Talk:Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If this page gets deleted, than I don't see why Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution can't go bye-bye as well. --Hojimachongtalk 23:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This is nothing but an array of pot-shots written by a speculative doctor with no citation anywhere. I'm sorry, but it sounds more like the ramblings of someone that doesn't beleive in Intelligent Design more than a legitimate intellectual attack against the belief. You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia - why are you here? --Thammersmith 14:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There isn't a single citation in the other essay; at least PalmD001 is only sticking to bashing ID, whereas Aschlafly seems to have pulled figures out of his head to snipe at evolution.

'You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia - why are you here?'

It has been expressly stated that anyone (even liberals! even Hojimachong!) can contribute to CP in order to make it 'fair' and 'balanced'. -- Wikinterpretertalk?

Oh, my. If you read what I said earlier, this is not written as FACT, but as an ESSAY. It is inherently opinion, and I do not represent it as anything other than that. It was also written, as stated, as a deliberate parody/mirror of another article cited here, which contains all of the same flaws as my essay. So, this essay is meant to be flawed; in the exact same way as the root essay it is based on. It uses the rhetorical technique of parody to show the flaws in something else. It is not meant to be taken literally as pro or anti ID.--PalMDtalk 14:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

If you don't want to take this site seriously, maybe you should evaluate why you are spending time here. Are you just trying to be a bully? What is your deal? --Thammersmith 14:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

This isn't about a battle between PalMD and Mr. Schlafly - this is about a bogus, unsourced "essay" written by someone that just wants to pick a fight. Clearly, not everybody is allowed to contribute. Vandals and fight-mongers are justifiably banned from participation. Under that framework, this essay should be deleted. The author just wants to attack the beliefs of many users here through shoddy writing and ill-cited arguments. --Thammersmith 14:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Tim, any argument you stated above must inherently apply to Andy's essay as well, as they are almost identical. However, they are both essays, neither is passed off as fact, so they are just here to spur discussion. Enjoy.--PalMDtalk 14:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I havn't read Mr. Schalfly's essay, but I don't need to for the purposes of your little stunt. I know Mr. Schlafly didn't write anything as a joke, whereas you have been clear that you're just trying to create a scene. This isn't about you, this is about education. --Thammersmith 14:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Education involves argument, thesis and anti-thesis, back and forth. I make no claim to know the answer to life, the universe, and everything. That is for God and other minds sharper than my own.--PalMDtalk 14:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Try to turn this into a properly cited article, attributing the various speculations about ID advocates' motives to named sources. Otherwise, I might have to delete it just to save you from being, er, cyber-lynched? --Ed Poor 14:56, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I actually dont mind being cyber-lynched. This article is in NO WAY substantially different from the article it mirrors. Either both remain unadulterated for discussion, or both go. I don't feel it needs citations, as I claim not factual authority, just pure (perhaps irresponsible) speculation--just as does the source article.--PalMDtalk 15:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed he is right, Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution, has no citations either.--TimS 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I actually favor leaving both as they are. It is interesting. I have no objection to Andy's essay (unless it were to be turned into an actual article, something I would not do with mine).PalMDtalk 15:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like ask Thammersmith what does he mean by: "You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia" What exactly is the message of Conservapedia? Timppeli 15:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, for me, it has been a place to learn more about a certain trend in conservative thought, and engage in discussion people different from myself. It is intellectually stimulating to learn from others, especially those who hold different views from yourself. I have limited my so-called fact-based articles to facts. Opinion essays are listed as such. Discussion on talk pages is actually a good thing for all involved, IMHO. Im happy to see a student like T.Ham using his wits to argue a point.--PalMDtalk 15:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I guess the discussion is over.--PalMDtalk 14:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)