The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia

[viole]

Let's stick with Britannica. Yes. You were referring to the Britannica article on evolution. It's microevolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor. It would be like saying some dogs, wolves, hyenas and other canids have a common ancestor. We agree on this type of common descent. You said we do not descend from apes, so we agree on that. Apes are not our common ancestor. Creation scientists do not consider them as part of our human species. They do not consider great apes as part of our human species either. AFAIK, they consider them apes. Thus, we did not descend from great apes as you believe. That part is theory according to Britannica under human evolution. Does it say anything about great apes in that?

No JB. It does not say that at all. It says "organisms are related by common descent" and not "some organisms are related by common descent and some are not." It also makes it obviously clear at the beginning:

The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals descend from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150 million years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600 million years ago; and all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time.

And then it goes ahead by showing the evidence ...

And then, again

Life originated about 3.5 billion years ago in the form of primordial organisms that were relatively simple and very small. All living things have evolved from these lowly beginnings.

Which is obvious. No sane biologist will say that life has been instantiated many times on earth and started from there without bursting in laugh.

So, still a fan of Britannica?

I don't think Britannica mentions this under human evolution. The other disagreement that we have are the ancient humans before Noah's Flood. They were humans, too. In fact, they were more advanced humans than the humans we are talking about after the flood. For example, Cain used tools being a farmer. Thus, the humans from Noah's family which we are descendants of weren't as healthy as the ones from Adam and Eve's time. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, but are generations removed from them. All of this should be in Britannica one day under baraminology once the creation scientists are able to complete baraminology theory.

Allright, shall we settle with "primate"? By the way, it seems Britannica does not "downgrade" us to apes, but it "upgrades" apes to us. lol.

Taken from their "human beings" section.

Human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans. The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans.

Traditionally, humans were considered the sole recent representatives of the family Hominidae, but recent findings indicate that chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to humans than are gorillas and orangutans and that the last common ancestor between the chimpanzee and human lines lived sometime between seven million and six million years ago. Therefore, all great apes are now gathered with humans into Hominidae, and within that family humans and their extinct ancestors are considered to make up the tribe Hominini. See also Homo sapiens; human evolution.

No mention of any Adam & Eve and Noah, I am afraid. But I did not check the mythology section.

You see? there is not such a thing as liberal science or conservative science. Just science based on facts. And facts are well known for being a-political.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Altfish]

Hullooooooooooooooo. I can hear an echo coming from your head. Anyone home? Please read #1 and #13 for the umpteenth time.

From someone who doesn't accept evolution to query my mental abilities. You are a one!

I need to get back to watching science videos to bring me back to reality.

 

[james bond]

No JB. It does not say that at all. It says "organisms are related by common descent" and not "some organisms are related by common descent and some are not." It also makes it obviously clear at the beginning:

The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals descend from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150 million years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600 million years ago; and all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time.

And then it goes ahead by showing the evidence ...

And then, again

Life originated about 3.5 billion years ago in the form of primordial organisms that were relatively simple and very small. All living things have evolved from these lowly beginnings.

Which is obvious. No sane biologist will say that life has been instantiated many times on earth and started from there without bursting in laugh.

So, still a fan of Britannica?



Allright, shall we settle with "primate"? By the way, it seems Britannica does not "downgrade" us to apes, but it "upgrades" apes to us. lol.

Taken from their "human beings" section.

Human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans. The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans.

Traditionally, humans were considered the sole recent representatives of the family Hominidae, but recent findings indicate that chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to humans than are gorillas and orangutans and that the last common ancestor between the chimpanzee and human lines lived sometime between seven million and six million years ago. Therefore, all great apes are now gathered with humans into Hominidae, and within that family humans and their extinct ancestors are considered to make up the tribe Hominini. See also Homo sapiens; human evolution.

No mention of any Adam & Eve and Noah, I am afraid. But I did not check the mythology section.

You see? there is not such a thing as liberal science or conservative science. Just science based on facts. And facts are well known for being a-political.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, I'm still a fan of Britannica and would recommend it for any student. I just addressed what we were talking and our differences here -- Atheists Physicists Discover God. Turn To Science Of The Gaps.. Post #125.

We're still not going to agree because we're not going to agree on the classification. That's where creation science is still working on with baraminology. One does not have descent with modification across holobarins. I'm afraid baraminology won't be in Britannica yet.

And Adam and Eve are there -- Adam and Eve | biblical literary figures.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's still liberal, atheist biased and censored that way. They steal original material from contributors and claim copyright on it. And WP still should not be used for academia.

Why should we believe you when you are the one who has a problem not using liberal, science, evolution, and atheist as interchangeable concepts where one inevitably leads to the other?

The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact, the library is stocked with introductory materials, and the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background information or context for a topic you're writing about."

You try to get on an academic high horse, but yet you didn't properly cite this source, which is plagiarism.

They steal original material from contributors and claim copyright on it. And WP still should not be used for academia.

Everything you post here becomes the owned property of the company that owns this website, and anything you post and/or submit can be used by them without your knowledge or consent.

 

[james bond]

Did nobody else want to point out the massive irony of describing Wiki as a biased source and backing it up with a quote from NaturalNews, one of the least trustworthy sources on the internet?

Their facts on WP founder Jimmy Wales is true.

OTOH WP sucks donkey balls.

"Wikipedia is described as unreliable at times. Edwin Black has characterized the editorial content of articles as a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".[1] and Oliver Kamm has said that articles are usually dominated by the editors with the loudest and most persistent editorial voices (talk pages and edit summaries), usually by an interest group with an ideological "axe to grind" on the subject, topic, or theme of the article in question.[2]

Wikipedia articles on politics and ideology have also been criticized. Two works published in 2012 are critical of the undue-weight policy (relative importance of a given source), and concluded that, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide correct and definitive information about a subject,[3] but to present, as the consensus opinion, the majority opinion advanced by the authors of the entry's sources. The uneven application of the undue-weight policy creates omissions (of fact and of interpretation) that might give the reader false impressions about the subject matter, based upon the incompleteness of the Wikipedia article.[3][9][5]

Wikipedia is sometimes characterized as having a hostile editing environment. In Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014), Dariusz Jemielniak, a steward for Wikimedia Foundation projects, stated that the complexity of the rules and laws governing editorial content and the behavior of the editors is a burden for new editors and a licence for the "office politics" of disruptive editors.[6][10] In a follow-up article, Jemielniak said that abridging and rewriting the editorial rules and laws of Wikipedia for clarity of purpose and simplicity of application would resolve the bureaucratic bottleneck of too many rules.[10] In The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity is Causing its Decline (2013), Aaron Halfaker stated that the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the decline in editorial participation that began in 2009—frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia.[8]

There have also been works that describe the possible misuse of Wikipedia. In "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?" (2008), the Hoover Institution said that Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open source website, the editorial content of the articles is readily subjected to manipulation and propaganda.[11] The 2014 edition of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's official student handbook, Academic Integrity at MIT, informs students that Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source, stating, "the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable—use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research."[12]"

Can we just blow it up now?
Criticism of Wikipedia - Wikipedia

 

[Darkstorn]

Their facts on WP founder Jimmy Wales is true.

OTOH WP sucks donkey balls.

"Wikipedia is described as unreliable at times. Edwin Black has characterized the editorial content of articles as a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".[1] and Oliver Kamm has said that articles are usually dominated by the editors with the loudest and most persistent editorial voices (talk pages and edit summaries), usually by an interest group with an ideological "axe to grind" on the subject, topic, or theme of the article in question.[2]

Wikipedia articles on politics and ideology have also been criticized. Two works published in 2012 are critical of the undue-weight policy (relative importance of a given source), and concluded that, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide correct and definitive information about a subject,[3] but to present, as the consensus opinion, the majority opinion advanced by the authors of the entry's sources. The uneven application of the undue-weight policy creates omissions (of fact and of interpretation) that might give the reader false impressions about the subject matter, based upon the incompleteness of the Wikipedia article.[3][9][5]

