VISIT WEBSITE >>>>> http://gg.gg/y83ws?8045502 <<<<<<
For 4 weeks receive unlimited Premium digital access to the FT's trusted, award-winning business news. Digital Be informed with the essential news and opinion. Delivery to your home or office Monday to Saturday FT Weekend paper — a stimulating blend of news and lifestyle features ePaper access — the digital replica of the printed newspaper. Team or Enterprise Premium FT. Pay based on use.
Does my organisation subscribe? Group Subscription. Premium Digital access, plus: Convenient access for groups of users Integration with third party platforms and CRM systems Usage based pricing and volume discounts for multiple users Subscription management tools and usage reporting SAML-based single sign-on SSO Dedicated account and customer success teams.
Far more people read books than write reviews of them, and far more watch YouTube videos than post them. Economic theory is not entirely helpful, either. The trouble is not that economics has no explanation for such contributions, but that it has too many. Perhaps people are pure altruists, motivated by the joy of others. Perhaps they enjoy the process of contributing, whether or not it actually produces something of value. Or perhaps they enjoy the good reputation that comes with being acknowledged as a Doer of Good Deeds.
Until now, most of our understanding of the question has come from laboratory experiments. In fact, the library is stocked with introductory materials, and the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields. The matter should be plain, and the zero concession, design thinkers are inevitably ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked attitude of too many Darwinist Zealots should be even more plain. The way to use Wikipedia is to see what references it uses for a subject and go to those references.
So are most dictionaries, general reference works, textbooks and encyclopedias, but such are by and large reasonable. This is willful deception by continued misrepresentation , and endorsement of it at organisational level. PS: The hatchet job on ID in Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether or not they are willing to cite journals that are published by Intelligent Design advocates or journals by Creationists.
It has everything to do with the duty of care to truth, accuracy, fairness and innocent reputation. Whatever rules manipulation tactics — a Wiki specialty — are used to excuse or obfuscate the lying, are besides the point. That lying like that is tolerated, encouraged and even hosted by atheistical groups speaks loud volumes. End of story. Be realistic. Mark Frank- Unguided evolution is very controversial. Wikipedia does not have an article about Casey Luskin.
You are not confusing Rational Wiki with Wikipedia are you? Wikipedia is that collection of editors that contribute. Again, the fact that ID contents fails to stick is no different from why ID contents fails to stick in schools, universities or journals; it is any of poor quality, unscientific, unverifiable, or just out and out creationism.
Lincoln, I posted a quote by Ernst Mayr wrt natural selction and they removed it. Also it is very telling thaty yopu cannot present any supporting evidence for unguided evolution. MF: Kindly, stop enabling evil. Slander, willful misrepresenations of basic objective points in the teeth of easily accessible corrections and facts, and the like are inexcusable. THAT is realistic. There is a patent duty of care to accuracy, fairness, truth and more, which are being willfully and consistently violated by a great many people, here through the deliberate sabotage of a general reference web site advertised to one and all as an encyclopedia.
This, as willfully continued misrepresentation, is lying. It is also in many cases willful defamation of innocent character. That, too, is reality. And it is inexcusable. LP: Stop being irresponsible and enabling of evil — or pay the price of that, being ring fenced as just that. If you care to investigate you will easily find out that Wikipedia has a major bias problem on many topics [cf the Harvard U warning above for a sampler], and indeed the OP helps show why — from the mouths of brazen liars and slanderers themselves.
Abusive amoral, ruthlessly deceitful persons have taken over key positions and are doing inexcusable things, so that corrections, however well warranted, do not stick. Sometimes they are removed in seconds or minutes, and often those who make them — in a vicious twistabout — are tagged as vandalisers and may be barred.
Some articles are then locked down. As to the censorship games with journals such as PBSW a decade ago, they have decisively failed. There are now dozens of peer reviewed design supportive publications in technical journals, and the number grows month by month. We received this e-mail recently from a friendly engineer.
He gave us permission to post his letter but only if we put his name in bold. I am an engineer. I am not a biologist. I became interested in Intelligent Design recently and decided to investigate it a bit. Naturally I consulted Wikipedia for information on the subject and was stunned by the one sided tone of the material I found there.
When I was in college I learned that the best way to defeat an opponent in a debate is to take on their strongest arguments demonstrate the flaws in them.
The proponents of ID were not allowed to even present their arguments, rather, they first attempted to kill the messenger, and then only arguments against ID were presented. May I suggest that you would be better served to use a debate format for subjects of controversy. Let each side present their case, sticking to the facts, and afford both sides the opportunity to engage in rebuttal and to rebut the rebuttal.
If evolution is indeed the fittest, it will survive such a test.
Comments