User talk:Scorpionman/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Editing talk pages

Hello Scorpionman

I've noticed you edited the talk pages of 'Black Hole' and 'Basic Taste' - in the first changing the name on a comment, and in the second editing someone else's comment. Neither of those actions are regarded as polite on Wikipedia - on a talk page you should add your own comment, signed by typing four tildes like this ~~~~, and leave other people's comments alone. Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you enjoy adding to Wikipedia. WLD 18:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human physical appearance

Hey dude. Welcome. Quick question about the change you made. Fair enough to say it needed cleaned. I'm not massively protective of anything I put in, but I was wondering why you removed the image on this page? I think that more pages should be illustrated. I also think that if you remove an image it's because you can replace it with another better one. Your thoughts? SeanMack 12:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Dude. Look, I'm not afraid to say that I'm a Christian, and as a Christian I think that images like the one I removed from the page are extremely nasty and unacceptable. Perhaps pages should be illustrated, but not with lustful pictures like that one. If you don't think the same about images like that, well, I don't suppose I can change your opinion. However, I don't think Wikipedia should be a pornographic website. I do agree that an image should be replaced. However, I don't have any images for this particular page and I don't really want to go browsing the internet for them. Thanks for your opinion, though. Scorpionman 19:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The last thing I want to do is get into a religious argument. You have no apologies to make for your beliefs. To let you know where I am coming from, I was born a Catholic but now my principle belief systems are more to do with pragmatism and rationalism, I guess you could say I come from a Christian humanist background. It's my opinion that as an encyclopedia, wiki is not, and should not, be bound by a very narrow Christian dogma. Or any very conservative version of any major religion for that matter. I really think that if that fairly innocuous advertising image makes you feel that strongly, then maybe you could contribute more productively to a more Christian oriented wiki? I assume there is one. I hoped to make the point with the picture that we live in a world where it is impossible to get away from the effects of mass advertising. Furthermore many including myself believe that huge proportions of our young female populations develop eating disorders and have low self worth as they continually compare themselves to the ideals held up by the advertising industry. I for one will be educating my children about the effect of this media manipulation and teaching them to think for themselves. Part of this is not shutting out that world but recognising it for what it is.
BTW for future reference you would not have to spend ages looking through the internet to find images. There are already many images within wiki and within Commons that can be used that have already had their copyright issues sorted out. Regards. SeanMack 12:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying you need to shut out the world. The Bible says not to do that. You should recognize it for what it is, but you should not try to 'fit in'. You should shun evil, such as pornographic images. Scorpionman 21:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, at least for images as small and non-graphic as that. Sorry, but it's policy. Nickptar 21:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Policy? It's policy to allow pornographic images onto Wikipedia? Aren't there enough pornographic websites out there already? Scorpionman 21:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended to be a porn site, but neither is it bowderlized. If an image's encyclopedic value is generally thought to outweigh its potential offense, then its deletion will not be supported. I don't think most people would consider that image to seriously be pornographic. If you really want it gone, start a poll on Talk:Human physical appearance. Nickptar 15:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, please do not attempt to enforce your ideology on Wikipedia. I find it highly offensive that anyone would believe that I do not have the ability to look after my own affairs and would thus attempt to "protect" me according to their particular belief system. RDalton 04:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who's trying to "protect" you? Not me, certainly! And I'm not trying to force my ideology on Wikipedia; I stated that in my profile. You can look after your own affairs; I'm not at all interfering. Scorpionman 02:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pilgrim's Progress discussion point

Scorpionman, I would tend to agree with you that the report in Bunyan's The Pirgrim's Progress that a "man," i.e. a male human being, did not give Christ so much as one groat is a bit unfair. However, if you take it strictly to mean giving money to Jesus, Bunyan may have a point that only the women mentioned in Luke 8 gave Jesus money to support Him and His disciples. Bunyan is extolling women in this paragraph, but he does not take into consideration the self-sacrifice of the men. Thank you for joining in the discussion on The Pilgrim's Progress. drboisclair 21:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you, and you're welcome. Scorpionman 23:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Duvall

Hi when you link to films/movies please use film not movie in the title i.e. Deep Impact (film), see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Film_titles. Thanks Arniep 13:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but I think that more people need to pay attention to film links. Scorpionman 19:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Photo_25_thumb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Photo_25_thumb.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Note that the same also applies to Image:Photo 27 thumb.jpg and Image:Photo 30 thumb.jpg --Pak21 09:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Those images don't appear to be on Wikipedia anymore; the links that you provided are red. Scorpionman 16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lowell, Michigan

There were a whole series of recent edits which you can follow in the edit history that inserted a picture of a South Park character, inserted comments about Peter peter pumpkin eater etc. None of it belonged in an encyclopedic article, so I reverted back to the last version that at quick glance appeared to me to be the last version before people started playing with it. -- Adz 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly; I actually was about to remove that trash myself. I found one of the culprits; name was CaptainSpaulding. I think that we should start restricting those who haven't created a user page for themselves that contains a good amount of information about themselves. All this vandalism from pageless users is getting to be a big, big nuisance. Thanks for your work! Scorpionman 02:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
if you see vandalism in action you can report it at Wikipedia:vandalism in progress. You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Vandalism. These pages advise on how to deal with vandalism. -- Adz 02:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings, and request to vote!

Hello! I hope you're well. I noticed that you recently edited the Darth Vader article. A vote is currently underway to determine if this article should or should not actually be two: one for Darth Vader, and another for Anakin Skywalker.

If you're so inclined, I encourage you to vote promptly. Your vote here or there can make a difference. Thanks again for your consideration, and Merry Christmas! E Pluribus Anthony 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] COTW

Would you be willing to support my nominee for WP:COTW. The article is Invasion which is an important term for military knowledge. The current article however isn't at the same standard as the term is in modern and historic warfare though. If you'll be willing to support, I'll be greatful. Thanks RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] requesting help/suggestions

Hi, I noticed on the Social anxiety talk page you currently are diagnosed with the disorder, as am I. I am currently thinking of expanding and cleaning up the article. Do you have any ideas on how to structure the page? I'm considering these sections in this order.

  • general
  • signs/symptoms
  • causes
  • Treatment/Getting help
  • statistics

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Gflores Talk 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll put my ideas on the Social anxiety talk page. Thanks. Scorpionman 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COTW Project

You voted for Invasion, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratzenberger image

[edit] Image Tagging Image:48m.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:48m.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rlevse 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Scorpionman 02:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Jonessrbob.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonessrbob.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:KifmLEGOLEGO Star WarsAwing Fighter-resized200.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:KifmLEGOLEGO Star WarsAwing Fighter-resized200.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 10:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The website I got it from was a personal website, therefore I don't think it has a copyright. Anyway, I always make sure nowadays that the images I upload have their source and author and stuff verified. Thanks for your help! Scorpionman 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the evolution article

Greetings, thank you for wanting to make a contribution to the evolution page. I apologize if I misjudged your source(s). Many of the arguments that you brought forward resembled many of the same arguments that Hovind makes. About a year back, I had to go through some rigorous arguing just to get a disparaging depiction of the Christian Icthyus fish (I'm assuming you know what I'm talking about) off of the article. It took some time, but I finally was able to persuade them towards its removal.

Please understand - I'm not calling you a fanatic. Hovind (also known as Dr. Dino) is a loon because he doesn't have the credentials that are generally required to argue the controversy, and he commonly throws in political connotations that give him away as a theocratic revolutionist. Apparently I wasn't the only one that thought you were a Hovindite.

Well, good luck with whatever you hope to achieve with the evolution article. If I can help in any way, please don't hesitate to let me know. Regards, Salva 17:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'd never even heard of Hovind before now. Anyway, I try to be civil on Wikipedia, but it's kind of hard when there are users like KimdvLinde who are always beating up on me for my beliefs (and referring to evolution as "fact"). but thank you for understanding. I was initially trying to get a change to the article, but a bunch of users threw the comment into a scientific debate, and then tell me that that's not what Wikipedia is for. Ttyl Scorpionman 22:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you made quite a strong reaction about scientists who supported evolution being non-believers. I am a believer, and if you like to know, it is called Asatru, or Nordic tradition. It was the religeon in Northern Europe before Christianity became the majority religeon in that area. When you refer to the scripture, you automatically exclude others who do not have the same scripture as you, for me the Edda's are the key. So, if you propose to change the theory of evolution to include superbatural aspects, which religeons version are you going to include, and why is your better than other? I am curious about that. --KimvdLinde 05:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That's the typical reaction that you are going to receive, unfortunately. I had to discover that on my own back when I tried to get the Icthyus picture off the page. Don't worry - if you just keep hitting them with everything, eventually their fanaticism shows its ugly face, which (in my case) convinced some of the more moderate evolutionists to sway their opinion in my favor. The biggest problem is that there aren't enough people like you and me, especially on wikipedia, to effectively combat this evil that is neo-Darwinism. To do so now is extremely time consuming, because persuading them is an effort that requires precision and enginuity in one's critiques and rebuttals. If I think that your proposals are legit, then I'd be more than happy to join in.

Talk Origins is a great place to visit - I would definately take their advice on that one. If you take a look at some of the evolutionist responses, especially in regard to vestigal structures, homology, and human embryonic tails, the inadequacy of their answers make it quite clear that their "theory" is more than susceptible to be scrutinized.

Just keep a clear head, my friend. Don't let them drive you mad.=) By the way, I'm sure you noticed the barnstar posted on your user page. You can remove it, of course, but I thought that it might encourage you to keep up the good work.

Regards, Salva 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I certainly won't remove the barnstar, and thank you! It's good to have someone who isn't a liberal evolutionist bigot who beats up on Christians for their beliefs. I hope you can see the relevance in my space shuttle analogy! Also, I think that the "fine-tuned universe" is quite impossible without a designer. Thank you for your help, friend, and keep up the good work! Scorpionman 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contribution to the evolution talk page. We realise that evolution is a controversial topic in the USA and in some other places in the world.

