User talk:Filll/Archive 3

Newbie guide?

coughs* Er...you realize that although I first edited in June, it was just to my user page, and that you started seriously editing half a month before I did? While I agree we need a newbie guide better than the Help:Contents page, I'm not the one to attempt to write such a thing. :) I'm still thinking about how to reformat the Deletion Article more inline with what you suggested. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I butt in? If we're number crunching experience, I've been around since March, and I agree that help for newbies at the moment seriously sucks - though before I write a guide I still feel I ought to have more experience myself. If you want what I would consider the 3 golden rules, they are...

The encyclopaedia - that's actual articles - is a lot more important than process, and a lot more fun.
The best way of dealing with people who do not know the feck what they are talking about - and there are many - is to cite your sources, and lots of them. This gets rid of pseuds pretty quickly.
Per itself, the best thing to do with WP:IAR is to completely ignore it. It's very, very rare that a situation actually arises - from what I've seen - where ignoring all the rules is a good thing and doesn't cause piles of Wikidrama. The only good thing about this miserable excuse for policy is that when people start invoking it, you know they're getting desperate.

Hope some of that is vaguely useful. If you want to talk further about any of this, I'm an orange bar addict. Cheers, Moreschi 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome message

Thanks for dropping a note on my talk page about the welcome message I'd left you. It's kind of a tradition for folks who've been around for a while to welcome the brand-new folks. Not any kind of a formal adoption or anything, but I am always willing to help answer questions. I haven't been checking in much this last week because of stuff going on in "real life", but if you have any specific questions, feel free to fire them over at me. Akradecki 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution article

You might be being a little unfair - yes, there was a little bit of sinking in heels, but there have been good changes - Fact and theory, the lead (may need more work, but far better than before), the rearrangement, etc. The rearrangement also has the notable benefit of putting the awkward sections at the bottom, instead of the prominence they had before. Once people are used to it, we can probably spin them off wholesale. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with Adam. Just the fact that you got a link at the TOP of the page to an introductory article places you in an elite group of contributors. I begged months ago for a simplified version, which fell on deaf ears. They archieved me ... as crap no one wanted to hear anymore! I told them I was going to give up and go back to watching Oprah. What you have done is no minor achievement; trust me. I spent a weekend firing off text for you to edit because I was so afraid that they would shut that one down before we had a chance to make it work. I think it worked; in fact, my students made the comparision and gave it [*****]. I'm not sure massive whole scale changes are possible with the Evoution entry, without eliciting knee jerk reverts. However, most are probably supportive of rewriting for clarification. I recommend suggesting the change on the discussion page. Assume silence to be an agreement; then change the line and see what happens. I think part of the problem is you have the support, but few are willing to actually type in your suggestions. Personally, I lack the courage to follow my own advise, feels like I'm rewriting Genesis :) But you have both the skills and aptitude with langauge, so I seriously doubt you would be dismissed as I was. Plus, there are actually some strong voices that support you; make the changes, others will follow with thier edits. You might be suprised who will back you in the end!--Random Replicator 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I ran off a copy of the "star" and showed my students ... I told them it was similar to the Pulitzer in the Wiki world. hehehe --Random Replicator 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns the world

I appreciate your suggestion about reading the book, but Cahill's claim, as stated on his web site, which I have looked at, is utterly ridiculous. William I did in fact claim ownership of all the land in England after his Conquest in 1066, and to make certain of his holdings he ordered the survey of all England recorded in the Domesday Book. Although his successors have long since given up the medieval claim to personal ownership, in England and the Commonwealth countries that are still realms, all land is, at least in theory, "held of the Crown." But the Crown as an institution is quite a different thing from the Queen as a person. She does not personally own all the territory of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc., etc. To claim otherwise, as Cahill apparently does, is puerile. Someone who worked for the Economist ought to have a better understanding of fee simple and allodial title than he presents. Textorus 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my talk page

On my talk page you just left me a message saying you would not be surprised if I copied Hawking.

I did not. Surely you realize now that you have misread the statement in question. I DO NOT THINK YOU COPIED HAWKING. If you did use his wording, I would ask you to show me where you used his wording, or drew your wording from his, or anything similar. I would be surprised. Period.--Filll 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say you may be mistaken that I did not copy, when I explicitly said I never copied, and when no one ever accused me of copying - except you? Why do you keep stirring the pot, implying I may have plagiarized?

