Home > Uncategorized > How Stupid the Darwinist Contributors and Moderators of Wikipedia Are

How Stupid the Darwinist Contributors and Moderators of Wikipedia Are

On the Talk page of the Abiogensis page in Wikipedia it says (or did say a few weeks ago):

"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute."

So these people are so blind, so ignorant, so stupid, that they can’t even agree as to whether or not there is agreement? So they are so ignorant they aren’t aware of Intelligent Design or Creationist scientists who dispute it? Really? So they don’t have any information on Wikipedia about Intelligent Design / Creation Science? They don’t have a list of any scientists who support that theory? So they don’t have a page on Answers In Genesis, or Ken Ham, or Michael Behe, or Francis Crick, etc.? They are so dumb, that they can’t even agree on whether or not anyone disputes the information on their page, and yet Wikipedians want us to believe that their encyclopedia is trustworthy, reliable. What evil, confused, and stupid liars they are.

Also on that page is this entry which I put in blue so that you know where it starts and ends (any bold lettering you see is from me so that you especially notice those parts):

Polyp2 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    If Tmol42 isn’t watching this page, you can get his attention by asking him at the bottom of User talk:Tmol42. There he will be notified as soon as he logs on. Art LaPella (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Polyp2, I see you are new to WP so will explain in a bit more detail. In short your edit was reverted as it was not substantiated by the reference you provided. The reference you provided to back up the edit was to a flyer for a book Here which turns out to be no more than an advert for the book with no explanation of the theory or a citation of research to substantiate the edit. In fact it appears the book is more to do with ‘a call to arms’ to start /continue research in this area talking about ID and Darwin. I see the author is postulating a Darwinian-linked theory which is in itself enough to ring alarm bells for some and claims of popularism from others. WP is an encyclopedia and not a place for promoting books per se which would be also be sufficient reason to remove the citation. In short its much better to stick to more traditional sources here.

    Visitors to WP should expect the content of articles to be reliable, have their rigor tested, and to be backed up by robust references. This is more often also achieved for such subjects through discussion and consensus reached on the Talk Pages, and is commonplace regardless of the notoriety of a fact or theory.

Yet another Wikipedian in addition to the Darwinist called "JoshuaZ" who says that the information on Wikipedia is there because of a concensus to keep it there, and not because it is TRUE. And don’t forget, according to JoshuaZ Wikipedia is not about truth, but references. So then, which is it controllers of Wikipedia, stop contradicting yourselves: Is the information you allow on Wikipedia, especially on evolution theories, there because it is true, or because of a "the concensus"? I’ll answer for you since you can’t help but make confusing lies:

Information in Wikipedia is there as long as it suits the personal feelings of the concensus of the HEAD MODERATORS of WIKIPEDIA. And there truths about the Bible are only allowed to remain there because you know that to tell certain lies about it are too obviously wrong to the many stupid visitors who come to your site, and you wouldn’t want to make it appear that your encyclopedia can’t be trusted. Plus, you might lose the support of your liberal Christian money donors. So then, Wikipedia is in part your campaign to deceive people into believing the Bible is not trustworthy. Oh, and lets not forget your deliberately suppressing information on the head bankers who oppress the world and the Free Masons who have done so. Of course, you will forget, because you hate remembering the truth.

If anyone doubts JoshuaZ said that Wikipedia was about concensus and not truth:

"Starfire, as I tried to explain to you Wikipedia cares about reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. Now, if you read that guideline, you may understand why in general AIG and many of the other sources you used are not reliable sources." – JoshuaZ

JoshuaZ is contradicting himself being that whether or not a thing is TRUE, TRUSTWORTHY is what determines it’s reliablity. JoshuaZ and his friend Darwinist administrators would like us to believe that a lie is reliable. Second, where in Wikipedia’s guidelines does it say that Answers In Genesis is unreliable? No where. So why is JoshuaZ lying? JoshuaZ is clearly an unreliable, untrustworthy, anti-Christian bigot as are those in Wikipedia who have been supporting him, which includes Jimmy Wales, whom they pretend was Wikpedia’s founder.

"Charming, and I was about to come and add a comment about how your remark here was WP:UNCIVIL but it could just as well apply to your above remark. In general saying editors are being "childish" is not advised and could lead to WP:BLOCK. As to why discussion would be preferred, see this page which explains the Wikipedia procedure in general. Wikipedia works by consensus and so if there is material that not all editors are ok with, they generally wish to discuss it. Very often some form of compromise or rewrite with some of the material will be included or all of it will be if the consensus is clear." – JoshuaZ (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: JoshuaZ again slandered me and plain lied: I didn’t say the editors of Wikipedia were childish, as in anyone who edits is childish, but THE MODERATORS (administrators).

Then JoshuaZ said:

"Also, I suggest you don’t use the edit summary "rebuke" indeed, the entire notion of rebuking editors with whom you disagree with is probably not a good one. I suggest you try to improve your attitude to be more cooperative with other editors. Wikipedia is not a battleground but a collective attempt to build an encyclopedia." – JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"probably"? JoshuaZ why would I care about your probablies? Who are you? And yet users like Griot were and are allowed to repeatedly harass and make insults (which are rebukes) against those who oppose them on Wikipedia. What a biased truth-hating hypocrite you are JoshuaZ. Stop babbling and stop lying.

And as for concensus, you idiot:

A Growing Concensus that Darwinists are Wrong

The Washington Times reports ‘a growing consensus’ among philosophers, intellectuals and scholars that atheism is in decline worldwide. But this does not mean that ‘re-Christianization’ is occurring—instead Flew and others merely believe in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe.

The Washington Times, www.washtimes.com/world/20050303-115733-9519r.htm, March 9, 2005.

Or is the Washington Times not reliable JoshuaZ, will that be your next arbitrary excuse to supress the truths in the Bible?

Further, British philosopher Antony Flew, long renowned as ‘an intellectual ambassador of secular humanism’, is now a theist.

He said that it was impossible for evolution to account for the fact that a single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
 

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: