Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 131:
Line 131: − ::::::::::::ASchalfly, I apologise profusely for the new name, but Ed blocked me again as I was trying to answer your question. Again, I point out, I am not debating ID or any of these other points- again, I'm not qualified to. I am simply saying that the reviewer has seen the film, we haven't, and he claims that Stein says this. Other reviewers ALSO say that this is what Stein says. So by denying the quote, you're denying Stein his voice, because this is, apparently, what he says. It's not a falsehood, because he's seen the movie. And I'm not talking about ID, I'm talking about Stein's argument. We're simply quoting a movie review. Can you see my point? It's not about the theory, it's about the quote. [[User:JanEngerlund|JanEngerlund]] 23:05, 17 April 2008 (EDT) Line 140:
Line 139: − − ::One last thing Ed - you banned me again for "misquoting" again. What did I misquote? I reprinted the Time article verbatim [[User:JanEngerlund|JanEngerlund]] 23:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 03:08, April 18, 2008
, 03:08, April 18, 2008Reverted edits by JanEngerlund (Talk); changed back to last version by Ed Poor
::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
But what is the reviewer saying here?
But what is the reviewer saying here?
Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)