I assume that you left messages for me on my talk page because you want me to respond, although it is unclear what kind of response you want as you do not ask questions. For now, i will respond to your claim that I consider you an enemy and have kicked you in the shins.

The first time I ever addressed you was after you made considerable changes to the fact and theory section. I wrote "While I appreciate the effort, I think you vastly oversimplified and this will cause confusion for many readers. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)" which was polite and concise. I also changed "words" to "concepts." Your response was to say that you meant words, not concepts. I did not respond to your phrasing at the time but let me say now that I do not consider that a meaningful or engaging response. I assumed that you meant words. i did not change "words" to concepts because I thought you did not write what you meant - because I do not see it as my task to limit my edits to what you intended to write. in fact, I think it is a little insulting to suggest that when I make an edit I am bound by what you intended in your own edit. I am generally not concerned with other editors' intentions and I do not assume they are concerned with mine because nothing here is personal. There is a text - the article - which has no author or owner, and which is the product of an ongoing collaboration. I assume people make changes that they think improve the article. I make changes that I think will improve the article. Sometimes people have different ideas of what improves the articles. You stated your reasons and I stated mine (13:15, 15 December 2006). I did not think your reasons were insulting to me; I certainly did not think my reasons were in any way insulting to you. You responded by asserting that "Well I mean the word "word"." I interpreted this to be an assertion of your intentions, which I further interpreted as a sign that you felt some ownership over the article (if you didn't, why would intentions matter?) or that you thought I thought that I "owned" the article in the sense that my intentions had priority. So I responded by saying this was my interpretation and that neither of us own the article. You also responded by explaining that you found fault with Gould's phrasing. So I responded by calling attention to our NOR and NPOV policies - what we think of verifiable sources is not relevant to articles, it is not for us to judge whether a source is right or wrong (all we can do is look for other sources if we think that one source represents only one among many points of view. I do not see how any of my responses at this point could be injurious to you. Let me also point out that you wrote "If you are still having trouble, I would be glad to bring in other editors to help you understand" I didn't respond to it at the time but now that you are bringing up your hurt feelings (or shins) let me say that seems like pretty patronizing phrasing to me. You also wrote "As I think about the discussion here, it seems to me that either you are not a native English speaker, and then this problem you are having is understandable." which is also patronizing, although I did not respond to it directly because I was more concerned with the quality of the article than my feelings. Let me know say that it seems to me that you were defensive and hostile from the start. I do not believe I was.

You then went into a lengthy critique of Gould (irrelevant, as I stated earlier) as well as wording I introduced (which is fair and I did not rebuke or criticize), and also mentioned your four degrees and appealed to your authority (irrelevant, I certainly have never appealed to my own training as an authority in this discussion). Around that time GetAgrippa commented "Slrubinstein's changes are in line with the original article which was a herculean (of dozens of editors) effort to produce." - which I interpreted to mean that I was restoring work that many others had contributed to, which is indeed what I had done. Your response was " I am not sure Slrubinstein's single-handed revision in a few minutes in a fit of pique is comparable to a hurculean effort of dozens of editors." in which you (1) disregard the fact that much (I admit not all) of what I restored was the result of many people's contributions over the years and not just my own view, and (2) characterized my intentions in bad faith, as the result of a fit of pique rather than my desire to improve the article. Again, I did not respond - I think it would be bitchy for me to respond to each and every attempt you make to insult me. My next response was this:

We have a "simple" wikipedia for such things. But Wikipedia proper is an encyclopedia first and formost and we cannot compromise on the quality. A complex topic is goiong to require exposition of what makes it complicated. It is ill-served by oversimplifying. for example, to say that "theory is an explanation of facts" is a vast, vast simplification and really just not accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I see nothing insulting to you personally in this comment. I stand by every sentence in it still.

At 13:54, 16 December 2006 I explained my problems with the new introduction to the article. I made no derrogatory comments about you, I simply expressed my disagreement.

I then responded to a suggestion of Axel's, and explained that my original description of "theory" came from Hawking - not that I copied him, just that I drew on him. I indicated that many others had worked on the passage, rewording it. I recommended that Axel look at the source. You then responded, "If this is true, then I am stunned. I have to verify this. THAT WORDING THAT SLRUBENSTEIN USED CAME FROM HAWKING? On evolution? ... But if the wording in SlRubenstein's contributed text was lifted or plagiarized from Hawking," Now let me point out three things, Filll: first, you seem to be interested in creating a feud by expressing that you are stunned and using capital words. Second, you seem to be stunned that I drew on Hawking concerning evolution when I was looking to him for an account of theory - you seemed to be distorting what I had done. Then it was you - you, you alone, you not me - who introduced the vile charge of plagiarism.

GetAgrippa then wrote, "Fill you seem to have an accusatory tone or question Slrubenstein" which is certainly accurate. Your response was "Well I do not believe Slrubenstein was particularly wikipolite to me, so he/she set the tone" which I do not think is true at all, I do not think that in any previous statement of mine I was ever, ever impolite to you. You then go on to write "I am doing my best to remain professional in this matter" which I must say I believe is blatantly false. You accused me of editing in a fit of pique rather than with good motives (I never questioned your motives), you suggested I was not a native speaker of English (I think you express yourself horrendously but make no assumptions about your native language, in fact this is the first time I have ever expressed my view on your use of English, I never made this kind of ad homeneim remark, which you so seem to favor, on the Evolution talk page) and condescendingly and patronizingly suggested I need help to understand your edits, and you used capital letters expressing your stunned feelings and suggested I plagiarized.

My response was to apologize if I unintentionally hurt your feelings. You did not accept my apology, you just continued to write in your own defensive manner, reeking of contempt for me.

Filll, if you think this is professional behavior; if you think I have "kicked you in the shins" or have been impolite to you, all I can say is this: you may need medication, you probably need therapy. I do not think I have anything more to say to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Fact vs Theory

I too am coming to the conclusion that certain writers on the Evolution article rather stand on some principle rather than make an improvement that cuts to the heart of the whole anti-evolution demagoguery. Scientists do themselves a disservice by making knowledge seem unattainable. Yes, science is complicated. Yes, some of it needs many years of study to fully appreciate. But the best writing is one that takes complex theory and knowledge and allows an educated (perhaps a person with some college) to understand it fully. I've listened to many different debates between what I call the fascists (whomever they are) and those of us with progressive ideals. In the evolution debate, some scientist goes up there, and even though I'm fairly bright, I'm lost. And I truly understand many of the terms and concepts. The Christian Fascist gets up to the podium and thumps on his bible and says, " the earth was created 5200 years ago." It's emotional. And it's easy to understand.

Gould and others have made the fact vs. theory discussion way too complicated. I am NOT interested in making it so simple that loses its essential meaning. I just say get rid of the nuance, give some real-world examples, and let the person with above average intelligence not only understand what is written, but also able to use what they have read to either write a letter to the editor, make a point at a Board of Education meeting, or just speak to the kids in the class he's teaching. Quoting Gould does not get us to that goal.

I'm with you Filll. You are passionate, and that's a good thing. Consensus sucks as a method to create an article, but that's the way we do it. And usually, it's the passionate, well reasoned statement that gets the consensus to work best.OrangeMarlin 20:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Physics/wip/leadproposal4

I have moved your page Physics/wip/leadproposal4 to user space, at User:Filll/Physics/wip/leadproposal4, and tagged the original for speedy deletion. The article is a duplicate of material in Physics, and the title does not comform to WP:TITLE. If you want to work on new pages or new material that is not ready to be added to article space, please discuss changes on talk pages, and make tests in the sandbox or in your userspace, in the form of subpages like the one I have created. Thanks, —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. FYI, Wikipedia:Subpages - no subpages in the article namespace. Opabinia regalis 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, we're all new at one point :). Just a helpful note, before you start an article, search to make sure Wikipedia doesn't already have an article on that topic, otherwise your hard work may go to waste. If you have any questions (on any wiki topic), feel free to leave me a message. Happy editing! —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I think it's rather non-intuitive that the main article namespace is the only one not to allow subpages. You can create subpages of talk pages (eg, archives), which are also sometimes used for group work hashing out a new version of some text. Opabinia regalis 05:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Hia snoop!! Nice to know I have a secret admirer! ;) Anyways, stubs, you can read more on them here, where it says a stub is "an article that is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information". Ta! frummer 05:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of Creationists on Science Education

I remember discussing possibly putting together an article or part of an article on this topic. I believe you were going to start one up, but I'm not sure. If you have, can you give me the link. I've looked around, and I can't find anything.

By the way, did you see where the Cobb County Board of Education decided to end their stupid sticker program? I updated one article with the news.OrangeMarlin 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section to the following article: Creation and evolution in public education. I had to literally bite my tongue several times.OrangeMarlin 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help on this article. The radical Christian Nazis are out in force trying to eliminate the section and claiming it violates NPOV. OrangeMarlin 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you're there already. Can you help out in improving what I wrote? I started it out as an outline of what I've read over the past few months, and I'm trying to go dig up the references. I'm still appalled by NASA. OrangeMarlin 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See George Deutsch regarding NASA. He was caught for being a liar, not for trying to push his religious garbage. Of course, I consider them the same.OrangeMarlin 19:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FSTDT link was about the funniest thing I've read in weeks. And I thought Vacuum Brain Poet was hysterical!!!! OrangeMarlin 02:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping the Barbarians at the Gate

I admire your patience and logic in dealing with these Christian/Taliban fanatics. I want to give them the finger and say, "go away." But how much patience do you have?

I was reading an article on whales, because I was curious about how many species of freshwater cetaceans existed on the planet (was 4, but recently moved to 3 because of the extinction of the Yangtze River Dolphin, in case you were wondering). That lead me to a Wiki article on the evolution of cetaceans. And I got curious to see the history of the article. And there it was, several reverts because of creationists vandalizing it. Not very subtle vandals, but trying to make their point.

So, I started to read to wealth of articles that deal with Evolution and Creation pseudoscience. Then related articles (like Rick Santorum's recent election debacle). There are an amazing number of smart people out there watching over these articles attempting to keep the NPOV. The attacks are everywhere. Nearly every article has reverts for NPOV, pseudoscience, etc.

Anyways, good job. Thanks for helping out on the education article, but I've been doing lots of reading, and I think I've got some ideas to expand the section. I just read an article about how much the Dover school district in PA had to pay to fix their little legal problem. Of course, then I read about how clueless boards of education are! During the last election, I asked every Board member running, whether they believed in evolution or not. If they prevaricated in any manner, I called them to the carpet. One nutjob started talking about ID. He lost. All of the others, D or R's, were firm that science should teach Evolution, no ifs ands or buts.

Maybe the world is changing to our side of the issue, where reason and intelligence matter. By the way, the link you sent me was hysterical...but disturbing. There are so many crazies out there. I may not sleep well tonight! OrangeMarlin 07:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add my thanks to Orangemarlin's for the FSTDT link. Hope you don't mind me picking it up independently. :) Tevildo 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft

I made some editorial changes. One of the points I was trying to upgrade was about adapting to the data. It originally sounded like the Theory of Evolution could change as new data is received, which I know is true, but the way it was written sounded like we weren't very secure in our belief in the Fact of Evolution. OrangeMarlin 23:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting Sockpuppets

I'm suspecting velvet elvis too. I'll add the name to the sockpuppet complaint I've made against Vacuous Puppet! Wiki will probably check IP addresses and if they come from a whole bunch of related addresses, they will do their thing! OrangeMarlin 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go here to add anything to the case against Vacuous WP:SUSPSOCK He's right at the top of the list OrangeMarlin 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Noah's Ark

You're missing out on the fun. And our friend, JoshuaZ is a lonely defender of the truth against pseudoscience. I'm going to help out, though I'm hardly an expert on Flood Myths (other than being a myth), I think I know pseudoscience when I see it. OrangeMarlin 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find this amusing for your physicist/mathematics brain. It's way above me, but I understand the drift. How can we incorporate this into the Noah's Ark article.

Copyrighted material removed.24.19.45.177 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden City

Many thanks for your help! This information is invaluable - especially the bits about the collections and exhibition galleries. --Sumple (Talk) 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An honest mistake

Posting to your user page was an honest mistake, I apologize. No need to be an ass. Assume good faith please. That said, my request/comment stands: please remain civil.--Velvet elvis81 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't claimed I'm not/I am a creationist. Or that I'm not/I am a evolutionist for that matter, because what I personally believe isn't relevant to the discussion. But suffice it to say that, no, I was not personally offended so don't worry about that. I was merely asking that you remain civil because that kind of stuff can quickly get out of hand. It is one thing to say a person/group/whatever is close-minded or irrational. It is something else entirely to call them "drooling toothless homophobic bible thumper who is some sort of backwoods inbred buffoon" or "backwards uneducated troglodytic luddites and nincompoops." And, from my experience, calling absent parties names quickly leads to calling present parties names.--Velvet elvis81 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like, yes, Vacuous one. Pathetic. Orangemarlin 07:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly

I'm not sure who he is, maybe an anon who just registered today but was involved before registration? --Wildnox (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who he is. My reccommendation is to say nothing inflammatory and simply wait for the RFM to be noticed (and rejected); as far as I can tell, he's a troll, but he may or may not be a sockpuppet - he's obviously at least somewhat familiar with wikipedia policy, and this is a lot of work for a normal troll. On the other hand, he thinks I'm an admin or a moderator for some reason, when I'm neither. I'm just a normal editor. Unless someone secretly made me an admin, anyway :P Titanium Dragon 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who he is either, and I am shocked also as I have not removed any comments anywhere in the evolution article or talk, nor am I an administrator. To pop up with such accusations seems unwarranted. No one is received well in this article. I was severely scrutinized when I first made a retort. I didn't cry whaaah!! I don't like being falsely accused. GetAgrippa 01:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No clue who he is...I'd listen to Dragon. OrangeMarlin 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I've never seen his name before, and he's making claims that he's been deleted? Where? The only deleting I see going on is before VacuousPuppet was properly upbraided. So where can I read about this process. Amusing. Orangemarlin 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much would you like to bet that our friend VacuousBrain has something to do with this mediation? He's certainly jumping on board the "this is a sockpuppet" case relatively fast. I've been monitoring his IP addresses, and although he uses ones in Rochester, NY, he bounces it off of other addresses. He's pretty pathetic. Orangemarlin 07:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't think its him because if he wanted to do a RFM, he'd probably have grounds for one with you due to your continued personal attacks. Titanium Dragon 08:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Titanium Dragon. He asking for suggestions on how to deal with this guy. Orangemarlin 02:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various Articles

The Evolution support article (I didn't want to post a link to reduce troll attacks) is very well done. I still like my idea of a map that shows everywhere that has scientific societies that support Evolution, but it probably is overkill and could be considered POV, although I doubt it. I wouldn't mind doing it, but I wouldn't even know how to edit such a graphic. By the way, I love graphics.
We probably should do a NPOV article on Creationist Scientist support as a counter that includes a description of who the Creationist Scientists really are.
The Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft is well done. It sounds like Eve will be out for a while, so why don't you set it up as an article, so we can begin editing it publicly.
I'm wondering what happened to the Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. Was it incorporated somewhere? I see bits and pieces of it in a few articles here and there.

Orangemarlin 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to be fair we ought to go to the Loch Ness Monster article and make sure it is referenced as Pseudoscience. I went to the Human Evolution article, and I had to tag it because it lacked references everywhere. I'm shocked that the fundies didn't just destroy it, because it really wasn't done well. Orangemarlin 20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I went to the Loch Ness Monster article, and to be honest, it reads just like the Noah's Ark article. There was a bit of an edit war to classify it as "Unconfirmed." You've got to be kidding. Confirmed horse poopy, maybe. Orangemarlin 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this Ymous character's agenda? Sigh. Orangemarlin 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...

There's a reason I usually stay away from religion-science articles on Wikipedia... I stick with video games, where the worst that happens is someone writes 'this game sucks'. Oh well, fight the good fight, and what :) David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelions and something else

Excuse me if I did not answer, it was rude, you made a good job on the dandelion page. Macguysoft is incredibly rude, I hope you manage to make him understand what is the role of science and what that of religion, even if it's not likely. Some people grow up with srong faith and weak reason, maybe they believe that only God shall have an intelligence and they strongly want to be the living evidence of that. Wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia" and not "The Bible - Remastered". But I don't expect all of these Jesus-boyz to understand and neither should you, I only would like they were not such a problem here. Excuse me if I speak too freely for your narrow minds, but I'm European, we had a French Revolution here, did you know? Aelwyn

