2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 308:
Line 308: + Line 315:
Line 316: + Line 322:
Line 324: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 04:21, October 2, 2007
, 04:21, October 2, 2007→Wrap up
:You did forget a number of things, chief among which is that I am under Divine orders, per {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=28|verses=19-20}}, to spread the Truth and oppose error and falsehood wheresoever I find it.
:You did forget a number of things, chief among which is that I am under Divine orders, per {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=28|verses=19-20}}, to spread the Truth and oppose error and falsehood wheresoever I find it.
:About those "algorithms"--a commentator named Jim Manzi mentioned them in an essay published in the current issue of ''National Review''. He states that if those algorithms work at all, then they show that, because evolution is not random after all, one cannot assert ''a priori'' that [[God]] does not direct it. Fine, except for one crucial element that we never even considered: time. Evolution, as you currently define it, takes far more time than the earth has been around.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:About those "algorithms"--a commentator named Jim Manzi mentioned them in an essay published in the current issue of ''National Review''. He states that if those algorithms work at all, then they show that, because evolution is not random after all, one cannot assert ''a priori'' that [[God]] does not direct it. Fine, except for one crucial element that we never even considered: time. Evolution, as you currently define it, takes far more time than the earth has been around.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::I was telling you all the time that evolution wasn't random. Glad that you finally got it. And if you would have read the literature on the algorithm, you would have noticed that there a faster optimization algorithms around. This observation isn't exactly news. Evolution itself is the process without a director. But you can, as theistic evolutionists and IDers do, claim that a creator at some places stepped in and accelerated the process. But unless you specify where, when and how this creator did it, you still didn't explain anything, but you seek refuge with you creator in some unspecified unknowns. Which is even more vague than hiding in some known unknowns, like abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Terry, hi, new user here. So you do realize that that argument is circular?
Terry, hi, new user here. So you do realize that that argument is circular?
#Evolution would disprove special creation.
#Evolution would disprove special creation.
:Evolution doesn't disprove anything, because no one has proved evolution. No one seems able even to define it. How do ''you'' define it? If someone defines it as change that can happen to a species over time, then evolution says nothing about special origin. But you just implied that evolution ''implies'' that all species derive from one, whose origin remains a mystery. Which is it?
:Evolution doesn't disprove anything, because no one has proved evolution. No one seems able even to define it. How do ''you'' define it? If someone defines it as change that can happen to a species over time, then evolution says nothing about special origin. But you just implied that evolution ''implies'' that all species derive from one, whose origin remains a mystery. Which is it?
:Also, I repudiate the charge of [[circular reasoning]]. I know about how long the [[earth]] has existed, and it's not the billions of years that would be required.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Also, I repudiate the charge of [[circular reasoning]]. I know about how long the [[earth]] has existed, and it's not the billions of years that would be required.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution doesn't imply that all came from one? Who claims that? Didn't I say the opposite. It has just been observed to be the case that all life we know is DNA based. This discussion start to become repetitive. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure you do "know" that. How?
I'm sure you do "know" that. How?
As a final note, of course evolution is never "proven." No scientific theory is ever "proven," since new evidence will always emerge to require adaptation of theories. All that we can ask is that a scientific theory reflect the present evidence, and contemplate the inclusion of future evidence... a test which evolution passes with flying colors.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:44, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
As a final note, of course evolution is never "proven." No scientific theory is ever "proven," since new evidence will always emerge to require adaptation of theories. All that we can ask is that a scientific theory reflect the present evidence, and contemplate the inclusion of future evidence... a test which evolution passes with flying colors.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:44, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "wrap up" was intended to continue the discussion at an appropriate place. Sorry, that I forgot to mention that you act under divine orders. The rest of you argument is captured by my point that you think that science has to explain everything, otherwise atheism falters. I still think that this nothing more than a strawman. The discussion with you is cumbersome, since keep arguing against positions that you think think I should take, but which I don't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==