Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Why is WikiPedia so slow?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Josh wrote:

> 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.

Let's just say that your going to remain ignorant and leave it at that. 
It isn't my problem to fix all of you.  I told you about two books.  I can 
lead a horse to water...


> 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

Why the heck would I want that?  It seems to have nothing to do with 
evolution.  It is a book about Christianity written explicitly to help 
Christians to feel better about themselves.


> > 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.

You probably can't even tell how confused you are.  This debate was about 
evolution.  You were going to tell me the names of some legitimate 
scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution.  Oh, wait...


> 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

But that's a list of names of supposed scientists.  It doesn't show me 
what they believe.  The first one I looked at hasn't published a paper in 
more than 35 years.


> > > 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.

So all the scientists who don't believe in evolution work for the 
Institute for Creation Research?  Sorry, but that web page doesn't say 
that those people listed do not believe in evolution.


> 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...)

Cheap, maybe, but it is a clear profession of ignorance.  You don't even 
know what the ACLU is.


> > 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.

No, it isn't.  I just wrote "you're just making stuff up," and then you 
come out with this crap.


> Virtually every article I've read from evolutionist ideologues about new 
> evidence maintains the attitude of "wow, we were wrong..

There is no such article.


> > 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 you mean that you added the idea that the world came out of a turtle's 
butt to a Wikipedia entry about evolution?  That's very fair minded of 
you, but also completely stupid.


> 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.

Because you are a complete fool.  You are deluded.  You pretend to know 
the facts and evidence, but you haven't shown here that you know 
*anything* at all about evolution.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion