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

[Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I don't really have a problem accepting evolution. In fact, I feel
evolution and the bible co-exist rather well. There are passages in
the bible that discuss other people that lived on the earth at the
time of Adam and Eve. I don't claim to say that Adam and Eve were the
first "human beings" on earth, but instead I hold the view that Adam
and Eve are the first of God's children.

This view of course bugs the heck out of Mike, he would say that it is
just a way to prop up my religion with science and that I should just
throw my belief in religion away and stay with science. Whatever.

The problem I have in this whole evolution thing is the discontinuity
in the science. I still hear that 96% of the chimp DNA matches humans,
yet there is very well documented and proven evidence that the number
is only around 87%. Why then would the scientific community continue
to tout a number that is not correct if they do not have an agenda?

Once the scientific community takes on an agenda, as they have with
evolution and the environment, then their scientific data becomes
tainted. They spend so much time trying to prove their agenda, that
they either purposely or accidentally overlook valid data collected by
people who are trying to prove their opposite agenda. What happens to
the precious scientific model at that point?

On 1/7/06, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> Mike Miller wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Christian M. Cepel wrote:
> >
> >> There are no NAS or Nobelists because of those who commute those
> >> honors do not hold similar beliefs and as a whole they are very
> >> abusive and intolerant of those who do.  Take Mike as an example.
> >> It's never been enough for him to agree to disagree or to say I
> >> disagree with your theories and/or beliefs, but still respect you as a
> >> person.  Quite the contrary, you are told you are a fool, or stupid,
> >> and that you have no value as a scientist and indeed have no right to
> >> claim the distinction.
> >
> >
> > The reason that you have no value as a scientist is that you are not
> > taking a scientific approach to the problem.  That isn't even a
> > possibility for you.  You are a religious person trying to promote your
> > religion.  When science and data conflict with your prior beliefs you
> > fight it.  A scientist keeps an opened mind and tries to construct his
> > views based on data, evidence and logic.  You can't do that if you feel
> > that you must defend ancient creation myths.
> >
> > If you look at the way some of you approach me - Vern for example - they
> > want to tell me what's what.  The attitude is "Here - look at this -
> > tell me why this doesn't show that evolutionary theory is wrong."  In
> > the email I'm responding to now you have told me once again how things
> > are.  You claim to know what scientists and Nobelists are like but I'm
> > not sure how many scientists you know.  I think you couldn't know very
> > many.  I think, once again, that you are inventing a convenient defense
> > of your religion and you don't really care what the facts are.  Jon and
> > I are scientists and we have repeatedly contradicted your claims about
> > what scientists are like, but you won't listen to us because it is not
> > convenient for your argument in favor of your creation myth.  If you
> > wanted to know about evolutionary science, you would not have to write
> > to this list, you could just get some books and read them.
> >
> > For decades scientists made the mistake of engaging with people like you
> > in a "constructive dialogue" intent on informing you.  It turned out
> > that you didn't give a shit, so the new strategy has been mocking
> > derision. You asked for it, you got it.  Many scientists who used to
> > debate with Creationists have decided that it is counterproductive
> > because it makes it seem like there is a controversy and some validity
> > to the Creationist view, but it has no validity.  None.  You can't
> > dismiss science for decades and expect to be taken seriously by scientists.
>
> Unfortunately I have come to the place where I am agreeing with Mike here.
>
> My belief in the Christian God came about because of an honest search
> for the truth.  Because of my personal experiences, I have come to very
> strongly believe that the Bible truly is the word of God.  Thus when I
> thought that the Bible taught an anti-evolution viewpoint, I didn't
> accept evolution, because I considered the Bible greater than the
> scientific method.  But that was the only way I could argue my position,
> because as much as it pains me to say this, even then I could see that
> the anti-evolution movement really had very bad scientific arguments.
>
> We should all be engaged in the search for truth, and we should accept
> it whatever it may be.
>
> Stephen
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

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