h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

a lot of articles aren't ready right off-- they also usually aren't as controversial as this one.(since it *is* dealing with people's beliefs, deeply held ones at that.(deeply held for some people, anyway)). just because SOME PEOPLE(you *know* who you are, there's no need to mention names.*glares around*) have been rude is no reason to give up on it.

It's not solely a matter of being rude - if someone writes a piece citing alleged fraud, and trying to pick holes in a theory, it seems to me thay're inviting a robust criticism of their own writing, escpecially when they expressly invited comments from people they'd already been in strong discussion with elsewhere.
Had it been a non-submitted article, there would have been more time to iron out some of the problems that clearly do exist with it, but I think that people were concerned that if they didn't respond, there was a risk that the article might end up being approved as it is, so criticism was meant less personally than it may appear at first.

There is a real difference between criticising an argument and criticising the author. I'm sure that most critics understand the number of sources of strongly plausible but highly selective or flawed creationist arguments that people may be exposed to, and understand that people's arguments are generally only as good as the information they have had access to.

Personally, I sometimes have the problem that if I'm dealing with someone I don't know well, and who doesn't know me, I have to deliberately dampen my natural subtlety and sarcasm (which can sometimes be more offensive than directness, and other times can be entirely missed and taken as approval when it isn't, or vice-versa), and I *can* end up overcompensating and being unnaturally blunt. Writing well after midnight possibly doesn't help matters either.

*sigh*yeah, you're probably right.but still,

Thanks Wayfarer.

I hope you all don't discredit intelligent design because of my shortcomings.

Not if you can come up with better arguments and evidence.

How about some collaborative work?

If criticisms of evolution were posted one at a time in separate threads linked to the article, (with a disclaimer at the top inviting non-relevant comments to go to another thread), then other people could give their opinions on the merits of the specific argument (is the data dangerously selective, are there logical flaws, could it be improved, etc), and maybe reach some rough consensus, as well as avoiding what good arguments there are being dragged down by the less good?

If the individual threads were suitably named ('Discussion about the (eye/fossil/life origin) question'), it might help keep things in order.

Some idea of sources could help (though being unable to quote URLs in conversations does hamper that somewhat), and if we could start off by trying to separate initial evidence from the reasoning based on that evidence, it might be useful - if one person thinks only one fossil of organism X has been found, and somone else thinks that dozens or hundreds have been, it's going to be hard for them to discuss any conclusions that might follow.

you know, that is a really good idea.

Agreed.

Well, let's do a collaborative entry then.

Please would anyone involved check out my posting under "lack of understanding", more info will be here soon though.


Hey Josh I'd really like to contribute to your work, raw data will be here soon, until then - Hey don't give up, your doing splendid, with a difficult job,

Collaborative sounds good - how do you do that exactly? I'm posted a rant in the "creation v evolution" forum, but would welcome a chance to do a more detailed researched entry. A lot of what I typed there was just what I could remember off the top of my head.

Very good, thorough entry. Well done! Let me know about collaborating, and I'll draft something over the holidays.

Cadi