Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 8:09 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,199 Year: 15,235/19,786 Month: 1,958/3,058 Week: 332/404 Day: 50/96 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 210 of 707 (725488)
04-27-2014 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by AdminModulous
02-09-2014 12:34 PM


Re: mini-rant
AdmonModulous writes:

I think Theological Creationism and ID we designed for this purpose. And it was built for Faith too, if I recall correctly.

Why are "Theological Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" bunched together on the same thread title? They're clearly different things, from a pro-ID perspective. In effect you are classifying them together by the implication inherent in the title of the thread!

This seems to be a major case of question begging, biased to favour the Darwinian camp.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by AdminModulous, posted 02-09-2014 12:34 PM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by nwr, posted 04-27-2014 6:02 PM Ed67 has responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 212 of 707 (725490)
04-27-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by nwr
04-27-2014 6:02 PM


Re: mini-rant
Ok, I see, like Theological Creationists can discuss evidence from Intelligent Design theory that supports their beliefs. I get it.

However, to say:

nwr writes:

...these kinds of topics could be discussed without the evidence requirements of the science forums.

is the same question-begging as I thought the title was, and just as biased toward the Darwinian camp.

It implies that NEITHER 'Theological Creationism' NOR 'Intelligent Design' are supported by scientific fact, and that's just not true of ID. (nor for that matter properly understood Theological Creationism, but that's another topic)
cheers

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by nwr, posted 04-27-2014 6:02 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by nwr, posted 04-27-2014 6:46 PM Ed67 has responded
 Message 218 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2014 8:45 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


(1)
Message 214 of 707 (725497)
04-27-2014 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by nwr
04-27-2014 6:46 PM


Re: mini-rant
Ok I completely understand you this time. That forum is for discussing non-scientific implications of ID theory. I apologize for speaking out in my ignorance, I can only say that my protest was made in good faith, although misguided by my assumptions.

Lesson learned (again lol)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by nwr, posted 04-27-2014 6:46 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 215 of 707 (725498)
04-27-2014 7:54 PM


We have a Problem
The personal abuse on the Intelligent Design threads is getting out of hand. If it doesn't stop, I will have to recommend disciplinary actions, or leave this board. There has been no meaningful discussion for the last couple days, and lots of personal harassment and insults. I'm talking about these threads :
'Is there a legitimate argument for design?' and
'The Semiotic argument for design'

For instance, the latest thread in 'Legitimate argument' is this:

Capt Stormfield writes:

You are throwing useless RED HERRINGS into the discussion in an attempt to harass me. Any more of this an I will be reporting this to the administrators.
Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you report that I've invited you to kiss my ass, you unresponsive troll.

Now, if that is the opinion of all of you Darwinists on this forum, just let me know and I'll take my leave.

There's no understanding to be found under these conditions.


Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Capt Stormfield, posted 04-27-2014 8:14 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 217 by AdminNosy, posted 04-27-2014 8:17 PM Ed67 has responded
 Message 219 by AZPaul3, posted 04-27-2014 8:51 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2014 7:10 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 220 of 707 (725510)
04-27-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by AdminNosy
04-27-2014 8:17 PM


Re: Problems
Well, as an administrator, it's your responsibility to enforce the rules that are intended to keep this forum civil.

If it's your choice not to take corrective action, then I'll have to declare this forum a sham. I was promised "understanding through Discussion" not harassment by dog piling.

You all know what you are doing. You can't refute my argument for design so you act dumb and start asking pre-high school level questions, nit picking and finally personal attacks. A little in the spirit of humour is entertainment. In these quantities, however, it's harassment and abuse.

So you've ceased to entertain me.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by AdminNosy, posted 04-27-2014 8:17 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Omnivorous, posted 04-28-2014 12:17 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 224 by Admin, posted 04-28-2014 8:59 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019