1,660
edits
Changes
Talk:Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design (view source)
Revision as of 18:49, April 17, 2007
, 18:49, April 17, 2007no edit summary
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. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 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? --[[User:Thammersmith|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'. -- <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup>
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.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 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? --[[User:Thammersmith|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. --[[User:Thammersmith|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.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:49, 17 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? --[[User:Thammersmith|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'. -- <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup>
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.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 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? --[[User:Thammersmith|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. --[[User:Thammersmith|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.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)