I was not talking about you when I said narrow minds, but Macguysoft & co. My reference to the French Revolution is very appropriate. We're making a free encyclopedia, isn't it? Wasn't the first modern encyclopedia written in France by Denis Diderot during the Enlightenment? They wanted free culture, free science, no oppression by the Nobles or the Church(es). The ideals of the French Revolution were different from those of the American, there was a focus on reason, culture, rebellion against religions and freedom of thought and speech. The American Revolution had very noble ideals too, but they were slightly different. The French one was a political disaster in the end, but it changed us. That is why we do not concentrate the executive power in a single man, we don't admit death penalty, we don't have a Guantanamo, we never support any wars (I'm talking about people), abortion is almost always considered an obvious right, and we have far less people like Macguysoft. I'm not saying we're better, but we are different or, at least, we are less religious. If Prodi ended a speech with "God bless Italy" he'd look ridiculous to our eyes. Aelwyn 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you from? If you're American, you're the first I ever met who criticise his Great GREAT Nation. Aelwyn 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected it... I know something about this subject in the USA since... Well, I study Natural History in Padua. On the way back from university (a pubblic one, like almost every university in Italy) a woman asked me (in American English) when the train was supposed to arrive. I answered and then she asked me why I was on the train. I thought it would have been a good chance to do some english fluency exercise and I started a conversation. When she knew about my interests she said that all that the professors were teaching me was false, that the only truth is in the Holy Bible and that I should stop studyng science unless I wanted to go to hell. Then she said that men and dinosaurs were both created by God 6,000 years ago. After listeng this I stopped talking a bit and then said 'I'm sorry lady, I'm a muslim, I don't believe in you God and I don't quite understand your American intonation' (I speak with a British intonation beacuse it is the one that is normally taught in Europe). Two lies, but it was funny. She gave me booklet and went away Aelwyn 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remember this little conversation when I hear my right-wing relatives talking about how great the USA are ;-)

Don't give up

The evolution article can be infuriating. Several times in the past I swore off the article because hard headed editors refused or argued even when I presented excellent references. I wish I knew the answer to reaching a consensus. I liked a lot of your suggestions, and agree the article maybe too complex for a high schooler.GetAgrippa 13:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Intelligent design

You have got to read what some ID person has posted there. I nearly ruined my laptop spitting coffee up. Orangemarlin 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that a mac user is participating in this debate. Well, i always knew that i didn't have the same type of thinking of my fellow mac user community. --Macguysoft 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, nearly every user of the Macintosh is intelligent, reasonable, and uses verifiable facts in discussions. Oh, they don't usually trash and delete other people's user pages. But it did say "nearly." Oh well. Orangemarlin 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What said "nearly"? Of course not nearly because there are at least more christian mac users than you think. Again though, i said most which would turn out to be 80% but some differ in other views as well. In regards to the pages, do i have to repeat myself? They were my words and i decided to take them off. After Fill's complaint, i took out my words and left his as you'll see in the talk page. --Macguysoft 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

I like this article a lot. I hadn't looked at it before adding the citations from your main article on the subject. A few of the cites already in this article could be pasted directly to the main Evolution article. There are still a few things that should be cited, e.g., "Einstein's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity." and similar statements regarding Neo-Darwinism. I know these seem obvious to us, but I think the general public is woefully misinformed. You have a ton of cites in that article, for the main article I'd just choose the best ones so that the references list doesn't become unwieldy.

A potential area for expansion: another aspect of science in general that is applicable to both gravity and evolution is the idea that science is a dynamic process; for example, many physicists are trying to learn more about how gravity works. The fact that it is still an active area of study does not mean that there's any question of whether gravity exists...

On the lead paragraphs, I may try my hand at a rewrite over the next couple of days, which I'll post on the talk page for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarinth (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 December 2006

Evolution's Predictions

I think one of the best things to add to the article(s) is more on the predictions of Evolution. The reason Evolution is science is that hundreds of thousands (millions? billions?) of predictions have been made with it. That's what makes Evolution more than a "nice idea" and actually useful. I think that most people fail to understand this.

In your comparison chart, I'm thinking something like:

Predictions Made by Einstein's Theory of Relativity: Relativity predicted that light would bend as it passes by a massive body. This has conclusively been observed through numerous solar eclipses, starting with the solar eclipse of 1919. (etc...)

