Okay @theman8469 let’s work this out. First of all, thank you for giving me insight into your thoughts. I appreciate it. I can see a bit more clearly what is going on.
Please do disagree with me. I’m fine with this. It was the insults and aggressiveness that pushed it over the edge.
I do not want to ban you. I want you to post. I just want you to communicate with respect and kindness, even with atheists, and especially with me. You when so far that even @Guy_Coe, and ID guy, was pushing back on you. Just be kind.
I had no part in that. I was working. I need to remind you…
All I know is that there was a long thread of people arguing in circles about who one a debate. I do not care, and a debate about a debate is meaningless.
I was not insulting Meyer or Biola. It is just a fact that the vast majority of undergraduates and public cannot follow the technical details. That is just a fact for any technical scientific debate, especially when conducted verbally.
You also misunderstand what I am getting at too with Meyer. I think ID is extremely effective with its rhetoric, even brilliant at times. Most scientific are genuinely bad at rhetoric. Meyers is great at his rhetoric too, as is Doug Axe, and also many of their big fish. It is a complement to them. This is one thing they do well.
I’m not insulting anyone’s intelligence. The problem is that science does not progress by winning public debates. So it just does not matter who won or not.
The crux of this, however, is here…
Meyer is a Christian and I have no animosity towards him. He is welcome here, and I would insist every one treat him with respect. @Art deserves that same respect too. I tolerate everyone in the conversation here. I am a Christian too, even though @art appears to be an atheist, and I insist he be treated with respect too. I know this is surprising, but do not interpret my kindness as endorsement. I will be kind to people who treat ID people poorly. I will be kind to people who treat scientists and atheists poorly. My kindness is not an endorsement of other’s behavior. It is just kindness.
Observing anti-ID rhetoric is not a valid reason to post a link claiming that another person lost a debate with Meyers. Who the heck cares? I certainly don’t. Most scientists lose arguments to ID, because ID has strong rhetoric. Moreover, there is both anti-ID and pro-ID rhetoric “brewing” here. Get used to it. Many of us are opposed to bad arguments, and find a lot of bad arguments in ID.
All the same, I still aim treat ID advocates with kindness here. If you think I’ve been unkind, help me understand what I missed. Often, I’ve edited posts, and even apologized. I aim to treat ID fairly. I’m sure I will make mistakes ,but I am also correctable.
Disagree all you want, but be kind. Do not waste our time with “who one a debate.” Instead, let’s get into substantive questions and issues.
I did not know that was parody. I do not even know the insulting comment Patrick made. You have to note parody as parody. No one can tell.
He is not threatening you. He is giving you fair warning. You were on your way to being temporarily suspended. We were asking you to pause, as you have done here.
Now finally, thanks for your comments here:
That is very kind of you. I hope I can take you up on that some time. I’d look forward to it.
@theman8469 you really are welcome here. You can disagree with me. No hard feelings from this. Let’s just find a better sort of interaction. The purpose of this site is not to debate. It is to understand and be understood. The next time things are being said that are difficult, ask questions to understand what is going on. Explain yourself so others can understand you. If anyone says something insulting, ask them to stop. If they continue, flag their posts. If I say something insulting, tell me and ask me to explain. I might even apologize and retract.
We are seeking peace here. I believe that we can find a different sort of community, that is not contingent on agreement. Don’t give up on us, and I will look forward to hearing from you soon.