God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[ReinyDays]

Do you agree or not? ... and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... pseudo forces don't count ...

Do you agree or not? ...and if you disagree, please state what is correct ...

For extra credit ... what happens when v > c? ...

 

[esalla]

Do you agree or not? ... and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... pseudo forces don't count ...

Do you agree or not? ...and if you disagree, please state what is correct ...

For extra credit ... what happens when v > c? ...

Do you ask yourself questions often and more important how often do you get answers?

Lol post another picture of an equation and pretend you wrote it.

Bye the way jr. I am not required to answer to you so take your meds

 

[james bond]

"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:
"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].

I have to say Tyson is correct. What are a few examples of how he came to the conclusion the universe wants to kill us? Are those from how other solar systems are aligned? How other planets are much different from Earth? The solar wind? All of the above and more?

I doubt you can provide a few simple answers abu afak because you do not have a clue.

Where Tyson goes wrong is due to his faith in atheism and that is equating God with beneficence or benevolence. Jesus will be the God of Vengeance when he returns and there will be final judgement. Look what happened to him during his first visit. Tyson just thinks there is nothing wrong with his beliefs because he believes in Satan's Antibible of Evolution. He started with faith in no God or gods and this is where his search has taken him. It is a search and journey based on lies.

I was just pointing what are the Adamic and Edemic covenants that Adam and Eve brought upon themselves and humankind. It clearly answers what Tyson asks, but he has no clue. For those who believe in the science of atheism, death is the answer or to be living during the end of times.

"Let's look over what was Adamic:

Mankind (male and female) was created in God’s image.
Mankind’s dominion is over the animal kingdom.
Divine directive for mankind was to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth.
Mankind was to be vegetarian (eating of meat established in the Noahic covenant: Genesis 9:3).
Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden and would entail the death penalty. (The death penalty is from God. After all, you don't really die, i.e. life spirit; Just your physical body dies to be reunited again during the end times. Furthermore, look who's against God -- Satan's people who are against the death penalty.)

Then we had what was Adamic and Edemic after their original sin:

Enmity between Satan and Eve and her descendants.
Painful childbirth for women.
Marital strife.
The soil cursed.
Introduction of thorns and thistles.
Survival to be a struggle.
Death introduced.
Death will be the inescapable fate of all living things."

 

[james bond]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?

You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?

You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.

The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality

Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).

To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... caveat lector.

Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius

You stupid Schmuck.
Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.
(BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)

You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again.
`

`

What an idiot you are haha. You could not win a debate with a plastic bag. Wiki admitted it is not a reliable source. What you are claiming are the sources are reliable, but not the content. The sources could be changed at any time, too.

Let's look at some of their own sources:

Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway, those who use wikipedia as their go to encyclopedia could be doomed to what you claimed, i.e. describing yourself:

"You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again."

Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.

 

[esalla]

"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:
"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].

I have to say Tyson is correct. What are a few examples of how he came to the conclusion the universe wants to kill us? Are those from how other solar systems are aligned? How other planets are much different from Earth? The solar wind? All of the above and more?

I doubt you can provide a few simple answers abu afak because you do not have a clue.

Where Tyson goes wrong is due to his faith in atheism and that is equating God with beneficence or benevolence. Jesus will be the God of Vengeance when he returns and there will be final judgement. Look what happened to him during his first visit. Tyson just thinks there is nothing wrong with his beliefs because he believes in Satan's Antibible of Evolution. He started with faith in no God or gods and this is where his search has taken him. It is a search and journey based on lies.

I was just pointing what are the Adamic and Edemic covenants that Adam and Eve brought upon themselves and humankind. It clearly answers what Tyson asks, but he has no clue. For those who believe in the science of atheism, death is the answer or to be living during the end of times.

"Let's look over what was Adamic:

Mankind (male and female) was created in God’s image.
Mankind’s dominion is over the animal kingdom.
Divine directive for mankind was to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth.
Mankind was to be vegetarian (eating of meat established in the Noahic covenant: Genesis 9:3).
Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden and would entail the death penalty. (The death penalty is from God. After all, you don't really die, i.e. life spirit; Just your physical body dies to be reunited again during the end times. Furthermore, look who's against God -- Satan's people who are against the death penalty.)

Then we had what was Adamic and Edemic after their original sin:

Enmity between Satan and Eve and her descendants.
Painful childbirth for women.
Marital strife.
The soil cursed.
Introduction of thorns and thistles.
Survival to be a struggle.
Death introduced.
Death will be the inescapable fate of all living things."

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

 

[james bond]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

 

[ChemEngineer]

"You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again."

Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.

