Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 212:
Line 212: + + + Line 223:
Line 226: + + + + Line 230:
Line 237: + Line 236:
Line 244: + Line 253:
Line 262: +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 13:59, October 1, 2007
, 13:59, October 1, 2007→Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::*You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how long shall I have to wait until I see high-school textbooks drop the [[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] drawings, for example, though even many of Haeckel's contemporaries laughed at those?
:::::For that matter, the whole reason for such blistering political controversy--not to mention lawsuit after lawsuit--that we see today is the proposal to revise textbooks to remind people that just maybe [[Charles Darwin]] didn't have as full an understanding as his followers pretend that he had.
:::::As [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] pointed out above, your problem, which you share with people like Dawkins and Gould and Scott and others, is that you ''restrict'' science to the ''material'' world. Nothing exists except matter. The trouble is that matter can't explain everything, and you know it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::For evolution to happen it is irrelevant how it began. As long as it is self-replicating. If humans would manage to bring life to mars, it would certainly evolve on Mars, even if humans are long gone. And if you want proof that life is self-replicating, go visit a farm.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:15, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::For evolution to happen it is irrelevant how it began. As long as it is self-replicating. If humans would manage to bring life to mars, it would certainly evolve on Mars, even if humans are long gone. And if you want proof that life is self-replicating, go visit a farm.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:15, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Irrelevant? On the contrary, the beginnings of life are far more material (pardon the pun) and far more relevant than you would have us believe.
:::::::It took me awhile to understand what you meant by a self-replicating process. But now you have to show two things:
:::::::# That life consists of only ''one'' self-replicating process. In life, you have several--indeed, hundreds, each conforming to a different "kind."
:::::::# That one "kind" ''ever'' gave rise to another, radically different kind. Going back to those lectures I had, and again I have seen no updates worthy of the name: the evolutionistic paradigm that I was taught, stated that a [[gene]] is a mutated [[virus]], that [[mitochondria]] and [[chloroplast]]s were originally independent organisms, and that ''all species'' more complex than viruses (with the possible exception of sponges) derived from [[coelenterate]]s. All [[protist]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s--they all came from one kind, the coelenterates. Now ''that'' you can't show. And my proof? Evolutionists speak of "missing links"--hypothetical species intermediate in form between two species that are known. Guess what? ''The missing links are still missing''. Of course they are. You can't find a never-was. And none of your mathematical algorithms will find a single piece of tangible evidence to suggest that they ever existed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Glad that you admit that life is connected to the rest of the universe. Life is very orderly indeed, but e.g. the fusion of hydrogen in the sun leads to such a big increase in entropy, that every decrease on earth accomplished by life can easily be offset. You would be right is the life would have taken over the universe, but as far as we know it confined to small pockets, on the scale of the universe.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::Glad that you admit that life is connected to the rest of the universe. Life is very orderly indeed, but e.g. the fusion of hydrogen in the sun leads to such a big increase in entropy, that every decrease on earth accomplished by life can easily be offset. You would be right is the life would have taken over the universe, but as far as we know it confined to small pockets, on the scale of the universe.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Well then, tell me this: if increased energy alone were sufficient to reduce entropy in another part of the universe, then why couldn't a [[tornado]] rip through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747? And that's no joke. See Perloff, James, ''Tornado in a Junkyard: the Relentless Myth of Darwinism'', Refuge Books, 1999. ISBN 0966816005.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
---
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::What you say is that they aren't Christains. That's cool, but now I am faced with to kinds of Christians, and one kind of them claims that the other is dishonest about their beliefs. You might be right about their dishonesty, but I don't see why I should choose either side.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:19, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::What you say is that they aren't Christains. That's cool, but now I am faced with to kinds of Christians, and one kind of them claims that the other is dishonest about their beliefs. You might be right about their dishonesty, but I don't see why I should choose either side.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:19, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Now ''I'' have to admit that "why you should choose" is beyond the scope of this page. But it's a matter of supreme importance to each and every living soul, because the eternal destiny of an unsaved soul is a horror that I wouldn't wish on my worst earthly enemy. [[Jesus Christ]] came to earth to pay, in full, the penalty for [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]]. There's just one catch, though--if you don't believe in [[God]] and don't believe in sin, then...!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* 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)
:::::How odd--in the Sixties, scientism confidently expected to find all the answers, that it was just a matter of time. The broader name for this kind of thinking was [[modernism]]. Now we have [[postmodernism]], which is the cop-out of all time. Don't cop out on me, Order--that would be unworthy of you.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sure, I am skeptical, because there might be problems that are to big for humans to comprehend. That aside, you seem to think that abiogensis means that that somewhere and at sometime something arose from nothing? Science always explains something new by a material process, and none of its attempts to explain abiogenesis said that something came from nothing. This might be limiting, but that are the rules of the game. And how does intelligence solve this anyway? I have seen many intelligent people, but regardless of how intelligent they were, few were able to create matter and molecules from nothing. Maybe you can explain, how intelligence, without the use of tools and existing material, can create something material? Order 07:07, 1 October 2007
::::::Sure, I am skeptical, because there might be problems that are to big for humans to comprehend. That aside, you seem to think that abiogensis means that that somewhere and at sometime something arose from nothing? Science always explains something new by a material process, and none of its attempts to explain abiogenesis said that something came from nothing. This might be limiting, but that are the rules of the game. And how does intelligence solve this anyway? I have seen many intelligent people, but regardless of how intelligent they were, few were able to create matter and molecules from nothing. Maybe you can explain, how intelligence, without the use of tools and existing material, can create something material? Order 07:07, 1 October 2007