Wikipedia is sometimes characterized as having a hostile editing environment. In Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014), Dariusz Jemielniak, a steward for Wikimedia Foundation projects, stated that the complexity of the rules and laws governing editorial content and the behavior of the editors is a burden for new editors and a licence for the "office politics" of disruptive editors.[6][10] In a follow-up article, Jemielniak said that abridging and rewriting the editorial rules and laws of Wikipedia for clarity of purpose and simplicity of application would resolve the bureaucratic bottleneck of too many rules.[10] In The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity is Causing its Decline (2013), Aaron Halfaker stated that the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the decline in editorial participation that began in 2009—frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia.[8]

There have also been works that describe the possible misuse of Wikipedia. In "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?" (2008), the Hoover Institution said that Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open source website, the editorial content of the articles is readily subjected to manipulation and propaganda.[11] The 2014 edition of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's official student handbook, Academic Integrity at MIT, informs students that Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source, stating, "the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable—use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research."[12]"

Can we just blow it up now?
Criticism of Wikipedia - Wikipedia

I just don't see how that reinforces what you are saying. In fact the opposite: Try searching for "criticism of conservapedia" on Conservapedia.

 

[james bond]

Why should we believe you when you are the one who has a problem not using liberal, science, evolution, and atheist as interchangeable concepts where one inevitably leads to the other?

You try to get on an academic high horse, but yet you didn't properly cite this source, which is plagiarism.

Everything you post here becomes the owned property of the company that owns this website, and anything you post and/or submit can be used by them without your knowledge or consent.

Wrong again. It's not just me, but many people do not use and disavow WP. Look up criticism of WP.

Aren't you just attributing this to me? Why don't you check for plagiarism or lack of proper attribution on others? I nominate you to be the plagiarism checker which is an academic high horse.

>>Everything you post here becomes the owned property of the company that owns this website, and anything you post and/or submit can be used by them without your knowledge or consent.<<
Can you provide a link for where you got this?

 

[Darkstorn]

Look up criticism of WP.

You're trying to use WP's lack of bias as evidence of its bias. Good luck. At least they have such an article. Your precious non-biased source doesn't have that. There is NO attempt to acknowledge the reality that their "facts" can be criticized for much the same reasons you illogically only attribute to Wikipedia. You just say "nuh uh" and imagine that it's a convincing argument.

Using the Criticism of Wikipedia page as evidence for your claims is delusional: You haven't shown how it shows your claims to be anything more than wishful thinking. In fact, i'm pretty sure you didn't actually read the page, just the title. Because you obviously misunderstood the point.

People can criticize anything they want. Some criticism is just more convincing than others. And you haven't shown how your and your compatriots' criticism are convincing. That's a problem with your argument:

You aren't convincing. Your logic is shaky. Your bias is so apparent that it takes a rose-glassed idiot to take it as non-biased.

 

[shunyadragon]

Their facts on WP founder Jimmy Wales is true.

So what?!?!?!

The facts on Benjamin Franklin are true!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong again. It's not just me, but many people do not use and disavow WP. Look up criticism of WP.

What? I didn't even defend Wikipedia and you are saying that.

Aren't you just attributing this to me? Why don't you check for plagiarism or lack of proper attribution on others? I nominate you to be the plagiarism checker which is an academic high horse.

The proper way to cite a source is to basically make it clear you are not using your own material, but rather someone else. Copy/pasting a whole webpage with just giving a link at the end is not properly acknowledging that source as your source. The most acceptable thing is to summarize and use your own words, and then provide a link (as this is a forum without the requirement of extensively providing information about your source). You copy/pasted the source material and gave no solid indication that what you copy/pasted isn't your own. Basically, your post could have easily avoided plagiarism by doing something like "according to Harvard" before you inserted the pasted material.
And, BTW, I have a copy-editing portfolio and a minor in English writing. What do you bring to the table in knowing how to cite a source and avoiding plagiarism?

>>Everything you post here becomes the owned property of the company that owns this website, and anything you post and/or submit can be used by them without your knowledge or consent.<<
Can you provide a link for where you got this?

It's in all that stuff that you agreed to before being allowed to use this website. There was even a member who tried to dispute this back when I was a mod here.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Search any topic and the chances are that a Wikipedia entry for it comes to the top on near the top. Wikipedia is not a trusted, academic website because it is biased and contains wrong information. It may contain links at the bottom that are good, but what is written by Wikipedia can be modified by anybody. Conservative statements and valid links are routinely censored by Wikipedia editors. The founder of Wikipedia is a former pornographer named Jimmy Wales. I would not donate any money to Wikipedia because it is not a reputable nor academic website. I almost spit out my coffee when I first heard the term, it's not up to "Wikipedia standards" from a news article on CNN. What a crock that is. It sounds like fake news or biased news that CNN is noted for.

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

If one has to use Wikipedia, then search for the same topic under Conservapedia in order to balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia. A better academic website is Britannica online. For those serious about academia and research, a $70 subscription per year is not too much to pay. Furthermore, it's worth looking up Britannica subjects online as many of the popular searches have been put online without having to pay. Just type the subject you are searching for and then put Britannica after it. For example, here is Britannica's link (I searched for evolution Britannica) on "evolution."

evolution | scientific theory

Wiki has embarrassed my more than once! Sometimes when debating an advanced subject my unorthodox education is suspect anyway* then when I post a blatant lie or falsehood from wiki, well that usually destroys what little creds' I had left. I think the intentions of the wiki founders and staff are pure but the application if fraught with pitfalls when using it as source material.

*..........As posted here at RF my education was arrived at by attending many schools usually at night when working on the road mostly to keep me from having too much fun. When in a debate the many school masters degree is noticeable because there are gaps in my learning and if the debate is 'live' word pronunciation gives it away....still I earned t eh?

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's not just Conservatives who oppose Wikipedia, I as a Liberal amateur writer, reader and musician have opposed Wikipedia. I've found many, many, many inconsistencies on Wikipedia that somehow become accepted mainstream thought by atheist geeks. (geeks killed rock)

For example, look up Reggae and it will say it is derived from SKA! Ska is gentrified white Swing Geek music that has nothing to do with the Spirituality of Reggae. The White Middle Class geek may have been influenced by Reggae in his gentrified art but Reggae certainly has nothing to do with it. (I know plenty of old school Reggae musicians).

Another example, you can't find the real of age of Nietzsche's death which was in his forties--I took a class on him in College and we read an academic article on his death at a young age.

There is so much wrong with Wikipedia. I hope now that net neutrality was repealed Wikipedia goes down the tubes.

You're saying things that are completely inaccurate and then accusing Wikipedia of spreading misinformation...

Ska is older than Reggae. It was the precursor. What you're thinking of is not "true" or original ska...

Courtesy of Brittanica:
reggae | music
ska | music

Please compare with the Wiki articles that you're lambasting and show me the parts that you have a problem with.

Reggae - Wikipedia
Ska - Wikipedia

Supplanting factual information with what you think, or want, to be true shows the folly of bias.

 

[viole]

Yeah, I'm still a fan of Britannica and would recommend it for any student. I just addressed what we were talking and our differences here -- Atheists Physicists Discover God. Turn To Science Of The Gaps.. Post #125.

We're still not going to agree because we're not going to agree on the classification. That's where creation science is still working on with baraminology. One does not have descent with modification across holobarins. I'm afraid baraminology won't be in Britannica yet.

And Adam and Eve are there -- Adam and Eve | biblical literary figures.

JB. there is not such a thing as creation science. The very sentence is oxymoronic. It is like married bachelor.

Actually, it worse than married bachelor. The sentence "a bachelor is married" is wrong. The sentence "science can be creationist" is not even that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

Former pornographer?

