User talk:DinoCrisis/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, DinoCrisis!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Any questions? Please see the help page or ask me on my talk page.

C®ackeЯ 06:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Welcome to Sysophood. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 18:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yo do good work. Keep it up :) Тytalk 02:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Books books books[edit]

Got a whole collection of creationist/theistic evolution books? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes I have quite a few theistic evolution books that I have been reading recently. I have a couple more to add. I am very disappointed with them, most of them are no different than creationist ones, very little science found in the books. I have read over 250 creationist books, they are the worst. DinoCrisis (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I would probably be in a padded cell right now if I had to read that many of them. You should check out What Darwin Got Wrong for some ID-esque arguments from a rather different angle. The book, however, is not pushing a religious agenda. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know of that book I have not read but it has been on my list for a long time & I will probably buy it soon. My favourite book on the subject is "Intelligent Universe" by Fred Hoyle. Link most scientists have shot down some of his ideas about panspermia, but I believe he has some valid points remaining which have been unexplored. The creationists have misrepresented and quote mined his book sadly. I think Fred Hoyle needs an article on rationalwiki where theres a section debunking some of the creationist lies about him perhaps I will get round to it at some point. DinoCrisis (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You can see the beginnings of Fodor's problems in The Mind Doesn't Work That Way as well. On Hoyle, we have an article on Hoyle's fallacy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done on writing up all this rubbish - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Random Designer...."[edit]

Link something to that bad boy. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This too. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There are actually a handful...[edit]

...of articles that you have created lately that need links into them. Since you know this stuff way better than I, could you please find some relevant links? Thanks so much. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 02:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I will get round to linking them all, I was confused about your previous comment when you mention linking them, do you mean to other articles on rational wiki? I put some of the theistic evolution books in links on the theistic evolution article. DinoCrisis (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Other articles need to link into those ones--they all have links going out, they need links coming in. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 02:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Christian God"[edit]

"God" would be less redundant, and more accurate, given that He is also the god of the Jews and the Muslims. I suppose you could write "The Abrahamic God," but with the upper-case "G", we all know which deity you mean. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Book titles go in italics...[edit]

...even when bolded. Thanks! Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Dowd[edit]

Is this guy just ripping off E.O. Wilson? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it appears he is, it is not a well written book yet has been a popular one. Half of the book advocates religious naturalism and the rest theistic evolution. He has ripped off authors like Thomas Berry and Eric Chaisson etc and just throws in some random religious quotes. DinoCrisis (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That article about me[edit]

I simply don't understand you there. Are you actually an Ed Conrad supporter? Because I was keen on creating sci.archaeology.moderated in part because of people like him (he still pollutes sci.archaeology). Here's the final Request for Discussion link, see how I described myself and look at who agreed to back it.[1]. The archaeologist Ken Feder cites me in his Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum:. My website was mentioned in the journal of the Arcaeological Institute of America[2]. Do you disagree with what I said here in the Garry Denke thread you added to prove I'm some kook?[3]. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I have you to thank for this[4]. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)