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

[Revoltingest]

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

In Wikipedia articles about a particular subject, one would expect pictures relating to the material.
Just as in medical textbooks, Wikipedia has graphic images, including sexual ones.
If the intent is informational, I've no problem.
Apparently neither do the authorities, who are not prosecuting.

 

[james bond]

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.

I'm not sure where you get this thinking. I suspect it's because atheist scientists misled you. The creationists are the one who have the more famous scientists on their side. They invented science. Again, science is the search for truth and knowledge. It has always been about disagreement. People have killed themselves because they were proven wrong. People have studied string theory their entire careers and didn't get anywhere. The stakes are high.

 

[james bond]

Recent news of future jail bait, Jimmy Wales.

"Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales was accused of hypocrisy last night after announcing plans to set up a media service to tackle ‘fake news’.

Despite claims that his online encyclopaedia is riddled with inaccuracies, the internet entrepreneur said his new Wikitribune site would produce ‘fact- checked, global news stories.’"

Jimmy Wales accused of hypocrisy over Wikitribune | Daily Mail Online

 

[james bond]

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

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?

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.

Ok, my bad. I take it back.

If I missed posting the link to Harvard, then my bad again. I had the link and may have forgot to post or the link didn't show up, i.e. I copied incorrectly and the link did not show up. Look at my other posts and I've been pretty diligent about attribution.

Well, you may be right in that regard, but if I hold copyright then I can have it removed by the website or else they will be fined heavily or sued. Now, that you brought it up there is an interesting legal case I read recently in regards to the matter. Maybe it won't go any further, but it had to do with stealing of ideas to the Matrix and Terminator movies. The people accused were Larry and Andy Wachowski who are famous for the Matrix franchise. The litigant was Sophie Stewart, a black Christian, sci-fi writer. I'm not sure if she is continuing to pursue the matter, but it's ending up to now is discussed here -- Sophia Stewart Matrix Lawsuit.

"The Matrix was an immediate box office hit upon its release in March 1999, quickly grabbing the public’s imagination and its movie-going dollars. Together with its two sequels it has grossed in excess of $2.5 billion, making it one of the most lucrative film franchises in cinematic history.

Sophia Stewart, a native New Yorker who lives in Salt Lake City and works as a paralegal, generated controversy by claiming in a lawsuit brought against directors Andy and Larry Wachowski, producer Joel Silver, Warner Bros., and Twentieth Century Fox that The Matrix and Terminator film franchises were based on her ideas. According to Stewart, in 1986 she responded to an advertisement posted by the Wachowski brothers in a national magazine soliciting science fiction manuscripts to make into comic books by sending them “The Third Eye,” a short story she had written and copyrighted in 1981. She said she never heard back from them nor received her manuscript back, but when she saw The Matrix in 1999 she was struck by how closely it resembled her story. She filed suit against the makers of the film, seeking over $1 billion in damages. (This page provides links to a number of files and articles about her lawsuit.)"

The Wachowski are now Lana and Lilly Wachowski and have other problems. Heh. Maybe God is getting them early.

The Wachowskis - Wikipedia (this is entertainment, not serious, so I use WP ha ha)

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure where you get this thinking.

I've been in the sciences & engineering.
Others in the fields see the same thing I do.

I suspect it's because atheist scientists misled you.

Then I've been mislead by god fearing scientists too, for they also have been my professors.

The creationists are the one who have the more famous scientists on their side.

Fame is not the criterion for applying the scientific method (s).

They invented science.

Assuming that's factual....
Is it not wonderful & amazing that a method they created became larger than they ?
Even creationists can practice science.
(It's just that creationism isn't.)

Again, science is the search for truth and knowledge. It has always been about disagreement. People have killed themselves because they were proven wrong. People have studied string theory their entire careers and didn't get anywhere. The stakes are high.

How science works.....
I discover a method of making large iron crystals with no lattice defects.
I theorize that the yield strength will be significantly higher than even
the strongest alloys.
I can test a sample. It will fail at some level of stress.
1) If it fails at 3,000,000 psi, I've verified my prediction. But I've not proven it.
2) If it fails at 3,000 psi, I've disproven my theory.

How non-science works.....
I postulate that 57 angels dance on the head of a pin.
I cannot conduct any experiment to either verify or disprove this.
Thus, it's not right....it's not even wrong.

Creationism is non-science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Jimmy Wales accused of hypocrisy over Wikitribune | Daily Mail Online

You should see how often I get accused of hypocrisy by so many here.
Any disagreement always seems to quickly lead to that charge.
Accusations are easy.
But constructing a cogent & evidenced argument is not.

 

[Skwim]

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

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?

And just as an FYI for others here, according to the doctrine of fair use, quoted material should be no longer than it takes to make one's point. At most, this usually amounts to only a paragraph or so. Like all quotes, if one quotes a substantially larger piece of material, say an entire page, then everything in it must still be essential to the point one is making. That is, the point can't be made without quoting it all. If material within the quote isn't essential then it should be omitted.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

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?

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.

You were once a mod?
Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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.

Great reply!

Back in the early part of the 20th century a group of LPers* won the battle for the scientific minds of the 'west' becoming the 'go to' philosophy of how the world worked. Even though Logical Positivism was the accepted way to think, some scientists like Kurt Godel retained metaphysics to define his world view. Gödel is most famous for his first and second incompleteness theorem which I am sure irritated the hell out of the logic positive (world view) cheerleaders such as Wittgenstein. Anyway I feel throwing out spiritual metaphysics in favor of LP was a sin of titanic proportions. Creation Science would do well in a world view that was a blend of Metaphysics and empirically vetted science, Imo.

Notes;

*........... 'Back in the early part of the 20th century a group of LPers*' I was referring to groups of deep thinkers the most prominent being the Vienna Circle who promoted Logical Positivism and worked to eliminate the despised spiritual metaphysics. Google Vienna Circle, Kurt Godel, Logical Positivism or empiricism.

Superb article about the above subjects, its very good! ;

LOGICAL POSITIVISM VS METAPHYSICS – KUDOSFACTORY



; {>

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Well if you wait for a dark stormy night you can go dig him up and put him in jail some place.

Is he still a distinguish Father of our country like all others that had questionable morals, except for John Adams, whose puritan zipper was rusted shut?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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.

Another good reply, I believe you are correct about Viole's reply. However, even empirical science is sliding towards not being able to falsify or disprove some of its theories, most of the violators being theoretical Physics. In fact, unless something has changed there is at least one theory that isn't a theory considering sciences own criteria. I am referencing string theory. However, its been a year or more since I refreshed my string theory bio-GreyDatabase. Maybe, if ST has made a verifiable prediction, after all these years, it can accurately be called a bonified scientific theory, lol.

; { >

 

[shunyadragon]

Another good reply, I believe you are correct about Viole's reply. However, even empirical science is sliding towards not being able to falsify or disprove some of its theories, most of the violators being theoretical Physics. In fact, unless something has changed there is at least one theory that isn't a theory considering sciences own criteria. I am referencing string theory. However, its been a year or more since I refreshed my string theory bio-GreyDatabase. Maybe, if ST has made a verifiable prediction, after all these years, it can accurately be called a bonified scientific theory, lol.

; { >

Theories of cosmological origins and ultimate nature of the Quantum will come and go, and be modified as new evidence becomes available. The rejection of some theories, modification and retry, and the proposal of new theories is way of science especially in Cosmology and Physics.

String theory remains a possible theory, and it is not rejected as a theory considering sciences own criteria. At present it is not favored by some scientists, though it does still have descriptive and predictive value in some basic properties of the basic particles of matter. String theory is a descriptive theory and is a theoretical framework describing particles as one dimensional strings, and it may be modified and tested in the future. Yes there are at present alternative theories and some have better descriptive and predictive value at present, none are of course conclusive, yet.

The following site does well explaining the theory in tracking the advances in string theory. The Official String Theory Web Site

"A big complicating factor in understanding string cosmology is understanding string theories. String theories and M theory appear to be limiting cases of some bigger, more fundamental theory. Until that's sorted out, anything we think we know today is potentially up for grabs.
That being said, there are some basic issues in string theory cosmology:

1. Can string theory make any cosmological predictions relevant to Big Bang physics?
2. What happens to the extra dimensions?
3. Is there Inflation in string theory?
3. What can string theory tell us about quantum gravity and cosmology?"

Read further to better understand string theory.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Theories of cosmological origins and ultimate nature of the Quantum will come and go, and be modified as new evidence becomes available. The rejection of some theories, modification and retry, and the proposal of new theories is way of science especially in Cosmology and Physics.

String theory remains a possible theory, and it is not rejected as a theory considering sciences own criteria. At present it is not favored by some scientists, though it does still have descriptive and predictive value in some basic properties of the basic particles of matter. String theory is a descriptive theory and is a theoretical framework describing particles as one dimensional strings, and it may be modified and tested in the future. Yes there are at present alternative theories and some have better descriptive and predictive value at present, none are of course conclusive, yet.

The following site does well explaining the theory in tracking the advances in string theory. The Official String Theory Web Site

"A big complicating factor in understanding string cosmology is understanding string theories. String theories and M theory appear to be limiting cases of some bigger, more fundamental theory. Until that's sorted out, anything we think we know today is potentially up for grabs.
That being said, there are some basic issues in string theory cosmology:

1. Can string theory make any cosmological predictions relevant to Big Bang physics?
2. What happens to the extra dimensions?
3. Is there Inflation in string theory?
3. What can string theory tell us about quantum gravity and cosmology?"

Read further to better understand string theory.

Thanks for the read suggestion, I will have a look at it. I know the rank basics of ST and some of its spinoffs. From what I understand String Theory after years of creating duress and argument of its five variations predictive power etc were finally incorporated into M-theory*. Presumably M theory has more promise than ST alone. String theory and M-theory are not really that different from what I understand. I am hoping for an elegant one or two line TOE. Maybe its too much to ask, lol.

* M theory is Membrane theory and is sometimes shortened to Brane theory.

I was using ST as an example to suggest that we shouldn't give even empirical science carte blanche as being the most reliable bearers of 'truth'.

; { >

 

[shunyadragon]

I was using ST as an example to suggest that we shouldn't give even empirical science carte blanche as being the most reliable bearers of 'truth'.
; { >

Needs more clarification, because in terms of the nature of our physical existence science is the only reliable medium for knowledge. Venturing to the edge of science in Cosmology and Physics where our theories, hypothesis and knowledge is tenuous at best at present, and too much is unknown is not a good way to measure the over all success and reliability of scientific knowledge. Venturing the other way where the worlds of Theology and Philosophy rule the turf science cannot go and any claims of 'reliable' bearers of truth have many competitors, but not science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another good reply, I believe you are correct about Viole's reply. However, even empirical science is sliding towards not being able to falsify or disprove some of its theories, most of the violators being theoretical Physics. In fact, unless something has changed there is at least one theory that isn't a theory considering sciences own criteria. I am referencing string theory. However, its been a year or more since I refreshed my string theory bio-GreyDatabase. Maybe, if ST has made a verifiable prediction, after all these years, it can accurately be called a bonified scientific theory, lol.