Predictions Made by the Theory of Evolution: Darwin predicted that no organism would ever be found that creates anything for the exclusive benefit of another organism. So far this prediction has remained true. (etc...)

...Maybe have 3-5 each, to illustrate how Evolution isn't just an "alternative philosophy to intelligent design" but something that actually allows for useful predictions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarinth (talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Intelligent Design Mathematics

Evolution = atheism
Evolution= religion
ID=science
Creationism=science
evolution=Big Bang+cosmochemistry+Hertzsprung-Russell Stellar theory+abiogenesis+biological evolution+speciation
scientists=atheists
ID>creationism
Christians=biblical literalists
Catholics != Christians
scientists!= Christians
Religion=Christianity
Religious Creation accounts=Genesis
--Filll 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason for laying out this bait to catch creationists like me into saying something we might regret? Homestarmy 18:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because we enjoy reading the absolutely inane stuff you guys write. Then we read it to each other at the Atheists Monthly Dinner meeting where we sacrifice a Christian virgin before having the dinner. But it has been really difficult to find one of those virgins lately. Orangemarlin 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is alive and well! First it was children, then it was pets, now the virgins? Truly it is one of the most evilish of evil conspiracies! Homestarmy 02:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a Christian spy in our midst. There is no way that information should have gotten out publicly. I'm going to have to cancel the next Dinner Meeting, and we'll have to meet next time in the Secret Darwin Society Hall at the local secular university. And it's so difficult finding Christian Virgins of adult age for the next sacrifice. It's not easy being a good Atheist any more. Sigh. Orangemarlin 06:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have ways to find your little meetings of atheism.....ok, actually, all we do is just drive around until we non-Christian looking parts of down, do some open-air preaching, and then keep moving, but at least we're getting somewhere, right? Homestarmy 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Utah. If the LDS missionaries failed to get me into fundamental Christianity, I doubt a few barbs from the Creationists are going to get far. :) (Please note humor and sarcasm. Also, please don't engage me in any debate as to whether LDS are Christians or not--you all are Gentiles to me!) Orangemarlin 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange, I gotta tell ya, you haven't begun to see some good old school style barely-shielded-rage type debate until you've been in an LDS/JW's vs. Christianity debate. It's like trench warfare when it really gets bogged down :D.

home,

good point. maybe we should move all the baiting to a special page. do you know how to do that?

raspor 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to have raspors or homestarmy's or anyone else's comments on this bit of simple math at Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections--Filll 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, it isn't normally recommended to reply to flamebait. Homestarmy 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flamebait? And what do you consider the stuff your people write? Intellectual discourse? Come on now, though you think you have moral high ground on just about every issue, we consider that we do. Funny how these things end up. Orangemarlin 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how we're all individuals, and I don't really consider what "my people" have written to always be something I would write... Homestarmy 02:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to lump you in with all of your redneck, white trash, uneducated co-conspirators. I must have generalized too much at the last Atheist Conspiracy Meeting. You do realize that the more, ahem passionate, of the Creationist group forces a lot of people into corners that you might find untenable. I just don't get why faith and religion can't be a personal state of being rather than one forced upon anyone. Maybe one day religion will stay at home. Orangemarlin 06:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I detect a hint of racist sentiment there? Perhaps one day we can disagree in an atmosphere where personal attacks are not so much out in force, and stay in their own homes.... Homestarmy 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I thought you were going with the humor trend here. Apparently, the humor was lost in the electrons. And the last person to accuse of racism is someone whose family was killed by racist Nazis, whose predecessors were thrown out of numerous countries, and who has found discrimination in so many places that I'm sickened. However, I apologize to you since missing humor is the responsibility of both the receiver and the transmitter. Orangemarlin 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I didn't want to continue it, its just I have a hard time being humerous when people pull out "white trash" type attacks. Redneck and uneducated co-conspirators I probably could of done something with, but white trash just isn't funny to me. Also, don't you see you're playing right into the real racist's hands with your sentiments? One of their favorite ways to disguise their despicable anti-semitism is to attempt to convince everyone that all Jews are somehow using the Holocaust as an excuse to cover up for supposed problems of their own. And i'm afraid attempting to claim immunity from being able to have negative viewpoints concerning race is something they'd just eat up for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I think you're the kind of person who wouldn't want a bunch of Jew Watch type fanatics to feel any sense of justification whatsoever from their own preposterous ramblings, so why try to use the Holocaust alone to try and convince me that what you have said cannot possibly be racist, even when "white trash" actually is quite racist? Homestarmy 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am not flamebaiting. I am writing other articles, and I want to have your comments on my summary above. Do I have this wrong?--Filll 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but its just such a horribly generalized and simplified summary I think it is easy to interpret it as bait. Bait which, while I admit looks quite lucious to sink my teeth in, looks a bit undercooked. Gotta watch for that E-coli....Homestarmy 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you might disagree with some parts. Others might disagree with other parts. These are all things that I have read from creationists/IDers/creation scientists.--Filll 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if some creationists/Iders/creation scientists espouse one set of views, they all by default should more or less fall in line with the formulas (and I use that term lightly) you propose? Homestarmy 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. However, they are a superset of what any individual creationist or intelligent design advocate might subscribe to.--Filll 19:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha - Maths is not considered by some to be a science (e.g. http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html describes this) and neither is ID (see God or Religion or Fables). Ttiotsw 10:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Creationism

