Talk.Origins
I have had a number of discussions concerning the creation/evolution controversy — often on blogs. However, most blogs do not offer the bandwidth or the multi-threading necessary for detailed scientific discussions. Due to these limitations, I often refer people to the Usenet newsgroup Talk.Origins *.
"Talk.Origins * is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology."The Talk.Origins Archives offers a variety of articles and essays providing mainstream scientific answers to many frequently asked questions (FAQ). The Talk.Origins Archives have won numerous awards and mentions.
( * Note: If you do not have a newsgroup reader, you can access Talk.Origins through Google Groups. Or, many email programs can be configured for newsgroup.)
Labels: Science
posted by Zachriel @ 9/05/2005
4 Comments
4 Comments:
The news:talk.origins link is going to be rather useless for most of your target audience. I would suggest putting a link to http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/ in there as well.
Done.
talkorigins.org is a great site, though it can be rather technical. Thanks for the link to Project Steve.
BTW, Zachriel, I wouldn't bother trying to explain samlping theory and polling practices to those folks over at PoliPundit.com. It seems pretty clear to me that they want to see what they want to see, no matter what, and widely accepted social science standards be damned.
Anonymous: "It seems pretty clear to me that they want to see what they want to see, no matter what, and widely accepted social science standards be damned."
Not even social science, but basic math!
In the particular discussion concerning the nature of statitical sampling, the so-called expert made unsupported claims. Polipundit
receives about 25,000 visitors per day, Playful Primates in the ecosystem of the blogosphere. Trying to convince the few regulars who post is not the point, but to perhaps educate a few of the lurkers who might otherwise believe what they read there. False claims should be refuted when possible.
And you never know. Even the regulars might eventually rethink their viewpoints. After all, Saul of Tarsus had to be struck blind before he could see.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home