; { >

Some theories, eg, string theory, have the goal of finding applicability / usefulness / testability.
It just isn't there yet. @LegionOnomaMoi is our resident advocate for a broader approach to
the scientific methods <-- Note that it's plural now. Think of as yet untestable theories as
"theories in waiting", ie, they're trying hard to devise tests, fully applying the scientific method.
Creationism lacks this intent to test.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not sure if she is continuing to pursue the matter, but it's ending up to now is discussed here

From your own source:

Stewart’s case was dismissed in June 2005 when she failed to show up for a preliminary hearing of her case. In a 53-page ruling, Judge Margaret Morrow of the Central District Court of California dismissed the suit, saying Stewart and her attorneys had not entered any evidence to bolster its key claims or demonstrated any striking similarity between her work and the accused directors’ films. As of this writing, Stewart’s case is no longer before the courts. She has announced that she does not plan to let the matter drop, so possibly this case could someday be re-filed and heard, but for now it is over.

So, you presented a source, and reveal you haven't even really read through it, but just copy pasted what you needed.

The Wachowskis - Wikipedia (this is entertainment, not serious, so I use WP ha ha)

If it is a debate, there is no "entertainment source" or "serious source." For this website it may-or-may-not be a hassle or impossible to cite from science journals, but the cool thing about Wikipedia is if you carefully screen the sources you can find plenty of pages that cite those paid-subscription journals. In general use though, such as a brief celebrity biography, Wikipedia is considered a valid and convenient source.

The Wachowski are now Lana and Lilly Wachowski and have other problems

Saying "They are now Lana and Lilly and have other problems," implies you think them being transsexual is a problem.

Maybe God is getting them early.

How is he getting them, and what for?

 

[Skwim]

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.)

I love it when people link to Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com. where the organization attempts to impress people with the number of scientists who are creationists, because it gives me an opening to present Project Steve.

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
​

As of April 28, 2017, 1,415 Steves have signed the statement.

And what can be inferred about the scientific community's acceptance of evolution from the fact that 1,415 Steves signed the statement?

According to data from the U.S. Census, approximately 1.6% of males and approximately 0.4% of females — so approximately 1% of U.S. residents — have first names that would qualify them to sign the statement. So it is reasonable to infer that at least 141,500 scientists would agree with the statement. ("At least" because the statement was quietly circulated to a limited number of people.)
source
​

So we have at least 141,500 scientists who believe evolution is a "vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences" opposed to a handful of scientists who opt for creationism.

,

 

[Sapiens]

Yay Steve!!!

 

[james bond]

Creationism is non-science.

Today, we have more theoretical science and it's on the side of evolution and BBT. If you want an experiment to show there is a God, then the fact that people have come up with the scientific method and can do experiments is God's work. It's not like the giant arm and hand of God comes down, picks you up and body slams you or drops a million dollars on your desk. God may inspire you or give you the idea of how to make a million dollars such as writing the next best seller or inventing the next great smartphone. Other days, we may find a new invisible particle. Instead of appreciating the sun came up this morning for another day, people have to test God with an experiment. That's pretty small-minded thinking.

 

[james bond]

From your own source:

So, you presented a source, and reveal you haven't even really read through it, but just copy pasted what you needed.

If it is a debate, there is no "entertainment source" or "serious source." For this website it may-or-may-not be a hassle or impossible to cite from science journals, but the cool thing about Wikipedia is if you carefully screen the sources you can find plenty of pages that cite those paid-subscription journals. In general use though, such as a brief celebrity biography, Wikipedia is considered a valid and convenient source.

Saying "They are now Lana and Lilly and have other problems," implies you think them being transsexual is a problem.

How is he getting them, and what for?

I knew what happened as I read the snopes.com. What I don't know is if she's still pursuing it after being quashed twice.

The problem for the Wachowskis was they weren't happy being themselves. They're transgender now and after that their last couple big-budget movies have flopped. I don't think they're still happy with being transgender although they say they have support of their wives. The only movie franchise they were successful with was The Matrix. The sequels weren't that good even if they made millions. I liked Bound and V for Vendetta, but they couldn't keep it going and they may be out of the big-budget movie business now. It's a cruel world for big-budget producers, directors and writers. Time will tell with the Matrix story and the Wachowskis.