Many of the arguments presented by proponents of creationism or intelligent design have been presented to this talk page over an over again. Generally, they either lack sources to back up the claim, or misrepresent evolution. For that reason, and to spare you and us the time of repeatedly using the same arguments, please consider the following:

  • Evolution is not a random process. Mutations are random, natural selection is not.
  • A supposed 'gap' in the evolution theory is not equivalent to rebuttal of the theory.
  • The word theory in science indicates a well studied and supported idea.
  • We are still looking for the many scientists that supposedly support creationism or intelligent design.
  • In general, back up claims that substantially change the content of the article with reliable and verifiable sources.

For common response to typical creationist arguments please see TalkOrigins. If you have something to add to the page that is backed by verifiable and reliable sources, be welcome to start a discussion, but if you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at Talk.Origins, because Wikipedia is not a discussion board. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're "still looking" for scientists who support Creation, then you haven't been searching hardly at all. The fact is that a majority of scientists believe in evolution because they think that it's more "logical" than Creation, and they don't want to be accountable for their actions. It gets annoying when people think that just because most "scientists" think that evolution is true, it's true. It's unobservable, and I can't see a whole lot of logic in the belief anyway. There's more evidence for catastrophism (and Creation), including the canyons formed over a brief period of time by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Seeing that this has happened, it makes sense to believe in a worldwide flood that formed the Grand Canyon in Arizona! Okay, you want me to put in sources. I didn't exactly see much information on any of the atheists' sources, but one of mine is a docent named Ken Ham who knows a lot about evolution and creation, and who supports creation. Also, I've derived information from a Dr. Jay L. Wile who also supports creation. You can look these two up on the internet. I'll try the above link. Thanks. Scorpionman 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Please bring this to Talk.Origins. I'd be more than happy to discuss evolution with you (Ken Ham included), but Wikipedia, even talk pages, just isn't the right place to do this. --Cyde Weys 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If making a comment on Talk:Origins didn't require an account, then I would be happy to go there. Scorpionman 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at Talk:Evolution

Hello, Scorpionman. I noticed you were having getting a little worked up during the discussion, as well as having some difficulty comprehending some areas of evolution. If I can help clarify or calm things, please let me know. I'd be happy to help. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey man. Regarding your latest post on Talk:Evolution about how the earth is at "exactly the right distance from the sun", etc., (known as the "fine-tuned universe" argument), this is an example of the prosecutor's fallacy. Also, the idea that the galaxies formed by "chance" is wrong. They did not form by "chance" - they formed because of gravity. Neither did species evolve by mere "chance" - selection acted to shape them. Chance, obviously, plays a role in where and when life happened to arise - it's almost certainly an accident that it developed here - but it's not the only element in the equation. The universe has laws governing it, you know. Graft 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
See? You said it yourself "the universe has laws governing it"! Well, you're very right! So, who wrote the laws, or did they just come about by chance? Scorpionman 02:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)~
Nobody. Chance. --Redhead 02:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, then I suppose that an aircraft could come about by chance as well? Scorpionman 15:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that is only an issue when you misrepresent evolution. --KimvdLinde 15:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding my question. It is perfectly relevant to evolution. Saying that life could evolve from Earth's matter is just like saying that an airplane will spontaneously form when you put metal and junk into a furnace! Scorpionman 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No, you are misrepresenting evolution with your space shuttle analogy. Nature does not work by just adding some components together after which humans have arrisen. It is a long process of random mutations and natural selection of the best adapted individuals generation after generation. It contains a self-replicating object (which your space shuttle is not), neither does it growth by itself as organisms do. --KimvdLinde 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, evolution does work by mutations. Basically, if a fish was born with a slight separation in its fin (which allowed it to use it as more of a hand), and its offspring had even more of a hand-like fin, and over hundreds of generations you get a frog. But since when is a mutation beneficial? A mutation in a cell damages the cell, causing it to multiply out of control, forming a tumor. Some tumors may be "benign", but they're not beneficial, are they? Most often you get a cancer which interferes with the functions of surrounding organs, sometimes resulting in the death of the organism. Now, maybe one out of a million mutations would be beneficial, at which rate it would indeed take billions of years to become a different organism. A beneficial mutation relies on random chance. And since it would take this long for an organism to evolve, it's not observable, is it? And therefore it is certainly not a fact, is it? Creation isn't scientific either, but it certainly has more evidence and reason on its side. Scorpionman 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not blocking you out, but you clearly have no clue about evolution. If you knew where evolution is all about, you would know that beneficial mutations result in an individual that is better adapted to its environment, and as such as a better chance to survive to the next generation. Consequently, those mutations get spread, contrary to mutations that are not benificial that result in a lower chance of survival of the individual. This is how for example antibiotic resistance is selected for. A single bacteria survives the treatment with antibiotics because it had a benificial mutation, after which that single individual reproduces and passes on the beneficial mutation to the next generation. The next time that that person is treated with antibiotics, the resistant bacteria are much more prevalent, and they all survuve the antibiotics treatment. Now just extrapolate this from a single generation to many bilions of generations..... --KimvdLinde 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, please do not change you comment after I have responded to it. My response above is to the modified response of scorpioman, see history of the page. To respond to your current version, you assume that mutations are causing tumors. Yes, some do, but most mutations only make small changes and are not causing tumors. Actually, most mutations are just harmless, some are benificial, some are bad. Where you go wrong is here: "Now, maybe one out of a million mutations would be beneficial, at which rate it would indeed take billions of years to become a different organism. " You assume a single individual, while there are many trilions of bacteria at the world.... That makes benificial mutation per day.... --KimvdLinde 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You would get a species of bacteria that is that much more resistant to antibiotics, at which point we would have to design a different drug. Now, if bacteria have so many beneficial mutations, then our cells should too, right? That means that we get cells that are more resistant to these bacteria. If that is the case then why are we not developing any beneficial mutations? Why don't we have powers like the X-Men? I didn't change the comment after you'd replied, you were replying as I was still editing the comment. And while most mutations are harmless, one single bad one can cause a cell to go bad, which could cause a tumor. Another problem I'd like to point out: evolutionists think that the taste buds mutated so as to help the organism to survive. If that is the case, why does sugar, which is sweet (and therefore would attract organisms), cause many health problems? Scorpionman 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Your first comment and revised comment where substantial different, but that is ok.
We reproduce with a far slower speed than bacteria, but yes, it happens. A prime example is resistance in humans against the 'black death'. Some people had a mutation in a gene that did not affect normal healthy people, one of those many mutations that have accumulated over time that are neither harmfull, nor benificial under normal circumstances. When the black death came along, those with the mutation survived, while others died. The survivors produced the next generation, which now contained a higher percentage of the benificial genes. (Coincidently, AIDS resistance might be the result of the same mutation).
Do all individuals die from tumors caused by bad mutations?
Sugar in our current society is much more prevalent than 200 years ago. Evolution is a imprint of the past selectional forces, not the current. It takes time to evolve, but if enough people with an "eat-as-much-sugar-as-you-can-gene" die before they produce children, the percentage peiople with that gene will reduce over time and change the population. --KimvdLinde 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Resistance to diseases is not the result of mutation. After being infected with a disease, our immune system produces specific antibodies, so that if that virus or bacterium returns the antibodies can destroy it instantly. As for the next generation, the genes of the parents get passed along with the immune system's imformation of the disease that affected the parent.
No, not all individuals die from tumors caused by bad mutations, most survive provided that they get the right treatment. But that's not the point. Tumors are not beneficial, are they?
I really don't understand what you're talking about here. Our taste buds are naturally attracted to those things that taste sweet, so the "eat sugar gene" comes naturally. Scorpionman 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, resistance to diseases CAN be the result of mutations. The example of the black death resistance is a perfect example.
Tumors are not benificial. Yes, so what do you want to prove with that? That there are bad mutations. We have established that already.
Our tastbuds have evolved to taste very well sugar, and the craving for sugar is actually a different mechanism. But tasting sugar was very well benificial in the far past when out ancestors roomed the savanna's of Africa searching for food. So, in that context, acquiring a better tastebud for sugar is benificial. Now, in just a few generation time, we have changed our diet dramatically, and the amount of sugars have increased substantially in our diet. Is that a cultural thing, or a evolution thing? --KimvdLinde 21:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...probably more of a cultural thing. Just how was it beneficial when our "ancestors" back in Africa were searching for food? Sugar has posed many health problems. If it was good for our ancestors, then why isn't it good for us today? Maybe because our immune systems have degenerated, which may be the result of harmful mutation! Scorpionman 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You bring up some good points. Tumors are not beneficial to the organism, but they are beneficial to the cells—and more importantly, to the genes, which are the ultimate unit of selection. In fact, following carcinogenesis (the origin and development if tumors) shows a nice microcosm of evolution and has been one of the ways evolution has been been instrumental in the understanding of modern medicine. The sugar problem is quite simple. For most of the history of our species, and even most humans today, lack of sufficient food is a pressing need. Those who enjoy the taste of nutrients like sugar (or especially fat, with more than double the calorie density than carbohydrates and proteins) will be more likely to work harder to obtain sufficient food and more likely to reproduce. It's only been in the blink of an eye in the history of humanity (and indeed, a flicker in the history of life on Earth) that a group of humans has advanced so much that we can easily obtain food. These drives now work to our disadvantage, inducing us to eat large amounts of sugars and fats. This had never been a problem in the history of our species, and so no strategy for dealing with this problem ever evolved—we eat far more fats and sugars than our ancestors did. Other lifestyle changes compound the problem. For over 90% of its history, humans have lived as hunter-gatherers. Now that we buy our food in supermarkets instead of hunting, we have become sedentary and no longer have the level of fitness of our ancestors. This has happened over an extremely short time period, and biological evolution, as you can imagine, is incredibly slow—there hasn't been nearly enough time for well-developed mechanisms to evolve. Finally, you should realize that diseases like diabetes and heart disease usually cause most of their damage when people are older. This is significant for two reasons: One, in the past, people didn't live long enough to develop coronary disease or diabetes or cancer, so having genes that protected against these would be irrelevant. Only now, since medical science has advanced so far, do people live long enough. And two, people usually die of heart attacks or complications from diabetes after they've had children, so it does not have as much of an effect on their reproductive success—their genes have already been passed on. Although there is some benefit to the child of having the parent alive and well, there is not a very strong evolutionary pressure to keep the parent alive after their reproductive period is over. Hope this makes sense. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion

I just want to let you know that Invasion which you voted for as a COTW is now being considered for a featured article. Leave your input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Invasion. RENTAFOR LET? 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personnal attacks

Regarding [1], Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, -- Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. But as Palmiro was saying that "Wikipedia is becoming another internet playground for bigots", he was personally attacking those who don't agree to Muslim faith. I don't see how the comment I made was a personal attack. I saw an instance where an anonymous editor called another user a "bigot". Wasn't that a personal attack? Scorpionman 15:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a bigot is a personnal attack. That others do the same does not excuse you. Tom Harrison Talk 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I never said it excused me from doing it. But seeing as how calling someone names is a personal attack, then all intstances should be removed. I removed the comment with "bigot" in it, and someone put it back! It's still on the Islam talk page. Scorpionman 15:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand. If you can point me to the diff, I'll look into it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Go to the Islam talk page, and click on Archive 7. Once there, go to the comment entitled "The Truth about Islam". Once there, go down until you find the long comment in bold print. It complains about racism against muslims, etc. At the end, the Anonymous editor calls the user a "bigot". Of course, the comment he replied to wasn't NPOV, but at least user 4.198 didn't personally attack anybody. Thanks! Scorpionman 18:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Evolution

Thanks for your comment. The Evolution article deals strictly with biological evolution; it assumes the prior existence of Earth (and life). The formation of Earth falls under the purview of astronomy. If you have doubts about the science of planetary formation, then objections would belong on the talk pages of articles that deal with that, and that's why I said that it wasn't relevant at Talk:Evolution. It's not a place to discuss your objections to science in general (nor are article talk pages the place to discuss personal philophies either). As it happens, there is a very simple scientific explanation for the formation of the Earth. Gravity is a force which causes every piece of matter to be attracted to every other piece (it's more complicated, but this is a simplification). The intensity of the attraction is proportional to the mass of each object and inversely proportional to the distance between them. A collection of rocks and dust will naturally contract under the force of gravity. Potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy, and when they collide, to heat; if it is hot enough, the mass will become molten. Let the outer surface (crust) cool, and voilà!—you have a primordial Earth. Again, it's more complicated, but the basic ideas behind the formation of the Earth are quite simple. There are many possible explanations for a fine-tuned universe, but none of them have any direct bearing on biological evolution. One possibility is that God created the universe that way. Another is that it was essentially random, and we just got lucky that the universe happened to exist in a format that allowed life to arise. Another is that the parameters are somehow constrained or fixed, but we have not yet discovered the underlying theory and so belive that they can hold any value. Another is that there are a wide variety of physical constants that could allow intelligent life to evolve, but they involve completely different physics and such and we're not yet imaginative/smart enough to conceive of them. Another is that there are an infinite number of universes with different natural laws and constants; only in a tiny fraction will they interact in a way to produce stable matter, stars, planets, and life. We evolve in one such universe and marvel at the well-matched parameters. Another is that there is only one universe, but that the visible universe is only one very tiny section of it. As the universe expands, regions spontaneously decay to laws of nature with a lower vacuum energy, through quantum tunneling. The change spreads outwards in all directions, a bubble of new laws surrounded by the old laws. As it expands, regions inside it spontaneously tunnel/decay to new laws, which then expand as bubbles inside bubbles. Since the universe is expanding, the inside bubbles never catch up to the outside ones. In one such bubble creation/expansion, the laws are such that stable matter, stars, planets, and people arise; we perceive the bubble creation as the origin of our universe and call it the big bang, and we marvel that the laws of nature seem so well-designed. In a similar manner, you were (likely) born in some habitable environment. You were not born in Antarctica, or under the ocean, or somewhere between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Someone who was not aware of the existence of these might look at the comfortable climate, gravity, and such around him and think that it was amazing that things were so well-designed, not realizing that a variety of environments were possible but he was born in a place where humans are found. I'm not saying which of these I think is most likely, and I do believe in God. I have no desire to modify your religious beliefs, nor do I have any reason to believe I could succeed. I tell you this to show you that there are plenty of scientific answers without the incorporation of God, and more importantly that these objections do not belong on Talk:Evolution. I am happy to continue discussion on our talk pages, in whatever form you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole idea of evolution is based on random chance, and that is what I was trying to illustrate with my space shuttle analogy. The question was: out of all the mutations that species have undergone, how many are going to be beneficial? How many times will you have to throw a bunch of junk into a furnace to get a space shuttle? You're right, planets would form as the result of gravity, but just how did ours come to be at just the right distance from the sun, and why did life "evolve" here and not on someplace like Mercury or Jupiter? And where did the matter come from? Where was the universe before the Big Bang? Scorpionman 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
See on evolution our discussion above. --KimvdLinde 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The difference between a space shuttle and a pile of scrap is much greater than that of a typical mutation. In addition, the "phenotype" of a space shuttle has no underlying plan, or "genotype". Whereas a change of a single base-pair in DNA can cause a large phenotypic difference, as is well-established. Out of all the mutations that have occurred, only a very tiny will be beneficial. But don't forget that there are a great number of organisms—billions for humans alone, and much more for unicellular organsims. Also easy to forget is the vast amount of time life has been evolving—and (modern) unicellular organisms can reproduce in less than an hour, under ideal conditions. 4.55 billion years is a long time, much longer than you or I can comprehend. For instance, if we were to compress the life of the Earth into a single day, then the origin of Christianity two thousand years ago is reduced to less than one twenty-fifth (0.04) of a second, and Homo sapiens itself evolved only 2–4 seconds ago. As far as planets, first I should point out that there may be life on Mercury or Jupiter (although there is no evidence that there is), and it may develop there some day. But that aside, I would guess that the temperature and so on at this distance from the sun are more conducive to life-giving chemistry. Perhaps life did not evolve on Mercury or Jupiter because a self-replicating molecule never arose there, maybe because the planetary chemistry is not as well-suited. What are you trying to get at with your question? As far as matter and the universe, now you're getting into some tough cosmologic questions, ones that there aren't clear answers for and ones that are definitely out of the scope of evolution. Probably the universe did not exist prior to the big bang. There may have been no "before"—if the big bang produced both space and time, then it is illogical to refer to "before" that event. Or, as I mentioned above, what we perceive as the big bang may just have been the most recent local expansion event in an enormous universe with varying natural laws. The matter almost certainly came from the energy of the big bang, but the origin of that is unclear. Perhaps it was produced by God. Perhaps it was always there; a previous universe collapsed under its own gravity to be compressed to a small space, which then exploded as our big bang—it may go on forever, expanding, slowing, collapsing, exploding. Perhaps an exceptionally large quantum fluctuation produced all the matter and energy in the universe. Perhaps a higher-dimensional "brane" collided with ours, and the energy of that collision produced the visible universe. This is an area of active research in cosmology, and I cannot pretend to be familiar with the various theories or to understand their workings in detail. Evolution, of course, starts with the existence of the universe, Earth, and a primitive life form—it does not seek to address questions of where the Earth or universe came from. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I can understand what you're saying. And I was already aware of the "infinitely collapsing, exploding" theory, but that seems quite implausible, but then, so do many other theories about the universe's origin. I'm aware that evolution does occur. But it is confined to individual species; it doesn't change a member of one species to a member of another. For instance, the grapefruit is a mutation of the pummello (from the New Book of Knowledge) , but that doesn't make it a different kind of organism, or even a different species of fruit, it is still a citrus fruit, but it is just slightly different from the pummello. Thanks for your comments. Scorpionman 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, some of the theories are pretty crazy. Then again, time and time again we've seen that our intuition functions poorly in circumstances to which we are not accustomed. For instance, on very small scales (quantum mechanics) or at very high velocities (general relativity), the laws of physics become quite bizarre and counterintuitive, since our intuition is based on macroscopic objects moving at slow speeds. We can similarly expect our intuition to function poorly for circumstances far outside the range of typical human experience, like the unimaginably high temperatures and densities and so on at the time of the big bang. You may not realize it, but we've observed new species arising even during the short time we've been aware of such possibilities. And of course, successions of fossils from species like Homo erectus to Homo sapiens and the difficulty in classifying them in one species or the other highlights the slow change from species to species. Of course, you are welcome to accept or reject scientific theories at your pleasure. If you have any further concerns or questions, please let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd hardly say evolution occurs. Natural Selection occurs, but only to a limited extent. Natural Selection only destroys information through generations, information that can never be brought back. Take, for example, a bear. Bears are well created for camouflaging themselves in forests. However, over time some bears would travel to polar regions, where their brown fur is a huge hinderance. If you're a seal or some other kind of prey, and you see this huge brown thing, you're not going to stay. So, for the first few generations, polar bears didn't do very well.

However, through natural selection, bears that had less colour and more white in their coat would be more successful in hunting prey. Surprisingly quickly, the bears that lost more and more colour, thus turning whiter, would have much better chances at surviving in snowy climates. However, if you try to remove polar bears from polar regions and place them back in forests, you'll find that they all die out and show no or very little changes in fur. Why? Because polar bears have lost information, information they can never gain back. That is the extent of natural selection: it only deletes info. Anyway, sorry such a long letter; it went from me to you to being huge rant which I finally forced myself to close. But, if you're looking for more information against evolution and for creationism, I recommend Answers in Genesis[2], then going to the "Get Answers" section. I just wanted to conclude with that I really respect your courage for standing upto those mis-informed people at the Evolution article, especially with all those dis-orders you have. In the words of KJ-52: One Love. One God. One Way. <>< --Twipie 06:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You Very Much! I'd have to say that if it weren't for my Aspergers syndrome I might not focus so much on this topic. I've been to Answers in Genesis, and the main articles I look up are those relating to dinosaurs, which are my Aspergers Interest (special interests of those with Aspergers syndrome). Speaking of dinosaurs, I find it very ridiculous to believe that bird evolved from dinosaurs. The article on feathered dinosaurs is very misinformed and states that the paleontological findings provide "conclusive evidence" that birds evolved from reptiles. Ptooey! If you look at the picture of the deinonychus on the deinonychus page, you'll see the most ridiculous and retarded image of a dinosaur that I've ever seen. It looks nothing like a dinosaur; it looks like a puffin! Of course, that's what you get when you have pictures by evolutionists, who, like you said are very misinformed.

