2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 235:
Line 235: + Line 260:
Line 261: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 02:42, September 30, 2007
, 02:42, September 30, 2007→Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
---
---
My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''
My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''
::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.
My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more thing we don't know than we know, regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is God. You disagree with my response that "God" a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==