Talk:Eugene G. Windchy

Improvement
This is another of DinoCrisis's mass-produced Creationism articles, and it seems that its production suffered from corner-cutting - there are some details that got lost in paraphrasing the source material (see User talk:Etruscan). I'll try to fix what I can.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've cut most of the crap. The primary problem is that the only source is the biography on Xlibris' website, and they are a vanity press self-publishing company, so the bio was likely submitted by the author. Someone who cares can try digging up more information.
 * A date of birth would be nice.
 * His position in the "U.S. Information Agency" needs to be verified, and, if necessary, de-glamorized.
 * His work on the Gulf of Tonkin and the incidents needs a proper write-up.
 * He's also apparently a bit of a columnist - I found an article of his in the Washington Times (not Post!) about the POTUS' authority to wage war and the NATO airstrikes in Lybia.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Corner-cutting wasn't problem. FABRICATION was the problem.

--Etruscan
 * "Mass-produced" and "corner-cutting" here was a metaphor for "sloppy work". DinoCrisis apparently didn't read carefully the source material carefully, resulting in the "left to investigate"->"sent to investigate" confusion. I don't know how he got the "Christian" part, though it's a reasonable assumption when dealing with American creationists anti-evolutionists.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have debated Windchy on the amazon forums with many other people, reading over his posts you can see he is anti-evolution. He has described evolution as the "anti-christ". Use any search engine, and there is also an interview with Windchy where he reveals he belongs to a Christian organisation. Ecologist (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And our article states so pretty clearly. So what, exactly, is your point? Just like New York City; Just like Jerico. 15:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you DinoCrisis? --ZooGuard (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet another rant by Etruscan
If anybody at this website would read The End of Darwinism, he or she would see that the book accepts evolution as biological change over time and relates the history of conflict among evolutionary theorists. Thomas Huxley, for example, did not agree with Charles Darwin's belief in gradualism. Ernst Haeckel was not convinced about the role of chance. To relate such a history is not to declare oneself a creationist. If this website is unable to tell the truth, I suggest that it drop the reference to Eugene Windchy. Your website is irresponsible, inaccurate and defamatory. Its "information" is fabricated. --- Etruscan
 * The above was originally inserted in the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Etruscan can you stop pretending to be a random user? You are Eugene G. Windchy. First your amazon comments to people are anti-evolution and you were quoting creationists, and secondly your book is anti-evolution. You have compared evolution to the "anti-christ", you also belong to Christian organisations. Your book rejects common descent. You also in your book try and discredit evolution by linking it to the piltdown man hoax and Haeckel Embryo drawings (only creationists do this)!!
 * Etruscan do you accept that humans share are a common ancestor with modern apes 5 to 8 million years ago? Notice how you won't be able to respond with "yes". Defining evolution as "change over time" is accepted by creationists. You put the barrier up when it comes to macroevolution. Your book is also filled with dishonest quote mining. Ernst Haeckel and Stephen Jay Gould were both Darwinists. Your book also quote mines David M. Raup, Raup was also a Darwinist as he accepted natural selection. Ecologist (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)