Let me expound on the porn. It's gone as far as illegal porn such as child porn being posted from what I've read. Maybe Jimmy Wales was going to be tossed in jail for it. Nice thought. I think WP drew an unseen line on it, but the internet types still post graphic photos of anatomy. Don't ask me to provide any links for the pervs cause I'm just going by what I read ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Balance doesn't mean objective.

Sorry, Willamena, I sometimes try to respond in order of post, but was caught in an avalanche. I saw yours, and had a reply, but couldn't post due to running out of time. The view of creationists for objective truth is that of philosophy. There is subjective and objective truth. Truth is truth. There is only one truth. You're right. Balance doesn't mean objective, but it does present both views and not state something like Noah's Ark is myth.

Objectivity- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Objectivity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me expound on the porn. It's gone as far as illegal porn such as child porn being posted from what I've read. Maybe Jimmy Wales was going to be tossed in jail for it. Nice thought. I think WP drew an unseen line on it, but the internet types still post graphic photos of anatomy. Don't ask me to provide any links for the pervs cause I'm just going by what I read ha ha.

If you provide no evidence for a controversy which doesn't
appear in the mainstream press, should it be taken seriously?
If you're thinking of images on Wikipedia, which ones do you
find pornographic?

 

[james bond]

JB. there is not such a thing as creation science. The very sentence is oxymoronic. It is like married bachelor.

Actually, it worse than married bachelor. The sentence "a bachelor is married" is wrong. The sentence "science can be creationist" is not even that.

Ciao

- viole

I comprehend what you are saying, but there is creation science. I talk to those people all the time to ask questions and learn. (If the following people were alive today, I would be communicating with them -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.) If you ever want a place to vacation, then why don't you try Williamstown, Kentucky and go to Ark Encounter and Creation Museum? I think you'll have fun even though you don't believe in God. Tell them what you told me. (As a comparable vacation, many people do not think of Cleveland, Ohio is a destination. Well, it's a great place to visit for museums such as the Rock N' Roll museum. It has great cultural attractions there.)

BTW with Britannica, I'm hoping the creationists and creation scientists are going to ramp up their "game" on Britannica. This isn't just the low-level internet wars on Wikipedia vs Conservapedia and Talk Origins website. It takes the debate into academia. The debate in academia has been going on for some time and I can only guess that you were not aware of it. I wasn't aware of what Britannica was publishing until now.

 

[james bond]

If you provide no evidence for a controversy which doesn't
appear in the mainstream press, should it be taken seriously?
If you're thinking of images on Wikipedia, which ones do you
find pornographic?

I'll let you look for it as it could be illegal, and I don't want to open another can of worms.

Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI

Porn still No. 1 on Wikipedia, co-founder Larry Sanger warns

 

[Revoltingest]

I comprehend what you are saying, but there is creation science. I talk to those people all the time to ask questions and learn. (If the following people were alive today, I would be communicating with them -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.) If you ever want a place to vacation, then why don't you try Williamstown, Kentucky and go to Ark Encounter and Creation Museum? I think you'll have fun even though you don't believe in God. Tell them what you told me. (As a comparable vacation, many people do not think of Cleveland, Ohio is a destination. Well, it's a great place to visit for museums such as the Rock N' Roll museum. It has great cultural attractions there.)

BTW with Britannica, I'm hoping the creationists and creation scientists are going to ramp up their "game" on Britannica. This isn't just the low-level internet wars on Wikipedia vs Conservapedia and Talk Origins website. It takes the debate into academia. The debate in academia has been going on for some time and I can only guess that you were not aware of it. I wasn't aware of what Britannica was publishing until now.

I can agree with you that there can be "creation science", in the sense that creationists can employ
science. But what I believe Viole was addressing is that creationism itself is not science, because it
cannot be (proven) wrong. She alluded to the famous Wolfgang Pauli insult.....
(English translation)
That's not right. It's not even wrong!

A scientific theory must be testable, ie, be possibly be disproven.
Creationism lacks that essential feature.

 

[james bond]

So what?!?!?!

The facts on Benjamin Franklin are true!

I'm waiting for him to go to jail. That's what.