Cheers, Scorpionman 16:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the most entertaining page on wikipedia! thank you! Your not for real are you? This is a hilarious hoax if not. Haha, what if scientists judged the value of a theory based on its correspondence to past artistic renditions of scientific findings. "Well, this new theory, while making more sense morphologically, doesn't look like the artistic renditions of what artists in the late 19th century talking to early 20th century paleontologists thought dinasaurs looked like...so this new theory can not possibly be right, morphology be damned!"
I mean everyone knows that nobody has actually seen a dinosaur right? and that the popular artistic rendering of dinosaurs are based on artistic renderings of outdated scientific data from the early 20th century? Please tell me you know this and that this page is a hoax?
I'm suprised I havn't seen the "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?!?" argument on this page. If you don't want to make yourself look like a caricature of the creationist movement then try actually knowing what evolution is saying before you try to "refute" it. Read some creationists who actually know somewhat about the subject they are refuting (try Behe). You should find why your "space-shuttle" analogy makes you look incredibly ignorant if you do. Most Intelligent Design proponents have moved past that, and cringe when they see other IDers making that argument. Most have understood that evolution is not a theory of "chance" and are on to more sophisticated arguments at this point. Your way behind the times man. Although this dichotomy has always existed among IDers. Scientific American once published a cover story critical of Intelligent Design, got deluged with letters by ID proponents. Rather comically many of the letters we're from angry ID proponents saying "Nobody ever makes the 'if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys!' argument anymore...you are misrepresenting ID theory", and just as many letters oh so cleverly refuting the article's pro-evolution stance by posing the damning question "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys!?" Your space-shuttle analogy is as tired as that old "refutation", and makes people saying it look just as silly and ignorant of the theory (you don't have to BELIEVE the theory to understand it...and anyone who thinks evolution is a "theory of chance" clearly doesn't understand it.) Brentt 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere on this talk page someone used the example of a fish developping a hand. First of all, this goes against the Law of Entropy which statees that
"the total entropy of any 
thermodynamically isolated system 
tends to increase over time,
approaching a maximum value."
In other words, in isolated incidences which have no outside interference, disorder in that substance increases. Let's compare this to a chocolate bunny. Left outside in the sun with no refridgerator to keep it cool, the chocolate bunny eventually melts into a chocolate puddle. And no matter how much cooling is performed on it, that chocolate puddle will NEVER solidify back into a chocolate bunny. Even that refridgerator would not help the bunny in the long run, as a power failure, the fridge breaking with age, or the loss of energy would still doom the bunny. The only thing that would not be subject to the natural consequences of time would be a supernatural being (God); all other things eventually deteriorate. The same is true with the fish example: the fish could not possibly have its fin turn into a hand; as this would not be disorder, it would be order. There is nothing besides a supernatural being; which evolutionists must deny; that could help that fish. Also, any bad mutations could not be corrected and thus the fish and its offspring would be stuck with a bad hand forever.
Besides, even if a fish could develop a hand, the hand would be no good since the fish would not know how to use it. Information can only develop from information, it can never develop from matter and energy (although it is dependant on both). For example, a dog will never learn to take out the trash by itself. A smart, well trained dog might be able to learn, but this requires people. This means that humans must have a spirit. The fact that humans have a spirit not only points to a creator, but also proves that pets are people too signs are downright wrong. Humans are special, created in God's own image.
One more point I would like to make: fish could never develop a hand anyways because natural selection would prevent that. A fin is much more effective for swimming than a hand, while a fin-hand would be simply terrible for swimming, with lifeless fingers sticking out slowing the animal down. A slow fish would not survive long because: 1) The fish that the mutant fish is trying to catch would be able to get away and 2) Any predators of the fish would be able to catch the fish much easier.
The truth is unavoidable, folks: Nothing can mutate from one form to another. There would be too many harmful mutations; the animal would not know how to use their new feature, and the transitional stage would put the animal at a severe disadvantage, so that natural selection would cancel the mutation out.


Thanks for your comment, Twipie, but please sign your name when you're done. Anyway, you're absolutely right; an animal wouldn't know how to use this new feature, and the new feature would probably not be beneficial. But try as we might, we're not going to convince these bigots (no offense to Knowledge Seeker, in case he happens to read this) that evolution doesn't change species, and yet the article on evolution says that it does explain why one species changes to another species. BIAS CITY! Oh, and in case Knowledge Seeker reads this, I'd like to point out that the universe eternally collapsing, exploding, expanding and collapsing also goes against the Law of Entropy. Gravity would not be sufficient to convert the useless energy back to useful energy in the next Big Bang. Mega-Annum scientists have tried to explain this away by hypothesizing the existence of dark matter. But this is purely hypothetical and has very little, if any, scientific evidence supporting it. Anyway, thanks for your comments, Twipie, and don't give way to these biased evolutionists! Speaking of which, I'm about to start a discussion on the feathered dinosaurs page and was wondering if you could help out there. The problem is, as I've already said, the article is biased and says things that aren't true. Thanks! Scorpionman 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Talk:Evolution

I'm copying this line of conversation here so you don't miss it.

Please continue this discussion at Talk.Origins. That's what it's there for. Scorpionman, how many times do I have to ask you? Are you actually going to do this or are you just blowing me off, at which point I should just stop? --Cyde Weys 00:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Cyde, I would go to Talk:Origins, but I have to have an account and I don't want to waste time doing that. I don't want to give away personal information or stuff like that, so why can't they let you make a comment there without having to have a stupid account? Scorpionman 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It takes a minute to create an account; that's hardly a waste of time. Heck, just look at how much time you've "wasted" already discussing evolution in an inappropriate venue (Wikipedia). And the only "personal information" you need to give away is your email address, but if you can't trust Google with that you can't trust anyone with it. And you don't need to use Google Groups to post to talk.origins ... your ISP probably has a newsgroup server that you can post to using your login and password with your ISP. So you won't even have to create a new account or anything. Just a warning though, Google Groups is probably easier to use for the novice. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, anyway, I didn't want to debate the validity of evolution but some user turned it into that. The article is biased, and says things like "evolution explains the emergence of new species". That hasn't been proven, so it shouldn't be in an encyclopediac article! Scorpionman 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Emmer0402.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Emmer0402.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Rel_peretti.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rel_peretti.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Di_deinonychus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Di_deinonychus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the copyright status. Thank you very much! Scorpionman 02:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] evolution

Creationists are all uneducated bigots. They know nothing about anything. They are porridge brains. Ken Ham is a stupid idiot with leaches in his brain. I hate them all. Evolution has been proven a billion times and creationism has absolutely no evidence. The person who came up with it must have been insane. The Bible is nothing but an eloborate hoax written by a group of left-wing conspirators. Why don't you just say it, Jeffire? Scorpionman 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If we evolved from pond scum, then our brains must be very faulty and our senses deceptive. How are you to know that the "observations" made by evolutionists are not just deceptions by the senses? And if we evolved from pond scum then there's no reason to exist and therefore no reason to study this topic because it will not profit anyone. And it seems that you haven't even read anything from Answers in Genesis, you just listen to the rants of people like John Stear who are misinformed about it. Maybe you should have read the article I linked to here rather than just dismissing it as a bunch of stupid bigotry. Scorpionman 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please respect the Wikipedia process. What you are doing is inappropriate. Talk pages are for improving the article, not to make sermons or political speeches or push your own point of view. I urge you to take a rest, and try to look at what you wrote dispassionately. Jeffire did not "just say" the nasty words you put in his mouth because ... because he didn't say them. If the only way you can respond to someone who rejects your views is to accuse them of wanting to say things they never in fact said, then you really need to reexamine your soul. You were being petty, cruel and unfair. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention un-Christian. Mattew 5:44, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Spoken by Jesus himself. Jefffire 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I wasn't personally attacking anybody. Jeffire was making a bunch of unfair comments about Answers in Genesis that I found highly offensive and quite misinformed. I'm sorry if I was rude, but I didn't call anybody any names and I don't see where this ban is coming from. But I certainly will take a break from the evolution page; heck, nobody's going to listen there anyway. Scorpionman 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. So you read the Bible, Jeffire? Surprising for an evolutionist! Scorpionman 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. KimvdLinde 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you read it too? Well, good. Scorpionman 18:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am religious, but not christian. KimvdLinde 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, reading the Bible doesn't make you a Christian. It's a matter of belief. Of course, evolution is also a religion so I suppose you're religious whether or not you read the Bible. Scorpionman 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
My religion is not evolutionism (or such) as you would call it. KimvdLinde 19:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Exactly what is it (not to be too personal)? Scorpionman 00:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Asatru as we call it. KimvdLinde 01:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I just saw your comments on Talk:Evolution. I must say I am quite disappointed to see your behaviour. In my opinion, you do your religion a disservice by speaking in this manner. I hope that others do not judge Christians by your actions. I certainly don't; I respect them, as I do adherents of all religions, including my own—my best friend is Christian, though he isn't anti-science like you. If your argument is so weak that you must invent insults that your opponent is making, you should rethink your debate style (and the need for debate). If you resume pursuing this matter, surely you can find some better refutation than that "Answers in Genesis" article you linked to. I read the whole thing; it is rather silly, in my opinion. Certainly I'm not surprised no one took it seriously. And remember, Wikipedia, especially article talk pages, is not the place to debate the merits of science. I believe you'll only cause yourself more stress if you continue to attempt your missionary work. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that no one read what I said in bold print at the top of the talk page: "PLEASE DO NOT DEBATE THE VALIDITY OF EVOLUTION HERE. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. THE ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE NEUTRAL." And how can that article be silly? If you think that website is silly, perhaps you should read this one [3] This site is filled with personal attacks and rantings and ravings. Did you see any of that in the article written by Ken Ham? I don't know how anybody except that nut John Stear could view it as silly or bigotry or not a good enough refutation. Maybe you should read some of his other articles. I didn't exactly "invent" the insults that Jeffire made; when you say those things about Answers in Genesis, you're saying that about all creationists. Why is Wikipedia so biased against Answers in Genesis? What's wrong with it? Even though it doesn't rant, it still gets overly criticized. I guess that's because of all the dogmatic "theistic evolutionists" and "progressive creationists" (not to mention the atheistic evolutionists) that don't want to believe a thing they say. I'm not trying to be a missionary; that is fruitless, as I have seen. I'm not anti-science; evolutionists are anti-science because true science doesn't contradict the Bible (that probably sounds really bigotric, doesn't it?) And I don't know why people are all of a sudden jumping down my throat about the "invented" insults. They claim that it's the "only way I can debate". I only did it once in my millions of arguments, so how can you say it's the only way I can debate? Scorpionman 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The only valid debates about Evolution are within evolutionary theory itself, among scientists or those using the scientific method. Evolution is a fact and is not subject to debate or dispute, among rational minds. Neither is it a place for any relgious (nonsense) theories which have no place in dealing with reality (what science is for). Superstions just keep us ignorant and its the goal of science to do away with ignorance.206.61.48.22 20:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Then let's have a good example of this "proof", 206. And you're right; superstitions (you mispelled this word) do keep us ignorant. The goal of science is to do away with ignorance. This theory of people evolving from pond scum is getting in the way of factual knowledge, so let's do away with it, eh? Scorpionman 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree with your bold notice (you state that you're not trying to debate evolution, then you proceed to debate it), that wasn't the comment to which I was objecting. You really want to know what's wrong with that page? Very well, I will list as few of the problems. Keep in mind that I have no desire to change your religious beliefs; only to explain why when you spout material like that, it is difficult to take you seriously. I suppose the first thing that struck me were the quotations from Richard Dawkins. One of the first rules of quoting someone is to ensure that you don't distort his meaning; removing a portion may change the message, as can quoting only one part out of context. Readers assume that writers are honestly portraying the intent of those quoted; once they realize that the writer is deliberately misquoting in this manner, it immediately calls into question the reliability of the other quotations, and indeed the writer may lose credibility. Another area that strikes me as particularly ridiculous is the part about how there is no mechanism for adding information. Mr. Ham expects us to believe that because a Dr. Spetner, a "highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University" is not familiar with any genetic mechanisms for adding new functions, there cannot be any. Of course this is absurd; it is quite easy to postulate and to observe new functions arising. One obvious way is through gene duplication, where "faulty" splicing adds a copy of a gene elsewhere in the genome. This second gene is free to mutate and provide survival advantages for its host; many genes in humans such as those for the various photosensitive pigments can be identified as having originated from a single ancestral gene. And of course we have observed bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics to which they were never previously exposed; this is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning. Dr. Werner Gitt seems to be misunderstanding some basic college physics; there is certainly no provision in science that information cannot increase in this manner. What science says is that in any closed system, the amount of entropy ("disorder") should never decrease (with a caveat I won't get into here). And of course, evolution on small scales has been directly observed many times, which would seem to cause considerable difficulty for his theory. And too the argument about machines needing to be designed and such holds very little water, even back in 1998. This argument, as you may know, is often called the "argument from personal incredulity"; in other words, "I can't think of any way this could have evolved, so it can't have evolved." Originally systems like the eye and clotting factors were cited as examples; as detailed evolutionary pathways were worked out, others, such as bacterial flagella, were proposed. We're starting to understand how these, too, might have arisen, and most proponents of ID, like your Mr. Ham, tend to stay away from actual examples but rather just insist that there must be some processes which are too complex to have evolved.
I don't particularly care if you believe this or not, but I want you to understand why it makes little to no sense from a scientific view. I'm not sure how http://home.austarnet.com.au is relevant. You posted a link to your article in defense of your position. When we point out how faulty the article is, your response is to find another web site and say that since that one is worse, yours is OK? And I confess I can't find anything particularly controversial there, aside from a link to Wikipeida; they seem more interested in offering me dial-up Internet. Perhaps you mistyped the URL. And you did invent those insults. Jefffire did not write those about creationists or about Answers in Genesis. You wrote them. If you're inventing insults against yourself, then that will certainly cause you stress. Your statement doesn't sound like bigotry, it just sounds absurd. It is incompatible with the definition of science. You may believe that true knowledge doesn't contradict the Bible, or that the Truth doesn't contradict the Bible, but there is nothing about science compelling it to conform to any religion's mythology. Creationism may be a more accurate picture of Earth's history than evolutionary theory (though I think that's highly unlikely), but it still is not science. If you do not understand that, it may be why you are getting so worked up at Talk:Evolution and why others are having trouble understanding your confusion. The supernatural falls outside the purview of science. Surely you are aware of that. Regarding your debating style, you seem to pop up at the talk page every few days, complain that evolution isn't scientific, get angry that no one agrees, pop in again, get angry, continue the cycle, and so on. That hasn't worked. Now you tried these insults. It seems to me that if that's what you're left with, you're in trouble. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not intend to debate evolution, but that's always what it turns into because of the editors on this page that are eager to debate it.


Of course I understand that the supernatural can't be studied scientifically. I didn't say that it could. But if you need evidence for the Bible's scientific accuracy, you should probably read it. I can give a few examples: 1. At one time, scientists didn't believe that there was copper in Israel. But they found the smelters and mines. Check Deuteronomy 8:7 -9. 2. Jeremiah 33:22 states that the stars can't be counted. Awhile ago astronomers thought that there were about 1,000 stars in the universe. Now they think there are about 1 octillion...Still think they can be counted? I needn't list any more; if you want more then you should read it yourself. Of course, I won't hesitate to say that many of the Bible's predictions have come true. A few haven't (yet), we just have to wait for them. If you want an example of an accurate biblical prediction, read Ezekiel 26:1-21. In a nutshell, God says that he will destroy Tyre and make it a place "for the spreading of nets". Today Tyre is in ruins and is a fishing haven. Just look up the entry on Wikipedia.
Evolutionists are going to find a problem with every controversy regarding evolution. The fact that a machine needs to be designed is perfectly relevant in this case. "A watch implies a watchmaker"...Would you think that a watch is the result of a factory explosion? Likewise you think that the universe, which is far more complex than a watch, came into being as the result of an explosion. Don't dismiss this as irrelevant to evolution yet; just keep reading. If the universe came into being as the result of an explosion, then why isn't it in total chaos? And if the universe came into being this way, then the earth must have come into being as the result of pieces of debris clumping together which means that life must have evolved from inanimate matter, which is impossible. How can life have evolved like this? Tell me!
If you think Ken Ham is scientifically illiterate, tell that to the Queensland Institute of Technology and University of Queensland. They have declared him scientifically literate. Maybe you think those institutes are scientifically illiterate...
Okay, so I invented the insults. That doesn't mean that what he was saying wasn't unfair and incorrect...
I could go on and on, but I'm obviously not going to do any convincing that creation is scientifically correct. Just read what I put down and analyze it. 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If the universe has been exploding, expanding, contracting and exploding for eternity (which you have stated in an earlier comment as a "maybe"), then how do you explain the law of entropy which says that the amount of usable energy is going down? Scorpionman 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reply does not make sense to me. You previously stated you do not wish to debate, yet most of your points have nothing to do with biological evolution. That there is copper in Israel or that I can't count the number of stars is neither evidence for or against evolution. No, I don't think that watches could be produced in a factory explosion. The origin of the universe is irrelevant to biological evolution; that theory requires the existence of Earth and of life. Your statement that life cannot evolve from nonlife is your own belief, and also irrelevant to biological evolution. Biological evolution, which is what that article is about, does not explain the origin of life. Please see Evolution#History of life. I did not say that Ken Ham was scientifically illiterate. Your strategy of inventing insults against you or against your side is counterproductive. But what he writes in the article you sent me doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective, that is true. I lack knowledge of the academic prestige of Queensland institutions, but just because an institution awards someone a bachelor's degree to someone does not make it liable for everything the person subsequently writes. You're right; that you invented the insults doesn't mean what Jefffire was saying wasn't unfair and incorrect, nor does it mean it was. And obviously it seems apparent to most that he was neither unfair nor incorrect. It doesn't take much more than a high school education to start spotting the faults in the purported science of that piece. By attempting to refute it in this manner, you damaged your own credibility. That's correct, you're not going to do any convincing that creation is scientifically correct, because as we both have agreed, supernatural events are outside the scope of science. The cycling universe model is not relevant to evolution. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You said that whether or not the Bible is accurate has nothing to do with education, but it does. If the Bible is incorrect, evolution is correct. If evolution is incorrect, then the Bible is correct.


If you think the article by Ken Ham is "riddled with fallacies and inaccuracies" (I'm not saying you said that; you said that it was full of "faults and purported science".), then give me a good example of one. None of the attackers of the article ever gave an example of the problems they had with it. It seems that they can't handle a calm discussion of the valid problems with evolution.
It is NOT merely an "opinion" that life can't evolve from nonlife; the idea of spontaneous generation has been disproven. Try putting rotting meat outside for a few days and see if it turns into maggots. I don't care about theistic evolutionists; they are completely discredited because evolution and the Bible can't coincide.
While the universe model isn't relevant to evolution, the origin of life is because evolutionists have to know what the first life form looked like and where it came from to know whether or not evolution occurs. Scorpionman 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You never answered my question about entropy, because you think it is "irrelevant" to evolution. I want to know whether or not these "scientists" who believe the Big Bang are credible. Scorpionman 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Your question about the big bang is filled with misconceptions. The rapid expansion of space-time is in no way analogous to a chemical explosion. To call the big bang an "explosion" simply highlights one's lack of knowledge of the theory. Your further questions about entropy fall into largely the same catagory. Thermodynamics has no problem with localised increases in order, so long as the overall level of entropy increases. This is why you need to eat and breath, you take the high level of order found in your food and break it down in order to maintain your own. Jefffire 11:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

(Removed personal attack by 4.158.60.38 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)) Scorpionman 03:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

When did I say that whether or not the Bible is accurate has nothing to do with education? I don't recall making this statement; it seems to me that you are making material up again. If not, I apologize. It is not true that if the Bible is incorrect that evolution is correct. Nor is it true that if evolution were incorrect, the Bible would be correct. Both could be incorrect. In fact, adherents of other religions may believe so. Indeed, that is one of the biggest problems with creationism trying to masquerade as science. It focuses on trying to show evidence against evolution, without ever showing why it itself is more accurate. Also, please do not use quotation marks if you are paraphrasing a quotation. I mentioned that one could find "faults in the purported science", not that it was full of "faults and purported science". It is dishonest to misrepresent quotations in this manner. I don't understand your request. Were the examples I provided earlier insufficient? Or did you want me to just pick one? The phenomenon referred to as spontaneous generation has been disproved, but that is somewhat separate from abiogenesis. Suffice it to say that modern science believes that life did arise from nonlife some 3 to 4 billion years ago, but that under conditions found on Earth today, life forms do not spontaneously arise. Certainly the first organisms to be considered alive would be exceedingly simple; it would be extremely unlikely for something so highly complex as a maggot to spontaneously generate. The evolution of the maggot took billions of years. If you are not familiar with these theories, I'd be happy to explain them to you another time. Your sweeping dismissal of theistic evolutionists betrays your close-mindedness; not only is it based on your interpretation, but there is no reason a theistic evolutionist has to believe in the Bible at all. Actually, no, we don't have to know what the first life form looked like or where it came from. In fact, we don't. And even if we had detailed records of that time, there is no reason to believe that we would easily be able to identify one entity as not alive and one if its copies as alive; that is, there likely was no single first life form any more likely than there was a first human being, first elephant, or first daffodil (according to science, of course). I have no interest in debating cosmology with you, at least not now. You'll have to ask someone else. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to type "education", I mean to type "evolution".


You said that the article by Ken Ham is "purported science". And I don't quite recall you giving any examples...I guess I'll have to check your older messages.
You say that the evolution of the maggot took billions of years. What did it evolve from? It had to have come from somewhere! So you're now saying that nonliving matter can slowly evolve into living matter? Why haven't 3 billion year old rocks evolved into animals?
Okay I was a little close-minded regarding theistic evolutionists. My point was, if someone believes the Bible, they really can't believe evolution. I don't know about other religions, but I was talking about Christianity.
Jeffire, I was talking about overall entropy, not localised increases. Scorpionman 12:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall entropy has never decreased and nothing in evolutionary theory says that it has. Jefffire 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Did I say that it has decreased? I said it is increasing, therefore there's a problem with the "Second Big Bang" theory. Scorpionman 13:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
All right, when did I say that whether or not the Bible is accurate has nothing to do with evolution? Do you just make these things up? Don't you realize that responding to arguments you've invented doesn't help establish your position? Perhaps I've misunderstood your question about problems with your article's science. The entire first paragraph of the link I posted was detailing some of the more overt problems. I don't see how you could have missed it. If it's not what you're looking for, perhaps you could clarify what sort of information you wish. I should first be clear that a "maggot" is not a type of animal; it refers to the larva of flies (that is, the larva of animals of the order Diptera, in the order Insecta). So assuming you're asking about the evolution of Diptera, I can only tell you a little. Starting from the last common universal ancestor, one can trace cell lines branching and getting more complex. Following only the line that will lead to Diptera, one would see that all life on earth remained what we would now call prokaryotic for a couple billion years. Somehere around a couple billion years ago were the events that produced the endosymbionts, including the incorporation of a Rickettsia-like cell into a larger host cell. They eukaroytic line branched off as the host and "parasite" organisms developed a tighter symbiosis, with the larger cell eventually incorporating much of the genome of the smaller, and neither able to survive without each other. Those of course became our mitochondria. Within a billion years, the plant line split off, probably related to the additional internal incorporation of a cyanobacteria-like organism, giving the host cells the ability to use photosynthesis through their new chloroplasts. Cells within colonies began to develop specialized roles. Around 900 million years ago, organisms resembling today's sponges probably had evolved, multicellular animals that can be disrupted into their component cells and yet who will spontaneously re-assemble. Somewhere around 590 million years ago, the line of deuterostomes split off, leaving the protostomes. (The deuterostomes would go on to develop notochords, then spinal columns and bony fins, fins to legs, the ability to spend more time out of the water, eventually to lay eggs out of the water, then hair, birthing live young, increase in size, develop slowly increasing intelligence, then around six million years ago, the ability to stand upright, rapid increases in intelligence, with concomitant brain size increase, earlier birth, and increased plasticity, so that by about 200 to 400 centuries ago, anatomically modern humans had emerged. But I digress.) I don't know much about the other line. The arthropods evolved, and somewhere around 450 million years ago was able to leave the water for land, probably enjoying the less competition for food (plants had likely preceded it) as well as safer spots to lay eggs. At some point, the Insecta evolved, and then from within them, the Diptera. I'm afraid I only know the line sketchily (I'm a bit species-centric), so if you would like to know more about insect evolution, you'll probably have to ask someone with more biology training than I. I am not interested in debating abiogenesis with you, especially if I have to teach it to you first. At least for now, I would like to stick to biological evolution. That you only think about your religion, and specifically your own brand of that religion, is exactly the problem that impedes you. I'm not interested in trying to reconcile religious beliefs with science for you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so that explanation you gave sounded good (to an evolutionist) but, once again, where did that last universal ancestor come from? If you don't think that's relevant to evolution then that's a problem. Creationists can tell about how the first living things came to be; evolutionists think that's irrelevant.


You did say that whether or not the Bible is scientifically correct is irrelevant to evolution (specifically, you said that my examples of copper in Israel and number of the stars are "neither evidence for or against evolution". If the Bible is correct, then evolution isn't).
I was only referring to Christianity when I said that "if the Bible is true, then evolution isn't)! I wasn't saying that about the Koran because I'm not a Muslim and know little about what's in the Koran anyway (I see no need to learn it at this point, but that is beside the POINT). It's not impeding me.
You don't have to reconcile science and religious beliefs. Also, earlier you said that creation isn't science and that science doesn't have to conform to "any religion's mythology". I'm not going to argue this point here; all I can say is, "While the Bible wasn't written as a science textbook, it is scientifically correct." - Dr. Bob Jones Sr. Scorpionman 03:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You still haven't given me a good enough example of how inaccurate Ham's article is. You didn't seem to read the Dr. Spetner problem right; not only is Dr. Spetner not familiar with mutations adding new information, he actually said that mutations take away from information, and that "a business cannot gain money by losing it a little at a time." Scorpionman 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Scorpionman, I did not say that that whether or not the Bible is scientifically correct is irrelevant to evolution. I said that the existence of copper in Israel is irrelevant to evolution. You draw bizarre inferences from plain statements, then cling to them to the point of absurdity. You can't keep making up statements that other people said. I don't know if this isn't clear to you, but it's pretty easy on Wikipedia to see exactly what people said. It seems that every time you leave comments these days you invent some new outrageous statement that you claim the other person said. And it makes you look ridiculous. Anyone reading the talk page will see you claim that someone said some statement which may strike them as incorrect or controversial. Then they'll see the other person protest that they didn't write it, and the observer will glance above, see that you indeed created the statement yourself, and think "Troll!" And then you'll get upset again that people don't take you seriously. I don't believe you are a troll, of course, but when you act in this manner it certainly seems as if you are more interested in angering people than in working to improve the article. This is counterproductive, and I refuse to discuss with a person who behaves in this manner. And I will not hesitate to block you if you attempt to rile others again at Talk:Evolution. I was willing to overlook your earlier comments to Jefffire, but you've crossed the line even for me now. You're definitely heading for a lengthy block at the rate you're wearing down others' patience. And if you're so willing to invent opposition statements, you certainly don't need other people to argue with; you can continue arguing with yourself as you do now. If you have any legitimate concerns with the article, and you agree to stop acting dishonestly, then and only then will I resume this conversation. Take a break for a few days. When you come back, listen to what people actually say, not what you think they say. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Personal message

Hi, Scorpionman. I have read some of your comments over at Talk:Evolution and can see that you're stressed over the topic. I just wanted you to know that I am a Christian like you, but I believe in theistic evolution, that is— evolution guided by God or observed by God—and I don't take the Bible completely literally. I am currently reading into Near-death experiences (which I recommend by visiting NearDeath.com), and especially the prophecies of Edgar Cayce (who predicted the 1929 Depression and his own death, among other things, completely accurately). Cayce had over 2,000 NDEs and reports all sorts of data from "the other side". He explains how evolution is real but how souls inhabited humans only as they evolved into homo sapien form millions of years ago, he also explains how the Adam and Eve story fits in with this theory. See [4] for all his prophecies. Near-death experiences are real, and for me they help ensure my faith in God and Jesus Christ. Since I know you are weary of evolution, I recommend this. Sorry, but evolution is pretty-well proven to exist, with only a few holes but none that would collapes the entire theory. The deal is, we most likely evolved from apes, but Cayce's reveleations help to explain this. I do recommend his readings and to visit NearDeath.com. A pleasure talking to you, . — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, uh...Crazy, thanks for your comments. I've read about Near-death experiences...to tell you the truth, I can't exactly saw exactly what those people were actually experiencing, but from my religious background I don't really think that those "predictions" were made by Edgar Cayce at all. Demons can do things like that too, you know. And as for your theistic evolution...I respect your views, but I take the Bible literally. Not completely (there are some passages in the Book of Revelation that aren't literal), but I take Genesis literally. I don't really know how the story of Adam and Eve would fit in with the theory of evolution, nor do I see why souls would inhabit the bodies of homo sapiens after they evolved from apes. But there are some crazy theories out there and we can't explain everything that goes on in the universe scientifically. Some things are supernatural. I'll look into this Edgar Cayce, but you can't believe everything you read, you know.

