Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Mike Miller wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Josh wrote:
You are a secular person and you want to promote the secular doctrine
that the Earth and all animals on it, including people, were created
by random chance. Am I mistaken?
Of course you are mistaken. You should get a book and read it.
Here's one:
Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393316823/
It deals with the "randomness" problem that you don't seem to
understand. I think all of Dawkins' books are good, but I can
definitely recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" because I actually read
that one, albeit about 17 years ago:
I've read a number of books/papers/sites in support of evolution and I
haven't found one that addresses the core problems with the theory
itself. It seems that the ideologues on that side of the argument ignore
the problems because some parts *could* make sense if taken in a vacuum.
The blind watchmaker theory seems to have a laundry list of problems,
though I have yet to read the book myself.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393315703/
How about you buy a book, too? May I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785243631/002-8476775-1547205?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
You want to use Wikipedia to promote your beliefs, even if that means
intentionally distorting the truth. Some in the Wikipedia community
don't want you to do this. They see you as a biased secular
ideologue bent on distorting the facts to promote a self serving
pseudo-scientific, not truly scientific, belief system.
Those people are obviously crazy.
They would probably say the same thing about you. Presuming superiority
does nothing to strengthen your argument.
I don't necessarily want anyone to "back me up." My edits were purely
factual from any perspective and if you can't concede that some
legitimate scientists believe in theories other than evolution (not
necessarily creationism) then you may need to examine your own
objectivity.
Maybe you should name one such person. I don't think Michael Behe,
the guy most people would name first, doesn't believe in evolution, he
just believes that it is possible that there was some divine
intervention in addition to the evolutionary process. Am I wrong?
He's a religious ideologue too.
There are thousands of educated individuals in this country that
strongly belief in Christianity. I suppose your argument is that they
can't possibly be true scientists, despite many holding advanced degrees
in fields of science, if they don't agree with you and therefore should
be excluded.
Here is a list of general scientists who support creationism:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci
And here is a list of just biologists:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci
By the way, some legitimate scientists do believe other theories. You
don't see that because your criteria for "legitimate" includes
"agrees with me."
Who are you talking about? And why are their names being held in secret?
Secret? See above. Also, reference the thousands of books written by
individuals other than evolutionists on the topic. The ACLU has not yet
succeeded in making it illegal to voice an opinion outside the liberal
agenda. (Sorry, cheap shot there...)
I have studied evolution, and I'm not convinced. Too frequently some
new discovery alters the theory in a very substantial way yet each
time scientists claim "we have it right this time."
Nothing has ever happened to alter Darwin's theory in a substantial
way. It's pretty much now what it was in 1859. Every discovery we've
made in molecular biology has served to support Darwin. You're just
making things up.
Not at all. The "theory" is constantly being adjusted based on new
evidence, but not adjusted with the honest intent of discovering the
truth. Virtually every article I've read from evolutionist ideologues
about new evidence maintains the attitude of "wow, we were wrong..but
since evolution must still be true, lets figure out some way to make it
'work' with this new data." The attitude should be "wow, we were wrong.
Lets re-examine everything and see what makes the most sense now."
As far as your comment with regard to adding a link to express my
views - why? There are other pages on the wiki that cover the other
theories adequately and there are many other resources available that
do an excellent job of it as well. My views don't belong on a page
about evolution - but neither does a blatant lie that indicates that
no other theories exist. It is dishonest and intentional deception to
claim that evolution is the only theory for the creation of life,
even if you happen to believe its the correct theory.
I think some Indian tribes believed that the world came out of a
turtle's butt. That's another leading contender, just as believable
as your ideas. I see those creation theories as tied for a distant
second after Darwin's theory.
And they are included in my edits. Do I consider their views valid? No.
But I, for one, am not too much of an ideologue to acknowledge their
existence when discussing the topic. And just for good measure: I
consider those views to be about as believable as the fallacy that is
evolution.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact