If you do a google search on evolution, Wikipedia is the first UNSPONSORED site listed.
It's explanation is excellent.
Why do the fundies skip past it?
I directed one there last night, and his next question had a link to some obscure anti-evolution foundie site.
Why are they hiding from reading quality material?
2007-03-23 01:05:01 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
They ignore it because it tells the truth, and they can't deal with that.
2007-03-23 01:08:25 · answer #1 · answered by Weatherman 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Many people don't use Wikipedia because it's an open forum where it can be edited. So some of it's info is correct and some isn't. It's not a perfect source to use.
What is a fundie? Can I find that in Wikipedia?
2007-03-23 08:13:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1.I am a(fundie)
2.I have read wikipedia,s explantion of evolution.
3.I also have done other research on the theories of evolution.
4.As a christian Mother who has home schooled, i taught evolution side by side with inteligent design(creationism).
5. i warrant i could even hold an intelligant conversation about evolution.
6. are you as well informed as you want me to be?
http://www.realtruth.org
http://www.creationism.org
http://www.evolutionoftruth.com
peace><>
2007-03-23 08:28:45 · answer #3 · answered by matowakan58 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's very good, but it's long and quite complex for someone who is looking for simple answers. Unfortunately, while the basic principles of evolution are fairly simple, it can be quite hard to get your head around if you're not used to thinking scientifically.
I use Wikipedia as a sorting tool for reliable information, but if you want to do any serious exploration around evolutionary theory I'd suggest talkorigins. http://www.talkorigins.org
[Edit] Fud silly fud, I agree that you shouldn't just take wikipedia's word as infallible on anything. It is a text, like any othter text you might read. In my mind a good text is one that invites you to check its reliabilty and correct its errors. Wikipedia does this. I am amazed that this system for propogating non-point-of-view information works as well as it does. Not perfect, but very, very useful. Cookie please? *begs*
[Edit 2] Orchidmg: yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentism
2007-03-23 08:11:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Wiki isn't infallible, it is only the word of man" - a cookie to the first person who suggests this seriously (if I'm not already too late, I do tend to waste my time checking my spelling and making sure what I've written makes sense - at least grammatically - and silly little things like that and then of course I get side-tracked...so how many people were going to St Ives?!)
Edit: See!? I must be psychotic...
2007-03-23 08:10:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
How can you call wikipedia quality material? Anybody can put anything on there, and pass it off as fact. It is really not that different then this site, because it is peoples opinions on certain subjects no more. I could call myself Dr. VonSchweitzenheimer, wright a post on brain surgery, and they would post it, even though I do not have the first clue about brain surgery.
quality material, PLEASE!!!!
2007-03-23 08:17:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wikipedia has been proven to be an unreliable source of information. It can be edited by anyone and changed by anyone. Do not trust wikipedia.
2007-03-23 08:14:22 · answer #7 · answered by lilmama 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hello moomoocow.
Todays question is very errrrrr different.
But (excuse the bad english because i am from australia)
what the bloody hell is a fundie?
2007-03-23 08:13:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is not universally accepted as gospel on any subject; many people take issue with how topics are posted there.
Read everything; be critical and form your own ideas.
(Fundie:term for a fundamentalist Christian)
2007-03-23 08:09:05 · answer #9 · answered by wizjp 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
A lot of them seem to have sassinya's attitude.
"The Bible was here first, so nothing else is relevant."
They truly don't want to read anything unless it supports their opinions.
None so blind as those who will not see... and all that.
2007-03-23 08:17:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anthony Stark 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Another blatant insult to the intelligence of Christians. Look sir, many of us completely understand evolution; we are just sick of you trying to twist the facts. You perpetuate the common theory as fact, when in fact it is not. Micro evolution is an obvious and necessary occurence, which is only even more indicitave of a plan and a planner, and in no way supports macro evolutionary theory. Stop lying and pointing the finger, and open your mind and your heart to the truth.
2007-03-23 08:10:57 · answer #11 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 7⤋