Regards, Scorpionman 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Trolling

It's all right. Just take care to respond to what people say, not what you think they say. If unsure, it's easy to reread the comments to see exactly what they said. No, I don't think you're trolling—for that, you have to be intentionally doing to try to annoy people or get them angry. I believe that you're illogical sometimes and perhaps you get easily confused which is why you think people are saying things they don't, and I think you feel very strongly about your religious beliefs and it is difficult for you to understand how others can hold different views, but I don't think you do any of it intentionally. If, though, after being warned about it, you continue, blocks would be justified in my opinion; there are enough people who already think you are trolling. There is no scientific evidence against evolution, so that would be a misleading choice of title. All the criticisms of evolution are from a religious perspective or are criticisms of science in general, so that wouldn't be appropriate either. Evolution is science. Creationism isn't. I know you know this, or at least are aware of it to some degree, from your comments such as "we can't explain everything that goes on in the universe scientifically" and "Of course I understand that the supernatural can't be studied scientifically." Perhaps God did create the Earth a few millenia ago. Perhaps God created the Earth last week. I don't know. But I do know that neither of those, even if true, are science, and I suspect you do too. With regards to your second point, I will do no such thing. There is no "good, rock-solid, diamond-hard infallible unfalsifiable proof" of anything. I understand that you want the mythology of your religion to be true, and it may be true, despite that the scientific evidence flatly contradicts it. Evolution is science. There is nothing wrong with the science, though there could of course be something wrong with science itself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that it is not entire accurately to say that humans evolved from apes, since humans are apes. A better way to say it would be that humans evolved from other apes. If I were to be precise, I would describe the events as follows: somewhere around 18 million years ago lived the last common ancestors of all the apes; that is, all surviving descendants are apes, and no other animals are apes. Within the apes, the line of gibbons split off, then the ancestors of the orangutans, then the ancestors of the gorillas. Finally, some 6 million years ago lived a small ape, the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. After that one can identify a population whose only living descendants are human. Naturally there were many other descendants, but none of the others have survived. The other lines, of course, continued to evolve as well; there is nothing special about the human line. About the time our ancestors and the chimpanzee's ancestors separated, the ancestors of the simiangs and the ancestors of the hoolocks were probably separating from the ancesotrs of the other gibbons, for instance, and of course each line continued to evolve. I hope this makes sense. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you think that there is evidence flatly contradicting young earth creationism, then give me an example other than the Starlight problem, which has been addressed. There is evidence against evolution; the fossil record is quite incomplete, despite the Tiktaalik, which is supposed to be a "missing link" (Neil Shubin, the man who found it, isn't quite satisfied with its "missing link" status, and is planning to return to Canada to find fossils closer to the "missing link" status). If you read this article [5], you can read that "for all its tetrapod-like features, it was still clearly a fish." You can read more of this there. There are also missing links in the "homo sapiens genealogy". If you think I want the "mythology" of my religion to be true, you have to think of a reason for this desire. We'd have a sense of purpose. With evolution being true, there wouldn't be a need for God and therefore humans wouldn't have to follow moral laws (unless you follow theistic evolution, which says God used evolution to create, but the Bible makes no indication of this). And you're right, creation isn't scientific because it was a supernatural event. Of course, can we study the Big Bang scientifically? Can we study the age of the earth scientifically with radiocarbon dating and meteorite age? And, do evolutionists know what the first life form was and where it came from? That is important, you know, although it may be associated with a different study. Scorpionman 15:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. There are supernatural things happening at present, too. We can't say that everything is material or can be explained away as scientific. Near-death experiences, angels and reincarnation (although I don't believe in reincarnation) are just a few examples. Scorpionman 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
While I think the scientific evidence against young-Earth creationism is quite overwhelming and I'm quite surprised that there are still people who believe it, I'm not interested in debating it; you are welcome to your religious beliefs while recognizing that this belief is fundamentally unscientific. An incomplete fossil record is not evidence against evolution. There will always be gaps in the fossil record; the only way for there to be no gaps would be for every organism, parent, offspring, grand-offspring, and so on, to be fossilized and then recovered, so that we have an unbroken chain of organisms. This is quite impossible. Fossilization is quite a rare event; a considerable number of factors must conspire for a life form to be fossilized. The tiktaalik is certainly a "missing link" in that it helps bridge a gap, but of course there are two, smaller gaps to bridge now. There will always be gaps. The real value of the find is in helping us to see more precisely how the progression to terrestrialism took place in vertebrates, not in proving that the tetrapods arose from fish. Anatomic, genetic, and paleontological evidence established that long ago. That it is a fish is part of the value of its discovery. There plenty of tetrapods with tetrapod-like features (for instance, us). But to have a fish with tetrapod-like features, that's unusual, and it helps us to see precisely how the tetrapod characteristics came about. But no, gaps in the fossil record are not evidence against evolution, they're expected. Indeed, the entire fossil record is unnecessary. Evolution stands quite well on its own based solely on the observation of life forms today, especially with the added benefit of genetic and molecular analysis. That we've actually found preserved remains of some of the species that no longer exist is a nice bonus, but certainly not required. Are you implying you don't want your religion's mythology to be true? Your comments suggest several reasons why: without it, you feel there is no reason to exist, there is no purpose in life, and no need to act morally. Yes, we can and do study the Big Bang scientifically. Yes, we can and do study the age of the Earth scientifically. No, although much has been deduced about life's origins, its precise nature is unknown, and indeed may never be known. And as I mentioned before even with perfect records it would be difficult to draw the line between nonlife and life, to say which entity was a semi-complex self-replicating system and which one was alive. There is no good definition of life. The origin of life is yes very important, but irrelevant to evolution. If God had created the first life form on Earth ("planted the seed", "breathed the spark of life"), or if life arrived from outer space (see exogenesis/panspermia), if it was brought back as contaminant by time travellers from the future, none of that matters to evolution. Given that initial primitive cell, evolution explains how life progressed over thousands of millions of years to the diversity and complexity seen today, and explains the observed anatomical, biochemical, genetic, and molecular similarities and differences, explains the paleontologic findings, has given rise to useful predictions, and underlies various other fields. That's what makes it good science. There certainly may be supernatural events happening now, and science may be inadequate at explaining some phenomena. Or perhaps not. This has no revelance to what makes evolution an excellent scientific theory, and I find you to be a bit too closed-minded for me to value debate on this matter. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
So you are the open-mined one? Have you ever read any lengthy works that define and refute evolution? I invite you you to do so, as I cannnot possible present a good argument online. An excellent book that you might want to read is Scientific Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris. Another good book is A Case for Creationby Lee Strobel. These books will challenge your relgious beliefs in evolution. And any scientist should be open to examining contradictory ideas since scientific theories are constantly changing. Have I studied evolutionary thought? Yes, I have been duly indocrinated in these ideas from grade-school on. I, too, once thought that creationists were narrow-mined bigots. Guess what? Trying to be open-mined on the subject, I went to a lecture by Henry Morris and found that such a notion could not have been farther from the truth. If you truly wish to denegrate the creationist thought, I suggest you understand it like a scientist would and then logically refute it. Right now your understanding of creationist thought is shallow and lifeless. — Scorpionman 15:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to think that I am somewhat open-minded, since I am willing to consider that creation has occurred, instead of flatly refusing it. My religious beliefs don't really have much impact on my belief in science. Of course I am always open to examining new ideas, and I remain so. I did not ask if you had studied evolution, nor does it interest me. I have never thought that creationists were narrow-minded bigots, nor did I imply such a concept. It is easy to understand and refute creationism from a scientific point of view, as you have already acknowledged. As it relies on the supernatural, and there is no evidence supporting it, it is outside the scope of science and cannot be part of a well-formed scientific theory. I do not wish to denigrate creationism and don't believe I ever had made any comment indicating such interest. You're right that I don't know too much about the details of your version of creationism; while I enjoy studying religion in general I don't see anything particularly more interesting about Christian mythology over the mythology of other religions. I'm not certain if I gave the impression that I was interested in learning about or discussing the details of Biblical creationism; I am not. My concern is that you realize that it is not science and that there is no scientific evidence against evolution. Beyond that, you are free to worship as you see fit; it is neither my place nor my intention to attempt to modify your religious beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you did not understand my last reply. You are refuting creationism, (not my version, as you put it), and if you do that you must understand what you are refuting. You do not. So, probably you should just stop speaking like the expert until you do a little more reading. Until you can speak intelligently about this topic, there is no need to reply. Most people who fail to acknowledge that scientific evidence actually points to a creator, end up speaking in circles and bashing that which they refuse to contemplate. You are no different. Scorpionman 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's my fault for not being clear. I'm not interested in refuting creationism. My interest is only pointing out the obvious that it's not and cannot be scientific, as we both have agreed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You say scientific evidence points to creationism? Please do provided some reputable secular evidence for this claim, since 99.98% of all scientists disagree with you, including Micheal Behe for one. Jefffire 18:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that line so many times I don't even believe it anymore. Scorpionman 17:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I will assume the lack of reply to my comments means you agree that creationism cannot be part of a scientific theory and that there are no scientific alternatives to biological evolution, and therefore I assume that your concerns about the Evolution article have been addressed. I have enjoyed discussing these matters with you and perhaps we can discuss some of the other areas you had questions about later on. Thanks for all your comments. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it simply means I'm waiting for you to read at least one of the books I recommended. I don't really agree to those points and the issues haven't been addressed. But I don't want to argue any more, so please read at least one of the books I mentioned. Thanks for your comments. — Scorpionman 00:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You are refuting evolution, and if you do that you must understand what you are refuting. You do not. So, probably you should just stop speaking like the expert until you do a little more reading. I suggest "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" by Mark Isaak, ISBN 031333305X. —Gabbe 10:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines creationism as "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis". It defines supernatural as "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil". You already admitted "Of course I understand that the supernatural can't be studied scientifically." Since creationism requires God, the involvement of God defines the supernatural, and the supernatural is outside the scope of science, it seems to me that you have effectively conceded this point: whatever its truth value may be, creationism is not and cannot be science. If creationism cannot even be established as part of science, then I see absolutely no reason why I should spend time or money reading those books—to be honest I find Greek and Mesopotamian mythology more interesting. I respect that you feel our discussion to be complete; if you have no other comments I'll stop leaving you messages for now. Thank you for taking the time to this matter with me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It's quite plain that you don't want to take the time to read anything refuting evolution, so there's no need for further discussion. If you are scientific, you would be open to reading Scientific Creationism, but since you aren't, there's no reason to keep discussing this. All I can say is, creation isn't provable, since it can't be observed and God isn't going to create at some scientist's whim. But the Big Bang is equally non-provable, and if you think it is then you are obviously not scientifically minded. Thank you for your time, but until you read at least one of those books there's no need to leave any more messages. And Gabbe, I understand evolution very well as I was indoctrinated with it from grade-school up, but it's obvious that you have a shallow understanding of creation and refuse to read anything refuting evolution. So I suggest you stop speaking like the expert and read a lengthy work defending creation, such as Scientific Creation by Henry Morris and/or A Case for Creation by Lee Stroebel. There's nothing in Mark Isaak's little "counter" that I haven't heard already. Scorpionman 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly *cringe*. SOme very basic misconceptions about the Big Bang theory. For one thing it's still going on right now, it didn't finish. You're not going to like it but talk.origins has an excellent primer on the Big Bang. [6]
