As to your assertion that I am incapable of following the links you mentioned, I see no point in addressing what is obviously nothing more than a personal attack. Since, once again the only evidence you supply to support your assertion is your own opinion. Additionally, in referring to me you stated “If you had no problem with links, you would be able to click them instead of complaining about them.” Please provide the quotation to which you are referring and in which I supposedly expressed my complaints about the links you provided.

Magenta, a Google search can be a useful tool in conducting research, but it is only one of many tools available. Instead of using Google exclusively, perhaps you should consider augmenting your research with other sources. I think you may find it most enlightening.

Your response to the second bullet point failed to address the salient point, which a reading of the previous postings will reveal. You failed in your attempt to support your opinion with any basis in fact and have resorted to personal attack. You stated and I quote “A rational person, with basic internet skills, would be able to click a link and read on their own”. You then imply I lack those basic skills by your following statements, “I had proof, in the link you could not click” and “If you had no problem with links, you would be able to click them instead of complaining about them.” You either intended the attack, or it is the result of ineptitude, I will leave it for the other readers to decide.
Your reply to point three describes the difficulty you encountered, but once again you make excuses and statements without support. If you failed in your attempt to “cut and paste” is it to much to ask you to find an alternative source for your information, or to wait until the “bug on this site” was resolved and then provide the promised evidence.
As to points 4&5 your response once again completely misses the point. You failed to address the fact that you changed the topic by your as yet unsubstantiated statement that “First off, the founding fathers were not Christians- most were Deists or Unitarians. They believed in the existence of a God, but not much more than that.” Not only did you change the topic, but when asked to support your opinion you failed to do so. You still seek to divert attention away from your failure by blaming your actions on me.
As to your point six: May I remind you of your earlier statement? You were the one, who stated you could match me quote for quote in regards to the beliefs expressed by the Founding Fathers. Then failing to do you once again imply the failing is my fault in not following any link you supply.
Then you accuse me of being condescending and suggest I engage in introspection, and yet fail to see your own transgressions in this area. My quote was:
If you state an opinion as a fact without evidence to support it and then expect others to accept it on the basis of your assertion alone is that not the height of arrogance? If you resort to personal attacks upon those who question your assertion is that not arrogance? If you ascribe ignorance to someone for the heinous crime of daring to disagree with you, or to seek the foundational proofs upon which your beliefs are based is that not arrogance and condescension? If you purport to apologize on behalf of someone else and lay the results of your own actions at their feet does it not reek of arrogance and condescension?
Your refusal to click links to get at information tells me that you are unwilling to learn information that goes against your own biases.
Magenta, perhaps you should consider your own advice on being unwilling to explore the sources of information with which you disagree. Consider your own biases before pointing an accusing finger at those with whom you disagree. I need point you no further than your closing statement. Do you not see your own condescension on display here and yet you attack me for the crime of having the temerity to disagree with you. All of us who believe in either Biblical creation or ID and have been subjected to attempts at indoctrination to your opinion in every high school, undergraduate and post-graduate science course we have ever taken. So, as you see we are not the ones who have failed to consider alternative opinions and statements. Once again your argument is without foundation and rest on the shifting sand of your own biases and opinions.
In closing may I repeat point (1 ) when you come here and state your opinion and allude to proof of that opinion is it to much to ask that you have the decency and respect for your readers and their time to provide a quote and citation to the original document where possible. Then readers will make their own choice as to whether the point you bring is sufficiently compelling to lead them to further investigation.
Regards,
Ed

The Scientific community is both capable and responsible for showing how stupid ID is. At one level, they don’t treat it seriously, especially as no actual theory exists. At another level, they probably are relying on the government to suppress it for them. And at a third, some of them are showing it for the fraud it is

2.) What I said was that “A rational person, with basic internet skills, would be able to click a link and read on their own”. I did not say that you were irrational- unless you are saying you are unable to click a link and read on your own. Can you click a link and read on your own?

3.) Ditto #2. And as for my skills, take a look at the root website the link was placed on- developed with ASP, JavaScript, and XML. The problem did not lie with my ability to cut and paste, but with a bug on this site that night. As for your skills, again- can you click links?

4.) and 5.) Do you know the diference between a THREAD and a SITE? I never said this SITE is about Evolution vs ID. this THREAD IS. When you change the topic of a thread, this is called “hijacking”. And as for me not providing proof for the assertion I made- I did- in the link. Can you click links?

6.) Now this one is clear. Come on man, just LOOK at the way you write. Look at your tone. Have a little introspection.
Again, I never stated an opinion as fact- I had proof, in the link you could not click. Without clicking links, you will find it very hard to use the web. Yes, I can match you quote for quote, but again, why bother? those quotes are there, on OTHER PAGES, that you can get to by LINKS.

Your refusal to click links to get at information tells me that you are unwilling to learn information that goes against your own biases.