Bond you are too good for this rathole and you waste much time responding to the many rats which infest it. Please, give the rest of us a break. Don't feed the trolls.

 

[esalla]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

 

[Hollie]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Maybe he just doesn't have faith in your gods.

 

[Hollie]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?

You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?

You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.

The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality

Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).

To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... caveat lector.

Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius

You stupid Schmuck.
Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.
(BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)

You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again.
`

`

What an idiot you are haha. You could not win a debate with a plastic bag. Wiki admitted it is not a reliable source. What you are claiming are the sources are reliable, but not the content. The sources could be changed at any time, too.

Let's look at some of their own sources:

Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway, those who use wikipedia as their go to encyclopedia could be doomed to what you claimed, i.e. describing yourself:

"You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again."

Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.

"You are TOO STUPID to debate."


Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you ask yourself questions often and more important how often do you get answers?
Lol post another picture of an equation and pretend you wrote it.
Bye the way jr. I am not required to answer to you so take your meds

Thank you for your answers ...

 

[abu afak]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?

You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?

You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.

The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality

Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).

To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... caveat lector.

Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius

You stupid Schmuck.
Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.
(BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)

You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again.
`

`

What an idiot you are haha. You could not win a debate with a plastic bag. Wiki admitted it is not a reliable source. What you are claiming are the sources are reliable, but not the content. The sources could be changed at any time, too.

Let's look at some of their own sources:

Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway, those who use wikipedia as their go to encyclopedia could be doomed to what you claimed, i.e. describing yourself:

"You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again."

Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.

Perfect JamesBlond.
Except According to eatsalad none of your 4 wiki citations are credible. Ooops.

And Chem Engineer is right. ((WTF!)
You're too good (DUMB) for this place
Go back to Church or theology school.
AS I SAID, you and the other GOD CULTISTS can't show us any evidence of god. (except saying "this rock/everything is god")
There' really no place for you on a message board, only a pew or other Jim Jones like 7/11 Adventist group.
`


`

 

[esalla]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?

You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?

You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.

The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality

Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).

To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... caveat lector.

Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius

You stupid Schmuck.
Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.
(BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)

You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again.
`

`

What an idiot you are haha. You could not win a debate with a plastic bag. Wiki admitted it is not a reliable source. What you are claiming are the sources are reliable, but not the content. The sources could be changed at any time, too.

Let's look at some of their own sources:

Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway, those who use wikipedia as their go to encyclopedia could be doomed to what you claimed, i.e. describing yourself:

"You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again."

Besides, your argument is entirely based on ad hominems and your opinion of wikipedia so you lost.

Perfect JamesBlond.
Except According to eatsalad none of your 4 wiki citations are credible. Ooops.

And Chem Engineer is right. ((WTF!)
You're too good (DUMB) for this place
Go back to Church or theology school.
AS I SAID, you and the other GOD CULTISTS can't show us any evidence of god. (except saying "this rock/everything is god")
There' really no place for you on a message board, only a pew or other Jim Jones like 7/11 Adventist group.
`


`

Tell Allah, he might care, no one here does

 

[james bond]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

 

[james bond]

Perfect JamesBlond.
Except According to eatsalad none of your 4 wiki citations are credible. Ooops.

And Chem Engineer is right. ((WTF!)
You're too good (DUMB) for this place
Go back to Church or theology school.
AS I SAID, you and the other GOD CULTISTS can't show us any evidence of god. (except saying "this rock/everything is god")
There' really no place for you on a message board, only a pew or other Jim Jones like 7/11 Adventist group.

I gave you the FACT that the universe, Earth (Anthropic Principle), and everything in it is here. God is the best theory with the Bible and science backing up the Bible. Furthermore, what I am discussing is not religion, but creation science, i.e. Book of Genesis. Yours is the science of atheism -- evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I gave you the FACT that the universe, Earth (Anthropic Principle), and everything in it is here.

That's not an argument, ya dummy. That's you stating what makes you feel so tingly and makes you accept belief in fake sky daddies.

 

[james bond]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Maybe he just doesn't have faith in your gods.

Then he's wrong as science does not back him up.

 

[james bond]

I gave you the FACT that the universe, Earth (Anthropic Principle), and everything in it is here.

That's not an argument, ya dummy. That's you stating what makes you feel so tingly and makes you accept belief in fake sky daddies.

Sure, it is. Do you want me to post the 7 days of creation chart again? It isn't "fake sky daddies" because science backs it up. Dr. Louis Pasteur showed how abiogenesis cannot happen and only life begets life using the scientific method.

 

[esalla]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

No you do not think that, you nauseating, attention begging sock troll.