Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
574
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 163:
Line 163: + +
no edit summary
I don't feel good about reverting your reversion because you've been here a lot longer than me, but I honestly feel that there are issues with CP that need to be dealt with. Too much of the time CP is preaching to the choir and using a message that nobody else is going to listen to. Like I said on the talk page, I have a BSc in evolutionary biology and I'm pretty knowledgable on the subject. I have concluded for solid, SCIENTIFIC reasons that evolutionary theory is wrong, and we can easily demonstrate that. However we don't help ourselves by using arguments that people a lot less knowledgable than me can effortlessly shoot down. I hope you'll join the discussion on the "Counterexamples to evolution" talk page, because in my situation it would be really good if I could persuade you to add your firepower to my argument. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:42, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't feel good about reverting your reversion because you've been here a lot longer than me, but I honestly feel that there are issues with CP that need to be dealt with. Too much of the time CP is preaching to the choir and using a message that nobody else is going to listen to. Like I said on the talk page, I have a BSc in evolutionary biology and I'm pretty knowledgable on the subject. I have concluded for solid, SCIENTIFIC reasons that evolutionary theory is wrong, and we can easily demonstrate that. However we don't help ourselves by using arguments that people a lot less knowledgable than me can effortlessly shoot down. I hope you'll join the discussion on the "Counterexamples to evolution" talk page, because in my situation it would be really good if I could persuade you to add your firepower to my argument. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:42, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:No need to be sorry, I can see your reasoning. One has to be very careful around here of evolutionists and atheists trying to subvert the project. They use a variety of tactics to do that, one of which is trying to sow doubts about the strength of our articles. Of course we're very happy to deal with legitimate discussion and criticism, but we have to be very sensitive to motivation. It's clear that you genuinely want to improve the article and supply the best arguments, but I suspect FCapra has a rather less wholesome motivation.
:As for getting involved in the substance of the discussion, I'm afraid my knowledge of biology is very poor, so I can't really give an informed opinion. For what it's worth, I'll say that it's important to realize that simply because an evolutionist has an answer to a particular point, he isn't necessarily right about it. If some of the arguments given in the article are frequently criticized by evolutionists, that might just mean we should develop responses to their criticisms rather than dropping the point in question. For example, if evolutionists have a model for how social behaviour evolved, that doesn't mean the argument from social behaviour is false, simply that they have a putative answer to it. Rather than ceasing to argue against evolution using that argument, we should examine how their model is flawed and so doesn't in fact answer the point. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)