92
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 349:
Line 349: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 15:01, October 2, 2007
, 15:01, October 2, 2007→Second attempt to wrap up
Very well, then. This discussion is at an end--and I hope that all attempts from my side at compromise will now come to an end, because they are absolutely futile.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 10:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Very well, then. This discussion is at an end--and I hope that all attempts from my side at compromise will now come to an end, because they are absolutely futile.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 10:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This reply confuses me. Your understanding of "compromise" is hilariously warped. You can't "compromise" on scientifically observed facts. You can't say, "I think the value of ''g'' is 9.3 m/s^2," and expect me to reply, "fine, let's settle this and agree on 9.5 m/s^2, that's a fair compromise." You can't stipulate away observed facts, and expect the world to change by ''fiat''!! If a "compromise" in this sense is to have any meaning, it would have to be an agreement to make a good faith effort to examine and reply to the evidence in favor of each other's position.
:But, you fail even to make this sort of "compromise." Rather than evaluating the arguments put forward, and replying to the arguments in an attempt to better understand them, you espouse your warped definition of "compromise," re-state your position, and then say, "well, I tried." Actually, you didn't. You just ignored countervailing evidence, and walked away when it suited you.
:I invite you to make a good-faith effort at understanding and replying to our arguments. They do, after all, go unanswered. As to the age of the earth, I'll start by making a good-faith reply. The first "scholarship" espousing an age of the earth of 6000 years is a pre-modern Latin text from the 1300s. Tragically, the arguments haven't changed much since then, as you prove, Terry. Let's assume that adding up the ages of the people in the Bible would get you a full account of history. You're still dealing with a document that is unreliable for the veracity of the matter which you're asserting. I do not discount the Bible as a spiritual text, but as a scholar of ancient documents, I do discount it as a (1) scientific or (2) historical document. ''No'' historical document is reliable enough to base a scientific theory on, without corroborating physical evidence. Trying to shoehorn the Bible into the framework of a historical document is absurd when the initial readers had different understandings of time, society, culture, politics, etc., that make a direct 1:1 correspondence absurd.
:Further, the Bible at no time says "this is the entire history of mankind, with no gaps in the account." If it did, your argument would become slightly ''less'' absurd. But the Bible at no point evinces an intent to capture all of human history within the four corners of the document, and to assume as much is to assume your conclusion!
:So there's another good faith argument on my part. Let's see yours. Please do not use rhetoric and hurt feelings to get you out of your duty to analyze and reply to the arguments asserted.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:01, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==