Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: o
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:26:41 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 76
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <BoeON.123693$U1cc.108111@fx04.iad>
References: <uu6kom$ajd9$1@dont-email.me> <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>
 <uu9hks$ipvj$5@dont-email.me> <5gYNN.478357$vFZa.473963@fx13.iad>
 <xn0ojy4mvb2pf75002@news.giganews.com> <6Y3ON.187465$taff.82486@fx41.iad>
 <xn0ojynw2bbk4tx003@news.giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="22567"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 13.4; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.1
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <xn0ojynw2bbk4tx003@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 5428

Dexter wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
> 
>> Dexter wrote:
>>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>>> vallor wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote in <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
>>>>> intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
>>>>> e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>>>>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>>>>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be
>>>>>>> since the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools
>>>>>>> isn't a scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to
>>>>>>> what it is in any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators
>>>>>>> believe otherwise they should have made that clear in the act, and
>>>>>>> they should have been more honest as to what they were doing.
>>>>>>   >
>>>>>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>>>>>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>>>>>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer to the question is "mu".
>>>>>
>>>>> (The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
>>>>> that it is "right".)
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker.  Is that
>>>>> a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell checker
>>>>> "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your bigoted statement,
>>>>> hmmm?
>>>>>
>>>> My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I
>>>> question that you love terrorist.  But what other reason for challenging
>>>> my view?
>>> -------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Interesting that you should introduce the topic of terrorism in this thread.
>>> If one examines recent christian history, I think it could properly be said
>>> that christianity shares some distinct terroristic tendencies with other
>>> contemporary religions.
>>>
>> In my view, there is absolutely no justification for any terrorism regardless
>> of who's the perpetrator or whatever is the cause. I made this clear: so, why
>> do you bring this up?
>>>
>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/
>>>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/atlanta.htm
>>>
> https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers
>>> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eric-Rudolph
>>>
> https://prochoice.org/violence-against-abortion-providers-continues-to-rise-following-roe-reversal-new-report-finds/
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
>>>
> -------------------------------------
> 
> You're the one who noted your bigotry was towards terror and terrorists.
> Aren't the actions noted in these links those of terrorists who's motives are
> based on their religious beliefs? 
 >
Whatever the cause. This certainly does _not_ exclude their religious 
beliefs.

  It seems I may have found your blind spot.
>