48
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: +
Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis (view source)
Revision as of 21:28, June 29, 2011
, 21:28, June 29, 2011→Falsifiability
::::::::::::Again, I am not concerned with atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or any other "-ism". My only issue is the truth. I understand that you disagree with the facts (or perhaps my presentation), but how you can relegate a century's-worth of work to "voodoo" science is beyond me. What exactly makes this "voodoo" science? Is it my not providing you with original data? I think not, as I doubt you can present the ORIGINAL ten commandments. Not the "voodoo", copied version found in a book that was printed in the 50s. The REAL tablets. Is it that the theory cannot be adequately tested? Again, doubtful; there is no conceivable way (in my narrow-minded, scientific view) of testing God's existence. What, then, can it be? What makes certain evidence "true science", while other facts are labeled "voodoo, pseudoscience"? I can think of only one explanation: "voodoo" science is any piece of evidence not in accordance with your world view. Humbly waiting your reply, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 15:19, 28 June 2011 (EDT).
::::::::::::Again, I am not concerned with atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or any other "-ism". My only issue is the truth. I understand that you disagree with the facts (or perhaps my presentation), but how you can relegate a century's-worth of work to "voodoo" science is beyond me. What exactly makes this "voodoo" science? Is it my not providing you with original data? I think not, as I doubt you can present the ORIGINAL ten commandments. Not the "voodoo", copied version found in a book that was printed in the 50s. The REAL tablets. Is it that the theory cannot be adequately tested? Again, doubtful; there is no conceivable way (in my narrow-minded, scientific view) of testing God's existence. What, then, can it be? What makes certain evidence "true science", while other facts are labeled "voodoo, pseudoscience"? I can think of only one explanation: "voodoo" science is any piece of evidence not in accordance with your world view. Humbly waiting your reply, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 15:19, 28 June 2011 (EDT).
::Alchemy was around a long time too. In science, evidence should be the decisive factor, not naturalistic philosophy. Anyways, [[Shockofgod]] said he is going to drive a stake in the heart of evolutionism biology textbook buying though his Texas assistance to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] which could certainly take a huge bite out of Darwinism. No real point in having a long discussion given the upcoming collapse of Darwinism. Have a nice day. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:54, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::Alchemy was around a long time too. In science, evidence should be the decisive factor, not naturalistic philosophy. Anyways, [[Shockofgod]] said he is going to drive a stake in the heart of evolutionism biology textbook buying though his Texas assistance to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] which could certainly take a huge bite out of Darwinism. No real point in having a long discussion given the upcoming collapse of Darwinism. Have a nice day. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:54, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I have reverted your vandalism of this page. It was a well written and researched article until you came along and destroyed it. You then came on to this talk page and arrogantly dismissed the concerns expressed by the editor who had taken so much trouble in writing it. Your behaviour has been that of a bully. This is a wiki and, as such, relies on co-operation between editors. What you have done is calculated to drive contributing editors away. It was a destructive and disgraceful act. --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 17:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT)