) A reply quotes my post & makes defamatory & derogatory references to me personally.

3) I reply with a forceful effort to destroy the argument put forth by the offensive reply.

4) A mod takes action ONLY on my reply.

5) I make note of that in a subsequent reply & the mod might take further action.

 

I added the emphasis in the quoted text.

 

I have not been a member of this board for very long, but I have to disagree with your self-assessment. I have not seen you post any politically-themed post which has a valid factual basis. When this is drawn to your attention, you seem to escalate the rhetoric, without providing any facts, and seem to think (as you've posted above) that you've "destroy[ed]" the counter-argument.

 

So you've described a pattern you're experiencing when dealing with the other posters here. You take a course of action, and the other posters here uniformly react unfavorably to your points of view. You then choose to believe that the problem is all the other posters on the board, who are united against you, bent on persecuting you for your beliefs.

 

Have you considered that the one with the problem just might be you? Have you considered that when people disagree with you, there's an off chance that you might be wrong?

 

The vast majority of people on this and any other internet discussion board are able to discuss controversial issues with each other, from various different points of view, without it becoming a huge incident. From what SouthSider2k5 has posted, it appears that you're the only person who draws the kind of vitriol, animosity, and complaints to the degree that you do.

 

Now, you can choose to believe that you're the persecuted victim. You can go to bed pouting. I can't see why you'd want to stick around in such an environment, when there are lots of other internet forums filled with people who share your views. Or you can honestly evaluate what's going on, and see if there might be a way you can present yourself and your arguments without drawing a bull's eye on your chest.

 

In the end, it's up to you. I hope I've helped.

[kapkomet]

I added the emphasis in the quoted text.

 

I have not been a member of this board for very long, but I have to disagree with your self-assessment.  I have not seen you post any politically-themed post which has a valid factual basis.  When this is drawn to your attention, you seem to escalate the rhetoric, without providing any facts, and seem to think (as you've posted above) that you've "destroy[ed]" the counter-argument. 

 

So you've described a pattern you're experiencing when dealing with the other posters here.  You take a course of action, and the other posters here uniformly react unfavorably to your points of view.  You then choose to believe that the problem is all the other posters on the board, who are united against you, bent on persecuting you for your beliefs. 

 

Have you considered that the one with the problem just might be you?  Have you considered that when people disagree with you, there's an off chance that you might be wrong?

 

The vast majority of people on this and any other internet discussion board are able to discuss controversial issues with each other, from various different points of view, without it becoming a huge incident.  From what SouthSider2k5 has posted, it appears that you're the only person who draws the kind of vitriol, animosity, and complaints to the degree that you do.

 

Now, you can choose to believe that you're the persecuted victim.  You can go to bed pouting.  I can't see why you'd want to stick around in such an environment, when there are lots of other internet forums filled with people who share your views.  Or you can honestly evaluate what's going on, and see if there might be a way you can present yourself and your arguments without drawing a bull's eye on your chest.

 

In the end, it's up to you.  I hope I've helped.

Balance, BINGO. You restated what southsider wrote. And Juggs, you still don't get it, and with this, I personally now know you will NEVER get it.

 

Your self-assessment basically states that anyone who disagrees with you, you are out to "destroy" them, not "debate" them. You are so hell-bent on being right that if a damn get a clue brick were whopped upside that head of yours, you STILL wouldn't get it, because you have the "destroy what is wrong" mentality.

 

Southsider clearly aired out what we've been talking about for a while, a fine balance of letting you be you (ie expressing yourself with all the "ignorant" references and comments (your words, not mine), and not allowing it to cross a line. When I came along earlier and asked for a different tone, you mocked it. Then, you decided that we're personally attacking you. HOLY s***, YOU'RE NEVER WRONG! :rolly

 

I'm probably knocking on the door of a suspension here, and there's a lot more I want to say, but you know, it's already been said clearer then I can say it. We allow you to post here, which says more then enough about how we are trying to run things here. You're entitled to your opinions, but this "destroy my opponents" mentality is what gets you in trouble, and it's quite sad.

 

/Off my soapbox

Edited September 8, 2005 by kapkomet

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem is that I provide a factual basis which some do not agree with. It's still a factual basis. A researcher uses the word "blueprint" in the context of his findings. I conclude that is suggestive of "intelligent design" based on the meaning of the word "blueprint". Some suggest the researcher meant something else contrary to the meaning of the word.

 

The same can be said of some members claiming to be conservative in their viewpoints. The evidence is in their posts. What they are beyond the forum is irrelevant to what they write in their posts. It should be pretty clear what is & is not a conservative minded viewpoint in America today.

 

So let's add it all up:

1) Quantum Theory research has led to major discussions of God & our spiritual existence.

2) QT deals with the Subatomic world which makes up the atomic world & in turn the molecular world.

3) Recent reseach is leading to the belief that extraordinary events have led to human evolution. Events that suggest there is more at work than just spontaneous mutation & natural selection.

 

That's the factual scientific basis for ID.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

2) A reply quotes my post & makes defamatory & derogatory references to me personally.

3) I reply with a forceful effort to destroy the argument put forth by the offensive reply.

 

 

I would not reply forcefully if the reply to my post did not initiate defamatory & derogatory references. You can look at recent discussion threads between myself & FlaSoxJim as evidence of such. I do not seek to destroy his argument. I find his input to be insightful to the debate & I use it to hone my own.

[Soxy]

So let's add it all up:

1) Quantum Theory research has led to major discussions of God & our spiritual existence.

2) QT deals with the Subatomic world which makes up the atomic world & in turn the molecular world.

3) Recent reseach is leading to the belief that extraordinary events have led to human evolution.  Events that suggest there is more at work than just spontaneous mutation & natural selection.

 

That's the factual scientific basis for ID.

1.) Discussion does not equal fact, in fact, this discussion is probably mostly among Philosopher's and Science Historians, thus moving it further from fact.

2.) Not sure relevence, but I'll give you that's a fact

3.) I think that Balta has sufficiently refuted that as a fact, and more as your interpretation (NOT FACT) of the research. Which does not, necessarily draw the same conclusions as the researchers.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) Look up the leading physicists in QT that have discussed God & spiritual existence.

 

2) You need to study QT in depth to understand the relevance.

 

3) A blueprint is indicative of an intelligent design. That's common knowledge. It is not indicative of spontaneous mutation & natural selection.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 12:49 AM)

1)  Look up the leading physicists in QT that have discussed God & spiritual existence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But I thought ID doesn't involve God?

 

[Rex Kickass]

Only when necessary.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In relation to Biology ID deals with the plausibility that the evolution of our cognitive functions arose strictly from spontaneous mutation & natural selection.

 

In relation Quantum Physics There are actually two choices: 1) Assume that Einstein was wrong & that things can exceed the speed of light or 2) Assume that Einstein was right & come up with new explanations for why things appear to be omnipresent in the subatomic world.