Jump to content


Photo

Internet Sources Like Wiki


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
49 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:25 AM

I say this with my tounge, at least partial, placed in cheek, but do you mean any book?

I'm sure you can see where I'm going here Adam.  :o

View Post

Hey John,

I think people who truly learn to appreciate scripture use a scrutinizing eye while reading it too. Why do atheists think that believers check their brain at the door before opening the Bible? I know... because they've checked their brain at the door after someone like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins tells them such is so. ;)

I'm starting to appreciate the large difference between doubt and unbelief.

#22 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:27 AM

Sure,they did'nt use the word chimp,but what are they saying if it's an ape transitional to humans?

View Post


They are saying that the evidences suggests that at some stage one of the apes evolved in such a way that it led to afarensis, which then led to humans. They don't seem to specify which ape, which leaves it open to further study as I have already said.

As far as I can see this quesiton has no effect on your original premiss, which was that wikipedia would say afarensis evolved from chimps. This is no the case. So when do I get my copy of Autodesk Maya?

Regards,

Arch.

#23 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:39 AM

Hey John,

I think people who truly learn to appreciate scripture use a scrutinizing eye while reading it too. Why do atheists think that believers check their brain at the door before opening the Bible? I know... because they've checked their brain at the door after someone like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins tells them such is so. ;)

I'm starting to appreciate the large difference between doubt and unbelief.

View Post


Ah, but I'm not an Atheist, Adam, nor was I criticizing your belief or ability to scrutinise the book in question.

My tounge in cheek question was based on your question posed in the opening post, as I felt it could contradict what you said in the other thread ablut the lieral interpretation of the Bible.

My comment was meant to be jovial banter. :)

I apologise if it didn't come across that way. :o

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:46 AM

They are saying that the evidences suggests that at some stage one of the apes evolved in such a way that it led to afarensis, which then led to humans. They don't seem to specify which ape, which leaves it open to further study as I have already said.

As far as I can see this quesiton has no effect on your original premiss, which was that wikipedia would say afarensis evolved from chimps. This is no the case. So when do I get my copy of Autodesk Maya?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


You can have your brownie badge anytime you want it. ;)

Evolutionists thinking is that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.Not that A. aferensis evolved from chimps.

I was saying they would say nothing about the evidence that firmly puts A. aferensis out of the human family tree and would still insist it's a human ancestor.Sorry if you did'nt realize humans and chimps are "alleged" to share a common ancestor,which means any intermediate would fall somewhere between the two.

Heres another current page from wiki.

Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. In common with the younger Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis was slenderly built. From analysis it has been thought that A. afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens.[1][2].


http://en.wikipedia....hecus_afarensis - 84k -

Perhaps they just don't have time to update their database....yeah right.




Thanks.

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:49 AM

Ah, but I'm not an Atheist, Adam, nor was I criticizing your belief or ability to scrutinise the book in question.

My tounge in cheek question was based on your question posed in the opening post, as I felt it could contradict what you said in the other thread ablut the lieral interpretation of the Bible.

My comment was meant to be jovial banter.  :D

I apologise if it didn't come across that way.  :o

View Post

Yes, I can see that, but in order for your joke to be funny it's premise should somewhat reflect reality. I was demonstrating that it doesn't. ;)





So tell us what you think. Are sources more important for learning truth or is our approach towards sources going to be more important?

Also, I do certainly put the Bible completely on it's own as a source, what it means and where it's from. I got there through looking at it as a piece of literature that claims to have recorded history and claims to be the Word of God. With those concepts in mind, and a heart to learn the truth, my scrutiny of scripture has lead me from "This may be the Word of God" to "This is the Word of God."

The more I look and study the stronger the correctness of this decision is to me. :)

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:53 AM

Ah, but I'm not an Atheist...

View Post

All atheists are agnostics too. Still my bad, I'll correct that in the future even though I wasn't talking about you, I was actually talking about atheists, take another look...

#27 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 June 2009 - 07:03 AM

I know Ron, it must be hard to understand why people would respect an ever updating, ever improving source of information when your main source of inspiration hasn't been updated for 2000 years. By the way, when is Bible 2.0 due?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Hmm, I Have been an editor for 2 wikis. I can tell you without a doubt that the wikipedia is very liberal and bias. While they protect the evolution page and other pages connected to it. They allow random edits of any creation or religious page. Evolution pages are only allowed to have glowing reports about how evolution is basically a true fact, while anything of an opposing nature is made to always look stupid.

If this is how a wiki operates where opinions are the rule, and like and dislikes are allowed due to the majority rule at the wiki. What's the point? If they cannot sound more like an encyclopedia with a non-bias opinion, then all we are getting is the same as what we find on every creation verses evolution site from both sides of the issue.

Example: What if you opened up a encyclopedia and look up evolution. And everytime the word evidence was used so was the word alleged. That would be the editors taking sides and therefore projecting a point of view according when an encyclopedia is just supposed to supply information for research.

Now you would expect this from a creation wiki or a evowiki. But not from a wiki that is not supposed to be taking sides. In fact I left the wikipedia because anything I posted on there that was information about the belief of YEC was totally deleted in favor of negative opinionated bias remarks. If improving information was their goal, I certainly did not see it. In fact several evolutionist tried to present themselves as admins there by telling me what I can and cannot say. We got into arguments constantly. So I left. I did some internet searching about what happened to me and found I was not the lone wolf. There are several sites up complaining about how negative and hateful the wikipedia is towards "all" Christians. Except those whom agree with them which in my opinion are what the Bible calls: wolves in sheep's clothing.

That was my first taste of internet hatred to a degree that some made it personal at that wiki and did not stop there. Which more or less proved to me that the only way evolution is to retain it's status as a scientific theory is to remove all oppositions to it. Which is proving itself through means of forced indoctrination. By making itself the only option left. The terms of free thinking, logic and rational thinking only exist if you think within the circle they allow. And if you step on their toes to much and block there main goal, they will send you threats upon you life.

I ignore the threats when I get them because power is given to the remark when one has a reaction to it.

Side note: A friend's wife just got fired from a job of 12 years because a atheist-evolutionist took over. He also fired 30 other Christians just for being a Christian. A huge class action multi-million dollar suite is being put together and they have enough evidence and witnesses as to why it was done. It will probably hit national news when the suite gets filed in court. They are still gathering all the hateful anti-Christian e-mails and memos that were sent to everyone as intimidation.

The reason I even mentioned that is to show how evolution has to have total control and teaches this. If not, why then are there so many organizations bent on this whom have support of 10 of thousands of evolutionists? And the common denominator is being atheist-evolutionist. Even Richard Dawkins has joined some of these groups and has allowed his name to be used as a promotion for these groups.

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 June 2009 - 05:58 PM

Sorry Ron, that was a little below the belt. But it seems you got a bit of a laugh out of it, so hopefully no hard done  :blink:

I completely agree Ron, there is a very real chance wiki could be tampered with and I'm sure it does happen. However, the stats still say it is incredibly accurate. Even the best encylopedias cannot claim perfection, I don't see why wiki should need to be perfect to be able to be considered reliable source.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


I have no problem Archie, I’m fully acquainted with the trustworthiness of Biblical history, and therefore it is easily defended. So when swipes are made against it out of ignorance, I simply correct the misunderstandings of the swipers, and move on. And a sense of humor is a plus in any line of work.

But, being a member of the wiki community, I have seen how easily some can manipulate that system. This is just one reason I don’t recommend it as a trustworthy site. You may enjoy it, and pretend it is accurate, but I’d much rather use source materials that can actually be trusted.

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:01 PM

Ah, but I'm not an Atheist, Adam, nor was I criticizing your belief or ability to scrutinise the book in question.

View Post


Wasn't it Dawkins that said an Agnostic is merely an uncommitted atheist? :blink:

#30 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:19 PM

Hmm, I Have been an editor for 2 wikis. I can tell you without a doubt that the wikipedia is very liberal and bias. While they protect the evolution page and other pages connected to it. They allow random edits of any creation or religious page. Evolution pages are only allowed to have glowing reports about how evolution is basically a true fact, while anything of an opposing nature is made to always look stupid.

If this is how a wiki operates where opinions are the rule, and like and dislikes are allowed due to the majority rule at the wiki. What's the point? If they cannot sound more like an encyclopedia with a non-bias opinion, then all we are getting is the same as what we find on every creation verses evolution site from both sides of the issue.

Example: What if you opened up a encyclopedia and look up evolution. And everytime the word evidence was used so was the word alleged. That would be the editors taking sides and therefore projecting a point of view according when an encyclopedia is just supposed to supply information for research.

Now you would expect this from a creation wiki or a evowiki. But not from a wiki that is not supposed to be taking sides. In fact I left the wikipedia because anything I posted on there that was information about the belief of YEC was totally deleted in favor of negative opinionated bias remarks. If improving information was their goal, I certainly did not see it. In fact several evolutionist tried to present themselves as admins there by telling me what I can and cannot say. We got into arguments constantly. So I left. I did some internet searching about what happened to me and found I was not the lone wolf. There are several sites up complaining about how negative and hateful the wikipedia is towards "all" Christians. Except those whom agree with them which in my opinion are what the Bible calls: wolves in sheep's clothing.

That was my first taste of internet hatred to a degree that some made it personal at that wiki and did not stop there. Which more or less proved to me that the only way evolution is to retain it's status as a scientific theory is to remove all oppositions to it. Which is proving itself through means of forced indoctrination. By making itself the only option left. The terms of free thinking, logic and rational thinking only exist if you think within the circle they allow. And if you step on their toes to much and block there main goal, they will send you threats upon you life.

I ignore the threats when I get them because power is given to the remark when one has a reaction to it.

View Post


You keep refering to the Wiki editors as biased and that's why they remove certain posts. Have you considered that your objections to this may indicate your own bias, and that's why you want them in there?

I'm not interested in getting drawn into a debate over which ideas are correct. The point of this is to figure out if certain sites (mostly wiki) are accurate. Evolution is generally considered to be accurate, regardless of your personal beleifs. This can be verified by checking wiki's acrticles against another encyclopedia.

If you want to show me that wiki is inaccurate and biased, compare it to another encyclopedia. If they don't match then you have a case. But your own personal opinions have no place in this debate (and neither do mine).

Regards,

Arch.

#31 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 June 2009 - 10:02 PM

If you want to show me that wiki is inaccurate and biased, compare it to another encyclopedia. If they don't match then you have a case. But your own personal opinions have no place in this debate (and neither do mine).

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

Once again, you try to dictate what methods of proof others will employ.

This is entirely based on your assumption you can prove God exists. Get back to me when you have the maths to do so.

View Post



#32 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 June 2009 - 10:11 PM

Wasn't it Dawkins that said an Agnostic is merely an uncommitted atheist?  :blink:

View Post

Well, Dawkins is trying to get more individuals to join his atheist "movement" (or whatever it is). He's not exactly a disinterested party. So far, he hasn't convinced all the atheists, let alone the agnostics.

#33 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 June 2009 - 12:41 AM

I have no problem Archie, I’m fully acquainted with the trustworthiness of Biblical history, and therefore it is easily defended. So when swipes are made against it out of ignorance, I simply correct the misunderstandings of the swipers, and move on. And a sense of humor is a plus in any line of work. 

But, being a member of the wiki community, I have seen how easily some can manipulate that system. This is just one reason I don’t recommend it as a trustworthy site. You may enjoy it, and pretend it is accurate, but I’d much rather use source materials that can actually be trusted.

View Post


And finally we get to the truth. Because wikipedia disagrees with your fundamental beliefs it is inaccurate. I disagree that this is a good method of finding inaccuracies, but I share the same bias, just the opposite one. So, lets disregard these opinion based articles for now.

I guess my question is then, do you only regard wiki as inaccurate, or pretty much every encyclopedia in existance today?

Regards,

Arch.

#34 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 June 2009 - 12:44 AM

Once again, you try to dictate what methods of proof others will employ.

View Post


Rather than complaining CTD, why don't you offer something to the conversation? If you don't like my definitions, then give us some of your own. Lets face it, if we can't agree on definitions then we'll never solve any of the problems.

Regards,

Arch.

#35 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 June 2009 - 07:01 PM

You keep refering to the Wiki editors as biased and that's why they remove certain posts. Have you considered that your objections to this may indicate your own bias, and that's why you want them in there?


A wiki page is supposed to be a page of information unless other wise stated. The page I tried to edit was information about YEC. There was no debate going on. But they did have some wrong information that I was trying to correct. Stuff like: All YECs believe the earth is flat. Stupid stuff like that. Might as well said we all wear tin foil hats.

Now what if you read the evo page and saw a comment where i said: All evolutionits are racists because Darwin was racist. Now, wold you not want to correct that? And upon trying to do so you found it was deleted because they disagreed with you. And when you asked why, they never gave you a straight answer because to do so they would have to admit to being bias. They had noreal reason except that "they" disagreed with my correction of "their" page. And they were not even admins. They deleted at will just because they could. I had the same power but I don't consider mysef so endowed with knowledge that I would do that even to somthing they did unless we talked about it first.

Besides, I did ask for some help in determining changing the information, no one responded. So I changed it. If they are not so willing to help, then they have no riht to get mad. I told one guy off who acted like an admin but was not. And his buddy took it personlly and stalked me on the internet for over a year. And what's creepy is that he claims to be a teacher for an elementary school. I would not want someone like that teaching my kids.

I'm not interested in getting drawn into a debate over which ideas are correct. The point of this is to figure out if certain sites (mostly wiki) are accurate. Evolution is generally considered to be accurate, regardless of your personal beleifs. This can be verified by checking wiki's acrticles against another encyclopedia

.

If you want to believe that the wikis are all golden and have 100% truth, that's your opinion. I don't have to agree wth you s quit sounding like I have to. You are not the wiki police. And one more thing. If you consider your self a free thinker,then why is it so important to control the thoughts of others? Or is free thinking only within the realm that you dictate?

If you want to show me that wiki is inaccurate and biased, compare it to another encyclopedia. If they don't match then you have a case. But your own personal opinions have no place in this debate (and neither do mine).

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


It would not be anything you would see or accept. And you would get a laugh with your lurker buddies about how you made me spend time looking up such evidence that you had no mind to look at and consider anyway. So no I'm not getting caught up in you little game. Waste someone else's time.

For someone who claims not to be the other arch, you are beginning to sound like it.

#36 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 June 2009 - 07:27 PM

Rather than complaining CTD, why don't you offer something to the conversation? If you don't like my definitions, then give us some of your own. Lets face it, if we can't agree on definitions then we'll never solve any of the problems.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


I suggest that if you do not like what is being said in this thread, that you don't post in it. Because it seems you are trying to pick a fight. I can understand your defense of a wiki because you have never had a negitive experience. But if you are going to try and control other responces because you disagree, then I'll have to close the thread. Would you prefer that?

#37 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 June 2009 - 09:26 PM

A wiki page is supposed to be a page of information unless other wise stated. The page I tried to edit was information about YEC. There was no debate going on. But they did have some wrong information that I was trying to correct. Stuff like: All YECs believe the earth is flat. Stupid stuff like that. Might as well said we all wear tin foil hats.

View Post


If this is indeed the case then there is something amiss and I would support your right to write in correct details. If it makes you feel any better I checked the entry for YEC and (with a quick search) I'm pretty sure it no longer says this. Hopefully it stays this way.

(I did a search for 'flat' which returned nothing).

If you want to believe that the wikis are all golden and have 100% truth, that's your opinion.

View Post


I'm not quite sure where this came from...have you read any of my other posts? On at least one occasion I've specifically said that wiki is not 100% accurate; neither is any other encyclopedia.
The question I'd like to ask is whether or not people consider Britannica to be accurate, despite not being 100% accurate. If you consider Britannica accurate, why not wiki? If Britannica is inaccurate, then who do we trust?

I don't have to agree wth you s quit sounding like I have to. You are not the wiki police. And one more thing. If you consider your self a free thinker,then why is it so important to control the thoughts of others? Or is free thinking only within the realm that you dictate?

View Post


You seem to have forgotten this is a debate; one party presents evidence to convince the other party of their opinions. That's what I and everybody else here has been doing. My apologies if I've come across too aggressive. I freely admit I am passionate about this opinion.

It would not be anything you would see or accept. And you would get a laugh with your lurker buddies about how you made me spend time looking up such evidence that you had no mind to look at and consider anyway. So no I'm not getting caught up in you little game. Waste someone else's time.

View Post


ikester, in this forum I'm trying to distance myself from the actual content of encyclopedias (which I may have a biased opinion on) and argue over the accuracy of said content. The only way I can think to discern whether an article is inaccurate (without letting my own bias get in the way) is to compare it to other sources.

In which case I would happily accept any information you can present. I will do my best to ignore my own bias and address it for what it is. "It" in this case would be a discrepancy between two encyclopedic articles.

In your next post you wrote:

I suggest that if you do not like what is being said in this thread, that you don't post in it. Because it seems you are trying to pick a fight. I can understand your defense of a wiki because you have never had a negitive experience. But if you are going to try and control other responces because you disagree, then I'll have to close the thread. Would you prefer that?

View Post


Again, my apologies if I have come across too strong. I just don't see the point in complaining about a situation unless you are willing to do something about it.

To my knowledge Wikipedia (for the most part) agrees with other respected encyclopedias. Therefore to disagree with Wiki means to disagree with these other respected sources. If someone can show that wiki does not correlate with another respected encyclopedia then there is a good chance wiki has a fault. If someone can think of a better way of finding unbiased inaccuracies let me know and I'll happily change my definition.

Regards,

Arch.

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 June 2009 - 02:45 AM

And finally we get to the truth. Because wikipedia disagrees with your fundamental beliefs it is inaccurate.

View Post


That would be another incorrect assessment on your part Archie. As you ignored the reason I stated for disregarding Wikipedia “I have seen how easily some can manipulate that system” and focus on the fact I find the Bible trustworthy (a case you must not be able to refute because you only attempt back handed swipes at it) to satiate your need to protect and coddle your unreliable source.

I disagree that this is a good method of finding inaccuracies, but I share the same bias, just the opposite one. So, lets disregard these opinion based articles for now.

View Post


You may disregard anything you like Arch. As I said “You may enjoy it, and pretend it is accurate, but I’d much rather use source materials that can actually be trusted”.

I guess my question is then, do you only regard wiki as inaccurate, or pretty much every encyclopedia in existance today?

View Post


No, I regard Wikipedia as inaccurate for many reasons. And, as I’ve stated many times, I use original sources when possible, and proven reliable sources. But never sources (like Wiki) that can be manipulated, cajoled and bias controlled (yes, I am infact, a poet :rolleyes: ).

#39 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 June 2009 - 02:49 AM

Rather than complaining CTD, why don't you offer something to the conversation? If you don't like my definitions, then give us some of your own. Lets face it, if we can't agree on definitions then we'll never solve any of the problems.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Looks like he offered some truth that struck close to home :rolleyes:

#40 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 June 2009 - 02:53 AM

If someone can show that wiki does not correlate with another respected encyclopedia then there is a good chance wiki has a fault. If someone can think of a better way of finding unbiased inaccuracies let me know and I'll happily change my definition.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


It looks to me that Ikester laid out a case that pretty much that disproves your theories about Wiki being accurate. Regardless of your opinion though Arch, I doubt you’ll change your definition (even in the face of any evidence).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users