2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 215:
Line 215: + + Line 230:
Line 232: + Line 238:
Line 241: + Line 245:
Line 249: +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 00:10, October 2, 2007
, 00:10, October 2, 2007→Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia.
:::::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.
:::::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)
:::::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)
::::::Sure. You also need some mathematics. But anyway, even if matter doesn't explain everything, the religious alternative explains even less. But as I already said before, the honest thing in these situations would be to admit that you simply don't know. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::You asked before why this issue keeps the people busy, and now you mention textbooks. Let me give my view on it. This whole discussion is not about the science of abiogensis and evolution, but it is part of the culture ware in the US, and in particular about who is calling the shots in US schools. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 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)
:::::::# That life consists of only ''one'' self-replicating process. In life, you have several--indeed, hundreds, each conforming to a different "kind."
:::::::# 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)
:::::::# 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)
:::::::::Sure, the mathematical foundation won't tell you where to look for missing links in biological evolution. So, what. But it will tell you that the missing links that creationist are looking for, something like half cow half man, doesn't exist. This kind of missing link is nothing but a strawman. It also tells you that at no stage the successor was radically different. It tell you that you make best progress if the changes are moderate. And some of the missing links that science was looking for they did find. Do you really want to tell me that you faith depends on such a benign event as a person who digs up a fossil in Canada that is somewhere in-between land and sea mammal? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 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.
::::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::: This is the good old creationist argument from improbability. Which, confuses random walks again with evolution. But is shows that increased energy alone is not sufficient. But the amounts of energy consumed by life to sustain itself is sufficient to disprove the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 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.
::::::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)
:::::::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)
::::::::S0 in essence you believe not because you got arguments, but because you are scared by torture, pain, and hellfire. This is a reasonable position if you live in North Korea. Faced with a deity who punishes people for all kinds of reason know and unknown, and who is much smarter than us, I think it is a folly to try to deceive him and pretend to believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 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)