User talk:69.150.147.138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia!

Good to see someone interested in Galamian ... I moved the page to the capital "G" spelling for you. Happy editing here! Antandrus 04:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: EXCUSE ME!

I apologize; I did not intend the phrase to be derogatory, although in retrospect, it appears that way. I was not referring to religion itself as a mythology; however, creation stories, by definition are. (For instance, see Merriam-Webster's definition of mythology: "2 a: the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people", with the definition of myth: "1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon".) Each religion has its own mythology; however, mythology is only one component of religion. For instance, while I am religious and believe in God, I don't believe the mythology associated with my religion is literally true—however, it does not mean that there is nothing to learn from it either. Popular was used in reference to your argument that something should be included in the scientific view because more people believe it; a religion or a mythology being more pop\ular does not increase its scientific credibility. If 95% of people surveyed don't think quantum mechanics is accurate, it has no impact on its scientific bearing; however, if new evidence does not match quantum mechanics, even if the theory were popular, it would still have to be revised or abandoned. Please don't insult people you disagree with. That is uncivil and unproductive; those people could just as easily say that people who share your beliefs are selfish idiots. Of course, such a broad categorization is true in neither case. You are welcome to believe what you wish about the origin of the universe; I Wikipedia is not a forum for debate and I have no interest in modifying your beliefs. Your speculation of my religious beliefs is inaccurate and irrelevant. You will find that your arguments will be far more effective if you can rebut the other's points rather than trying to attack the other user or insult his beliefs. You are correct that there is no evidence for or against the existence of God; that is why science takes no position on the matter. Science does not say that God exists; science does not say that God does not exist; what science does say is that there is a far simpler model for the origin of life on Earth, one that is based on patterns and interactions that have been previously observed. Please don't try to instigate conflict. I did not call religion a myth, nor could atheism be construed as a myth, and I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. Nor do I feel that being popular is a good criterion to judge a religion or belief system on. Naturally, I don't agree with you that I am plain stupid, although perhaps I lack the intelligence to realize I am. Nevertheless, I feel that some 3.5 billion years of organisms reproducing and those with the best reproductive strategies surviving is plenty of time for Homo sapiens to evolve. If you would like to further discuss the article, Talk:Origin of life would be the best place (from your comments to me, I assume you did not read our replies to your comment there). Or, if you would like, I would be happy to further discuss origin beliefs with you or the relationship of science and religion; however, you must remain civil and keep an open mind. If you approach matters from the point of view that anyone who disagrees with you is "plain stupid", it will be very difficult for you to learn from anyone else. Please let me know if I can help clear up any questions or concerns for you. Also, please leave new messages at the bottom of discussion pages, and please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering and apologizing. I understand why you were angry, and now realize how the juxtaposition of the two words would have distorted my meaning. Religion is not a mythology, but its stories are. This is not an insult; but results from the definition of the word. In fact, most mythologies are associated with religions—at least the ones I can think of offhand. I'm not certain I understand what you mean by accident, but it is dangerous to extrapolate from what you consider common sense to what is self-evident to others. In fact, many people, including me, believe that the universe is perfectly capable of developing to this point unaided by divine intervention. Certainly the development of the universe from the Big Bang to the origin of the Earth (and encompassing formation of stars and planets) seems relatively straightforward—it is not seriously opposed by any group, religious or otherwise, that I know of. And based on the framework of laws and interactions we have been able to work out, it is quite plausible to me for life to evolve from pre-cellular conditions into the complexity and diversity we see today. 4.6 billion years is a long time. One does not have to accept literally one's religion's mythology to embrace the religion itself. As I mentioned to you before, I am religious, but it is foolish in my opinion not to recognize that science has been far more successful than religion in explaining the mechanics of the how the world works. You seem to be quite fixed on being part of the majority belief, and feel that it greatly strengthens your position. You state that if 5 billion people believe in God and there is no evidence either way, we should follow their example. This is certainly one approach. A different one might be: in the absence of any evidence either way, the simpler explanation should be selected (see Occam's razor). That is why scientific inquiry into the origin of life does not mention God—because there is a far simpler explanation of life's beginnings. If you are interested in anti-atheism activism, that is your prerogative, but Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. It is an encyclopedia. I am not certain what specific examples of sneaking in material you are referring to, but I can assure you that there are people from all religious backgrounds who edit Wikipedia, and there some from each group who may try to go overboard in promoting their views. I don't think it's appropriate to stereotype a whole group in this manner. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
While I enjoy speaking with you, may I ask two favors? One, when you leave me messages, you don't have to start a new section each time. Simply edit the old section and add your message there. If you're adding a new section, it should go at the bottom, not the top. Second, could you add four tildes to the ends of your messages, like this: ~~~~? It will produce your user name (or IP address) and timestamp. It is fine if you believe that the universe requires divine intervention; I am not interested in changing your religious beliefs. But realize that there are plenty of alternative explanations; your viewpoint is certainly not the only one extant, nor the only one reasonable. In my opinion, it is arrogant to think that you are correct and that others who disagree with you don't have common sense. Why do you feel the article is insulting to religion? What do you feel it is lacking? Evolution#Social and religious controversies already discusses the religious objections to science, and links to creation-evolution controversy for more information. Please consider reading [1] (the whole Section I) and especially [2] to see how another encyclopedia treats the topic. It is not atheists who are trying to remove religion from science; it is a cornerstone of science that it does not deal with the supernatural. You imagine conflict where there is none. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I think it's tricky to assign motives or rationale to others, especially if you're just extrapolating from your own experience. As a matter of fact, I believe there is little to no evidence that God exists—my belief in God is due to faith, not logic. I apologize for mixing up the articles. The very first sentences of Origin of life are "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation)." To me, this is a very clear statement that the article is "'strictly scientific' and [that] there are other possibilities that include divine intervention." You don't seem to have completed the following sentence, so I cannot respond to it. That prominent scientists are religious does not imply that they believe that God directly intervened to create life on Earth, and even if they do so, it still is not a part of science. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits at Human

Please don't make edits like this. As with your previous attempts to insert disclaimers into articles reflecting your point of view, they are reverted within minutes. Furthermore, it is not even accurate or relevant. There is no such thing as a "proven theory" in science. Further, the article makes no mention of the origin of life on Earth, but just the evolution of humans from other apes, so even if you feel it is not "proven", it doesn't make any sense to mention it here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

At the top of discussion pages is a tab with a plus sign ("+"). Clicking on it will produce a new section at the bottom, which is where new messages should go. Please add new sections to the bottom of my talk page, and please sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. I tire of fixing your posts and have asked you politely before. With the exception of spoiler warnings, I don't think disclaimers are appropriate within encyclopedia articles, and I doubt you would find many who would disagree. You may be interested in reading WP:NPOV, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Pseudoscience, which states "...The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article." The problem with your disclaimer, aside from being a disclaimer, was not so much neutrality but instead lack of relevance. You wrote "Please note: Evolution is currently an accepted theory among scientists, and although there has been strong evidence in support of Evolution, it is still not a proven theory on how life started." Evolution is not a theory on how life started, nor is the origin of life being discussed in Human, so the disclaimer's claim appears to be a non sequitur at best. Evolution forms the foundation of modern biology and its manifestations will appear in almost every topic regarding biology and medicine. Evolution cannot be proven; there is no such thing as a "proven theory" in science (do you read the messages I leave for you?), but we can say that there is overwhelming evidence for it. How popular or unpopular a theory is with the lay public is irrelevant and has no bearing on its scientific value. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/9/2E/User_talk%7E69.150.147.138.html"