And now, back to the actual topic of this THREAD:

As far as “assertions about biology”, that’s what’s called KNOWLEDGE about biology.
again, click the link.
Try learning about the subject first.

Please allow me to applaude you for your posting on Evolutionary Theory and Creation.

Ed

Once again I must confess to disappointment in your response. Your arguments as stated are (1) that I seem to believe proof exists only here on this page (2) I am not a rational person (3) I lack basic internet skills (4) I am wasting your time and that of the other readers (5) This site is about Evolution vs Intelligent Design not American History or to be precise the views of religion held by the founding fathers, and I have somehow “hijacked the page.” (6) I am arrogant and condescending.

I will attempt to address these points as concisely as possible.

(1) Magenta, really now, this is a most specious argument of all. I have asked you to provide proof of the points you assert, not as you wrongly infer to my belief in the view that proof only exist on this page, but out of common courtesy to all this page’s readers. When you come here and state your opinion and allude to proof of that opinion is it to much to ask that you have the decency and respect for other readers and their time to provide a quote and citation to the original document where possible. Then readers will make their own choice as to whether the point you bring is sufficiently compelling to lead them to further investigation.
(2) As to my being a rational person I will wager you could find some among my acquaintances who would agree with you. But, in this instance it appears to me that having exhausted your argument you have simply retreated to personal attack and insult. Since, you do not know me I see no other reasonable explanation. Therefore, using your argument then are we to conclude you are not a rational person if you draw unreasonable conclusions about others simply because the hold a differing point of view.
(3) This is my personal favorite. Do you not find it the least bit amusing to look back to your own recent postings, and find you have attempted to impugn me for my “lack of ability to use the web” on the same page where you confessed to your own failure to “cut and paste” the quote you sought to post. You must admit this substantially weakens your assertion that you are qualified to be the judge of the abilities of others to use technology.
(4)(5) I have chosen to combine my response to your arguments on these two points. I will address point five first. This article is about Evolution vs Intelligent Design on that you are correct. The point you are trying to make seems to be lost on you however. A review of your earlier postings will attest to this fact. You Magenta, and I quote, said “First off, the founding fathers were not Christians- most were Deists or Unitarians. They believed in the existance of a God, but not much more than that.” This quote is yours, including I might add the spelling error. For you see, I was able to master the “cut and paste” process and add your quote as it appears above. Your argument then is not really that the page was “hijacked,” is it? Your concern is actually that you were called upon to provide proof for the assertion you made. Now, having provided a very weak response you seek to divert attention away from the fact by your phony apology to the readers and your provably false claim that I hijacked this page. I will add a note to the readers myself at this point. If any of you feel I am wasting your time in regard to my responses to Magenta please accept my sincere apology.
(6) You allege that I am arrogant and condescending. As in the allusion to my state of rationality this one is very subjective. I am sure you would no doubt be able to find among my colleagues some who would support your position.
However, I believe the old adage concerning “People who live in glass houses …” applies here. Your own level of arrogance and condescension as it relates to the expression of your opinions is made patently clear on this page. Magenta, examples of your own arrogance are evident on this page. Allow me to direct your attention to the following points, which support my allegation. If you state an opinion as a fact without evidence to support it and then expect others to accept it on the basis of your assertion alone is that not the height of arrogance? If you resort to personal attacks upon those who question your assertion is that not arrogance? If you ascribe ignorance to someone for the heinous crime of daring to disagree with you, or to seek the foundational proofs upon which your beliefs are based is that not arrogance and condescension? If you purport to apologize on behalf of someone else and lay the results of your own actions at their feet does it not reek of arrogance and condescension?

Your factual response was clearly less than you claimed in your earlier postings where you alluded to “SO MUCH” evidence to support your opinion, or to your ability to match me quote for quote. These five men were atheist or claimed to be deist. However, even in the writing of Franklin I refer you once again to this quote. (Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

Dr. Franklin clearly expresses here his firm belief that the God of the Bible, which Franklin quotes here, is active in the world and the affairs of men. Franklin express that view in his statement of firm belief that “if a sparrow can not fall to the ground without God’s notice then …” His boundless curiosity certainly did cause him to seek and question among the various Christian denominations, but his stated views appear to be much closer to those of Christians than to the ACLU.

I look forward in my next posting to addressing your most recent assertions on biology.

Ed

Thomas Paine clearly states he is not only not Christian, but not a member of any religion.

James Madison is at *the minimum* anti-organized religion, but more likely anti-Christian.

Ethan Allen clearly states he is a Christian, and accepts the label of Deist.

Thomas Jefferson’s statements against Christianity are so harsh he is practically an Atheist- but he was more likely a Deist.

Benjamin Franklin clearly states he is a Deist.

And to everyone else reading this, I am sorry that Ed’s arrogance and lack of ability to use the web has caused this thread to be hijacked.