I might have reverted some of your edits. Oops. Look at my edits and see if we can resolve it. I'll stop editing so we don't conflict again.Orangemarlin 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on this article. I was trying to make some formatting changes but got into an edit conflict, so I'll try to do it after you're done. Arvindn 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noob: Trying to figure how to add references

Sorry, but I'm new and still don't know my way around. I added a few comments recently to the EVOLUTION page and was told that I should add references. Here are some, but I don't know how to add the references -- I tried reading the "FAQ" but was still confused, and didn't want to do anything else wrong. I can't figure our how to use the TALK pages either.

I modified the following, adding the last sentence and rewording the first one.

However, macromutation is a potential (rare) alternative process for (external) adaptation: here, a mutation occurs that has a relatively large-scale effect on the external phenotype that happens to be beneficial. This sudden change could leave the organism "uncoordinated" internally. Internal selection could then become a factor, improving internal coadaptation.

The reference is Wallace Arthur, The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Cambridge University Press, 1997

In the following, I added the mention of the manatees ghost femurs:

Additional evidence of ancestry includes idiosyncratic structures present in certain organisms, such as the panda's "thumb", which indicate how an organism's evolutionary lineage constrains its adaptive development. In addition, vestigial structures such as the vestigial limbs on pythons; the ball-and-socket joints for "ghost" femurs in manatees; the degenerate eyes of blind cave-dwelling fish; and our wisdom teeth, coccyx, and vermiform appendix; are also evidences of descent with modification.

The reference is David M. Kingsley, Evolution: Constant Change and Common Threads, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2006 (this is a DVD)

I added the following entire paragraph.

Developmental biology also provides evidence for evolution and common descent. For example, although tails are useless to humans, our embryos - just like those of pigs, dogs, cats, mice, and so on - have a postanal tail. In addition, humans have only a single aortic arch, but our embryos start off with the same arrangement as embryonic fishes, where there are six pairs of aortic arches: during further embryonic development in humans, much remodeling occurs to convert the fish arrangement of aortic arches into the human arrangement.

The reference is George C. Kent & Robert K. Carr, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates: Ninth Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2001

I have a problem with the following:

Natural selection also operates on mutations in several different ways:

…

Artificial selection refers to the intentional or unintentional directed breeding of a species by human intervention. Many examples derive from selective breeding and domestication of animals and plants for agriculture, horticulture, livestock breeding, and pets. Such selection can induce dramatic changes in a breed in a relatively short period of time; however, because humans are only part of any species' environment, the degree to which any change can be ascribed to human intervention may be difficult to determine. Deliberate artificial selection within human populations is a controversial enterprise known as eugenics.

Why is Artifical selection listed as a type of Natural selection? They are 'opposites'. I suggest that:

1) artificial selection be moved somewhere else in the EVOLUTION page, so that it is not listed as a type of Natural Selection

2) a comment, such as “Artificial selection, which is not a form of natural selection, ...” be added.

or

3) the artificial selection entry be deleted.

I just created an account for myself: it's DNAunion.