Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

You havent won the public battle you idiot, youve simply screamed louder to people like the Dover judge and others that dont know how reason works, dont understand the nature of the arguments concerning what constitues ID, and werent presented the logical approach to that topicThis is why most of the clowns here wont meet in actual live public debate on design. They know the position of ID is not how they represent here at this forumAs far as participation goes, arguments can only be carried to a logical empass. Once at that point, as I have more than demonstrated in my threads on ID, the opposition (my opposition) can no longer answer simple questions. Or its obvious they have no reply to the basic principles that surround the question of ID or creationism.There is no eb and flow, the two positions have been here since the beginning and all anyone needs to do is use thier head to see why both positions should be taught in any science context.Oh btw, still waiting for that person with some backbone to step up to the plate. No actual men here eh?Dawn Bertot

Thats the point percy, they werent debating creationism or ID as it is, they were debating, your misguided interpretation of those topics and responding to strawmen interpretations of fallcious arguments.If they had used my preparation, as you put it, the results would have been much different. My preparation has to do with simple rational and understanding. The secular fundamentalist evolutionist seeks to complicate its simplicity, to confuse not only the argument but simple minded personsAs youve seen those tactics dont work with the basic rational approachOnce youve frustrated not refuted, the simplicty of what is involved, a person can make a case for anythingDover and the predecessors started and finished in the wrong direction. this coupled with the fact that your side baited them in that direction, should be the only chilling fact to anyoneListen up Pecry. Most believers are not like Buz, ICANT myself and others. The reason you have us here and not a host of others is due to the fact that they do not see a need to debate the obvious. they look on you fellas as a curiousity, smile politely and move on. You know the ole, you shouldnt argue with a foolits not that youve won any arguments, its simply that there is no need to argue it past a certain pointYou really should think about doing it pubically, that is if you really think you have a case about ID and creationism and it not beign taught as scienceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I appreciate GDRs comments, but that notwithstanding I believe you should calm down, slow down and try and see things from someone elses perspective.To us, me, your positions on these issues are as ridiculous and stupid. sorry if i ever used those terms. For example, i believe your hatred for creationist and and religion in general has blinded you to even the simplest of reasoning abilitesTo me, you start in the middle of a conversation on ID and creationism, due to the fact that you do not understand that ID is initially and primarily a logical proposition set and pitted against reality.You seem to not understand that reality and logic (not the Bible), are the fundamental elements as to whether ID is valid or not.The positions on these issues have been around long before the written wordit may be arguable that evo has nothing to do with Atheism,. in the same way that ID has nothing to do with evolution, initially and primarily as a simple logical and testable propositionSurely you are smart enough to see that whether evo is true or not, is has little or nothing to say about whether is was designed to evolve, or whether it was designed at all. Evolution wont help you to make that determinationAs to the method and model Ive set it out so many times now, it silly to suggest I have not.You like so many others here ignore fundamentals and let your emotions and biases dictate your argument formWhat seems reasonable to you, seems silly and dumb to me, because I can see you making simple misguided mistakesHere is an illustration from the past. In times past you have attempted to demonstrate that Jesus was and could not be the fulfillment of said prophecies and challenged anyone to demonstrate otherwise.immediately I recognized the simple mistake you were making in connection with Biblical prophecy. You believed that because Jesus existed far into the future that he could not be the fulfillment of said prophecies. You believed that the prophecy had to refer only to the individual it was spoken of at that timeYour fundamental mistake was twofold. all prophecy, parable and proverb is primarily about God or Gods principles, not about the individual or the event itself.Secondly, even if the word or term, young maiden is used in the old, it does not affect the term virgin in the New. Due to the fact that God is the concern primarily and that original situation was used as a shadow or type. Of course God could only make that known through inspiration, in another writergiven these facts it becomes obvious you were making simple mistakes concerning Biblical prophecy and it naturethis is why John said of Christ, "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, a highway in the desert for our God"regardless of who or what the the original prophecy was about, its primary meaning was about God in both testaments. If the original prophecy was about or concerning Jeruselum or Israel, its primary purpose was about God himselfso the prophecy can and was about Christ and was fulfilled by Christ, due to the fact that he was God in the fleshThis simple misunderstanding by yourself could have cleared up much concerning whether Christ was the fulfillmentIn the same way you have simple misunderstandings concerning what is the nature of ID and creationism, which blocks any rational understanding of my positiontry and see things from a simple and logical proposition initially. try and see things from someones elses propositon and understandingthen if you disagree, try and refute it in the sameway, without sarcasm and insult.If however, that is all you have (sarcasm and insult)atleast incorrperate it with a rational responserespond to my arguments not the personyou grouchy ole bag of crap. just kiddingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This is what I am talking about Percy. I could care less about admin or moderator bias. provide the line where I have complained about it or concerned myself with it.I know it concerns Bolder-dash and that is his right and he does have a point.Now misrepresentation of my position is another story. That is a constant problemI would be more interested in someone pointing out some of the suggested ignorance in any of my points. That never seems to happenPlease by all means make me "aware" of said ignorance.It is interesting that if someone disagrees, continues to disagree and refuses to agree with you on these issues that they are necessarily ignorant and unaware.isnt it interesting that you and the other fellas could not even remotely be wrong on such matters? why is that never a possibility?Dawn Bertot

Panzy writes:You cut me like a knife Panda, you cut me deep. Do you realize at this very moment I am crying because I thought you and I had a close relationship. And after all those star lit nights and candle light dinnersSo you lied to me eh, when you said I meant the world to youI wish you could see my tears at this very momentOh by the way. Such examples as you have provided for me are a rare occurance, unlike yourself, in which they appear in nearly ever post on your behalf.Perhaps that is what GDR is speaking aboutDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now to be completely honest with yourself Percy, you must admit that there is a glaring inconsistency in the amount of toleration you allow your cohorts and that you disallow for the opposition.That doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that discriminationIs there a criteria for the rating system. Im not looking for a higher grade, but was just wondering?Dawn Bertot

Curious. Did you happen to search through your posts. Lets see how many you can find without, insults, sarcasm, rudeness or depravation.You and Dr InAdequate must have went to the same school of polemics. you know the one that teaches, if you cant answer questions, you blind and distract them with wit, sarcasm and insults. Then hope that no will notice you didnt actually respond to questions or argumentsI believe in debate thats called a smokescreen. You passed, you passedJust tell me plainly Panda, theres someone else, isnt there. we have to be honest with eachother if our relationship is going to work

You see GDR, what you see above is a psychological and ego problem. No matter the question at hand, he has to be right, irregardless and especially if someone strongly disagreesHooah list three things of a religious or philosophical nature you have been convinced wrong about with you opposition here?Dawn Bertot

Then you will never have a valid conversation with a true IDst or creationist, atleast one that understands the fundamentals of reason and argumentationYour assumption is that ID and creationism are tied unequevocally to religion and or the supernatural, they are not.The simplest way to demonstrate that you have no clue between the distinction you make above, is to ask the very simple question, what prevents anything that evolved, from being designed or created to evolve, hence created in the first placeSince, you clearly do not even understand that simple distinction, it should be obvious to the casual observer, that you do not understand what ID and creationism are actually. What they are in there true fundamental and logical formOnce again and like so many here, your problem is with religion, not ID or CreationismDawn Bertot

Really. So the burden of proof is on you , correct? So out of 2571 post, lets see you demonstrate that the majority of them contain insults and rudeness. have at it juniorKeeping in the spirit of the thread, lets on the other hand see out of you 600 and some odd post how many contain the samethingI dont really think you want to go down this road, Ive read way to many of your posts. But if your up for it, lets get it onDawn Bertot

Jar I am responding to this with no hope that you will actually respond to my points, questions and arguments.Ill try again. jar, evolution and its conclusion are not methods, they are observations and tenative conclusions concerning the how and why of thingsThe so-called method you employ and rely on is nothing more than a tenative explanation for things in existence.Secondly, your method even if it is valid has nothing to with whether ID is valid in the same connectionThe direct answer to your question is that ID employs the exact same method as the naturalist. Indeed, and pay close attention, how in the world could you or I have a different method, when are both simple humans beings exploring and examining the same materialsit is simply an impossiblity for you or I to have a different methodology. We are just humans looking at things from the exact same perspective.Show me a tenet of the SM, that cannot be duplicated in principle by the so-called, IDst. Actually it should be called 'Two Humans examing things'You simply dont like the conclusion brought about by the same process. You dont have anything specialEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

GDR read Percys posts that prompted that response. It may be a bit over the top, but atleast read the insults that prompted such a response.Now I not stupid, I know Percy knew I would read those posts and jump back into the discussion. That was his purpose in the first place.ill try and tone it down for you as I know it is a soft spot. thanks for the kind wordsDawn Bertot