User talk:The Other Side of the Argument

Evolution Biased

This article is biased towards evolution. It represents creationists and proponents of intelligent design as raving religous fanatics. The article leaves out the scientists that support intelligent design and the arguements made by creationists. It is very difficult to talk about a debate without giving the other side of the debate. This article could be greatly improved if it represented both sides equally. The Other Side of the Argument (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Representing "both sides equally" is only appropriate is both sides are equally supported. WP:UNDUE is important reading here. The "scientific" arguments for creationism/ID are vastly weaker in strength and acceptance, quantity and quality, than those of evolution. — Scientizzle 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is also biased towards facts. Might have to rectify that one. Baegis (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The scienitifc arguements for ID aren't that bad. Scientifically, naturalism is nearly three times impossible. Here's my source. http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2007/10/anthropic-principle-planetary-version.html. The Other Side of the Argument (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no "scientific arguments for ID", and the pseudoscientific arguments for it aren't just bad, they're appallingly bad. Irreducible complexity‎ is simply an argument from ignorance by has-been biochemist who hasn't done any serious scientific research in over a decade, and who has been repeatedly proved ignorant of evolutionary biology, immunology, virology and pretty much every other scientific field he makes wild and unsubstantiated claims about. Specified complexity is simply "written in jello". And you have picked my favourite: stupid-really-big-numbers plucked from up the arse of some creationist, without any consideration of the laws and methodologies of statistics, which therefore are completely meaningless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)