Changes

:You actually think that satire is “mocking” and “irrational” when Conservapedia depicts a political cartoon mocking liberalism on the [[liberal]] page. You employ a double standard here. I highly doubt you would allow a political cartoon mocking conservatism on the [[conservative]] page. Satire actually does make the situation better. It gets the attention of people who also feel that the action is unjust. Now if intelligent design would be allowed, would you then support introducing creationism and intelligent design based on the views of the Greek polytheists, Germanic pagans, Hinduists, etc.. There is no sense in introducing intelligent design and creationist theories, especially when they are rejected unanimously by scientists. Teach it in history, not in science class. Teach science based on the scientific method in science class. None of the creationist and intelligent design theories are based on the scientific method.

:You actually think that satire is “mocking” and “irrational” when Conservapedia depicts a political cartoon mocking liberalism on the [[liberal]] page. You employ a double standard here. I highly doubt you would allow a political cartoon mocking conservatism on the [[conservative]] page. Satire actually does make the situation better. It gets the attention of people who also feel that the action is unjust. Now if intelligent design would be allowed, would you then support introducing creationism and intelligent design based on the views of the Greek polytheists, Germanic pagans, Hinduists, etc.. There is no sense in introducing intelligent design and creationist theories, especially when they are rejected unanimously by scientists. Teach it in history, not in science class. Teach science based on the scientific method in science class. None of the creationist and intelligent design theories are based on the scientific method.

:I’m sorry to burst your bubble but it is true that none of these theories are based on the scientific method. No, it is not anti-creationist. Nor is it used to simply silence creationist arguments. Just because the scientific method proves the theory of creationism and intelligent design wrong, doesn’t mean that it is trying to create a “monopoly”. Lay off the ad hominems. How do you really think this doesn’t address the argument? It is the argument. You have just used a non sequitur. Contrary to your belief, science does contradict the Bible. Now I know that there are countless contradictions, but I’ll start with one. Now in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, the Bible states that Earth has four corners. Hmmmm… well, science has already indisputably proven that the Earth is spherical (of course after long oppression from Christians because they were too stubborn to accept the truth). I could go on…

:I’m sorry to burst your bubble but it is true that none of these theories are based on the scientific method. No, it is not anti-creationist. Nor is it used to simply silence creationist arguments. Just because the scientific method proves the theory of creationism and intelligent design wrong, doesn’t mean that it is trying to create a “monopoly”. Lay off the ad hominems. How do you really think this doesn’t address the argument? It is the argument. You have just used a non sequitur. Contrary to your belief, science does contradict the Bible. Now I know that there are countless contradictions, but I’ll start with one. Now in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, the Bible states that Earth has four corners. Hmmmm… well, science has already indisputably proven that the Earth is spherical (of course after long oppression from Christians because they were too stubborn to accept the truth). I could go on…

Now here’s a flat lie on your part. You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about. In Darwin’s autobiography, he explicitly stated that he had always believed that the Bible was indisputable and could not be contradicted. He never doubted the existence of God in his youth and that is a fact. Darwin later doubted the verifiability of the Bible when his scientific research led him to the conclusion that the Bible is pseudoscientific. And yet you continue to make unsubstantiated claims. All records of Darwin’s study and experimentation of the evolutionary process follow the scientific method. Creationism is theory based on no scientific research, hence not based on the scientific method. Don’t bother replying again unless you are willing to cite your assertions. Simply repeating the fabricated claim is utterly invalid and only furthers your hypocrisy. [[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 19:15, 6 February 2008 (EST)

:Now here’s a flat lie on your part. You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about. In Darwin’s autobiography, he explicitly stated that he had always believed that the Bible was indisputable and could not be contradicted. He never doubted the existence of God in his youth and that is a fact. Darwin later doubted the verifiability of the Bible when his scientific research led him to the conclusion that the Bible is pseudoscientific. And yet you continue to make unsubstantiated claims. All records of Darwin’s study and experimentation of the evolutionary process follow the scientific method. Creationism is theory based on no scientific research, hence not based on the scientific method. Don’t bother replying again unless you are willing to cite your assertions. Simply repeating the fabricated claim is utterly invalid and only furthers your hypocrisy. [[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 19:15, 6 February 2008 (EST)

:: "''...would you then support introducing creationism and intelligent design based on the views of the Greek polytheists, Germanic pagans, Hinduists, etc.''":  If they had scientific merit, then yes.  Your question presumes that I agree with your view, which clearly I don't, so is an invalid question.  That is, your question presumes that those beliefs ''and creationism and intelligent design'' all have no merit.

:: "''...would you then support introducing creationism and intelligent design based on the views of the Greek polytheists, Germanic pagans, Hinduists, etc.''":  If they had scientific merit, then yes.  Your question presumes that I agree with your view, which clearly I don't, so is an invalid question.  That is, your question presumes that those beliefs ''and creationism and intelligent design'' all have no merit.

:: "''There is no sense in introducing intelligent design and creationist theories, especially when they are rejected unanimously by scientists.''":  And you have the gall to call ''me'' a liar!  Either this is a blatant lie, or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  ID and creationism are rejected by a ''majority'', likely even a ''large majority'', of scientists, but it is absolute nonsense to claim that it is rejected ''unanimously''.  You've blown your credibility right there.  And seeing you ask for references (despite not supplying any yourself), see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983 here].

:: "''There is no sense in introducing intelligent design and creationist theories, especially when they are rejected unanimously by scientists.''":  And you have the gall to call ''me'' a liar!  Either this is a blatant lie, or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  ID and creationism are rejected by a ''majority'', likely even a ''large majority'', of scientists, but it is absolute nonsense to claim that it is rejected ''unanimously''.  You've blown your credibility right there.  And seeing you ask for references (despite not supplying any yourself), see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983 here].