If it's all right with you I don't like to line the pockets of creationists so I'll stick to reading what is freely available on the web. None of the articles on AiG have had much accurate science in them, mostly a combination of constant redefining of evolution or speciesation into strawmen (kind of like you do) and massively flawed science such as the quite sad articles about information theory which nearly gave a mathamatician on my campus a heart attack it was so bad (I thought it best to check the details with an expert. Apparently information theory doesn't apply to reproducing systems). I haven't yet gotten through the entirity of talk.origins yet but it look to be the same. Jefffire 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Scorpionman, that's not plain at all—after all, I did read Mr. Ham's article at your request—and I'm disappointed to see you continuing your practice of inventing support for your position when you can find none extant. I think it's reasonable for me not to wish to obtain and read an entire book; I certainly haven't asked you to read any outside material, let alone entire books. "If you are scientific, you would be open to reading Scientific Creationism" is an absurd statement; if you expect to use it in an argument you'll have to give some rationale behind its use. Whether I am or not scientifically minded is not the issue, it's whether creationism can be a part of science or whether there are any scientific alternatives to evolution. You have failed to make a case for either of these, aside from insisting that I read one of your books. This is insufficient. Surely such a simple objection as creationism not being scientific could be addressed by you directly—does it really require so much subtlety and complexity to explain that there are no web pages, or short articles to explain this? And if the explanation is really so limited as to only exist in those formats, then we should probably wait until it is more well-established in creationist writings; it would be quite non-notable now. If you feel there is no reason to continue discussion, you may certainly discontinue at your convenience. As long as there are unresolved issues I will be happy to continue discussion and will continue to reply to any messages left for me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Jeffire, your "mathematician" was obviously, like you, heavily biased against AiG and therefore refused to see the scientific accuracy in it. By the way, what did he find wrong with it?
I'm not biased at all against the AiG, I simply recognize bad or non science when I seen it. The day they do real science I won't argue, but that hasn't happened yet. You are inventing insults again. As for the scientific accuraccy of the information theory arguement, simply put if a system reproduces then the genralised conclusions of information theory which was designed for non-reproducing systems do not hold. For example if a system picks up on average one mutation every hour, and reproduces 8 times in that space, then at 15 minutes there will be 4 of the system and on average less than one of them will have an error. Exanding this onwards it's obvious now the systems can avoid the accumulation of errors which the AiG believes will be inievitable. Thus information theory holds for individual systems, but not for system which leave descendants. Jefffire 10:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, I don't really have a whole lot of time (as much as you seem to have) to argue this point online, so I'm asking that you read this book which can say a lot more in one sitting than I could. I'm aware that you read Ken Ham's article; but you called it silly because Mr. Ham said that because Dr. Spetner wasn't aware of any information-adding mutations that there weren't any. Mr. Ham said that Dr. Spetner said that he had observed the opposite; mutations damage or delete information. If whether creation is scientific is the issue here, please read the book. It can present a better argument for this point than me because I'm not a professional biologist. Thanks for your time though. Scorpionman 23:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, Scorpionman; that is quite reasonable. It probably takes me less time than you to write replies since I can draw upon a couple centuries of accumulated evidence as well as the fields of biology, medicine, and so on; also, you seem to wander into unrelated topics pretty often. But I very much understand that your time is limited. I'll let someone who has more time or who can present other arguments bring any further queries to Evolution. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's just say I've got better things to do with my time than to argue evolution. If you want a better argument, then read the book I suggested. Thanks. Scorpionman 01:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite understandable. Attempting to challenge the cornerstone of a scientific discipline on scientific terms is a major undertaking. I think I will pass on your offer for now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Bit silly of them really, if the arguements in the book are so great, why are they putting up such flawed arguements on the web? As for my mathmatician friend being 'biased' against AiG, he's never heard of them. Jefffire 09:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keept attacking them without reason? Give an example of how they're scientifically errored. Blanket statements just don't cut it. Sorry. Scorpionman 13:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not attacking them, I'm criticising their science. The reasons why the information theory approach is rubbish is given above by me. Their opinions on radiometric dating are not supported by the bulk of the evidence or any of the experts on the matter. They say that a change in allele frequences is not evolution when in fact it is. They say that a loss of gene function is not evolution when in fact it is. Their counter of the evolution of nylon waste digestion in bacteria makes absolutely no sense and makes a number of claims that are simply not true, such as directed mutation and that plasmids some how 'don't count'. I say this as someone quite experienced in study of bacteria. In short they use bad science in a desperate bid to attack evolution, but just reveal their own ignorance of the matters. If there is some evidence that evolution hasn't occured, then it certainly isn't to be found on that website. Jefffire 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you direct me to the particular article that you're criticizing? Also, go here [7] and take your complaints to AiG rather than criticizing it to me. Tell them about their inaccuracies and see what they say. Don't assume that if you don't get an answer right away that they can't answer you; they recieve a lot of mail and you may have to wait for a reply. But back to the issue you'll just have to direct me to the particular article; I'll examine it. While I really don't agree that they should be desperately trying to attack evolution without basis, they have a basis; I suppose it depends on who wrote the article (there are different kinds of scientists there and it may not have been in a relevant area) but then I just have to see the article. Scorpionman 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the entire list of the information theory pages from AiG [[8]]. Almost every single one of them is based on the misunderstanding of information theory that I showed was wrong earlier. The nylon waste eating bacteria is also mentioned. Judging from their past responces to people pointing out errors in their arguements they will simply repeat the arguements, fail to grasp why they are flawed and then quote a Bible passage to 'prove' their point. They are a well funded organization, they shouldn't be making these basic errors. Jefffire 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What could it hurt to tell them about your percieved inaccuracies? Look, if you think they are scientifically inaccurate then go to the link and civially tell them about these "inaccuracies". Stop telling me about them until you've told them. Scorpionman 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually they've already been informed, I checked their feedback. I'm telling you about it because you believe them to be a legitimate source of scientific information. Jefffire 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, how'd they respond to the criticisms? Were the criticisms by actual scientists or by anticreation extremists? Were they even the same criticisms as yours? Scorpionman 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms based on their fuzzy definition of 'information' are present on the link I provided. From the responce it is clear that the author doesn't have any way of measuring the 'informatation' of an entire organism, just a single gene. Even then what he define as 'information' is fallacious, as a protein with an extremly high level of specificity or catalytic capacity may be detremental to the cell as a whole. Additionally in experinemts where genetic 'information' has been deliberately destroyed the bacteria slowly evolve the function back, so the entire premise is flawed. talk.origins also lists their objects, some of which are analogous to mine, and is freely available to the AiG. These aren't 'anticreationist' criticisms. These are the rigorus and valid criticisms of legitimate scientists and mathmaticians of a wide range of religious or not views. Jefffire 10:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm sick of arguing about this. Like I said, I'm not a professional. What I can say is that AiG has often been misquoted or misunderstood. Of course, no scientist is going to be perfect nor is he going to have a completely satisfactory answer for everything that goes on in the cosmos. However, evolutionists have also made errors in their methodology, yet they jump down the throat of a creationist when he does the same. So, you could take this complaint to them, but I believe that they are scientifically accurate and I'm not going to stop trusting them just because of a few "errors" pointed out by evolutionists. Seeing as how I stand such, you may as well stop trying to convince me. I respect your views but I don't agree with them. Scorpionman 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that they are scientifically accurate Are you admitting that your trust is a matter of faith? This is really all that I was saying. Hopefully you now understand how articles of faith have no place in wiki's science articles. Jefffire 09:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll say "I know that they're scientifically accurate." There. Now I'm through arguing about this. Scorpionman 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
How pray tell do you know they are 'scientifically accurate'? Especialy when you freely admit that you are not that well versed in science. Jefffire 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't well-versed in science, I said that they have probably made a few mistakes. But so have a lot of secular scientists. Scorpionman 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Those 'few mistakes' in the creationist articles are the critical ones which invalidate the entire premise. Jefffire 15:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Then those same "few mistakes" invalidate the entire evolutionary premise as well. I'm through with this. Scorpionman 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
If you aren't willing to justify yourself then I recomend that you stop trying to add creationist dogma to wikipedia. Jefffire 09:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Just how am I supposed to justify myself? I think I've already done that. Scorpionman 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
No you haven't. All you have done is repeat your claim that the likes of AiG are scietifically valid, even in the face of evidence against. It is time to acept that this is a matter of faith for you, rather than science. Jefffire 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
You can't even prove that they're scientifically inaccurate; you just listed some problems you were finding with an article on nylon-eating bacteria! Ahem, I'd just like to know, do you even know who wrote the articles? Scorpionman 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Surely who wrote it is irrelevent? A quite look back reveals that it is a doctor of plant physiology named Don Batten. I picked out this article as an example as it is directly within my field of expertise. If there is anouther article crucial to YEC that you would like to discuss feel free to bring it up, but it is simply inncorrect to claim (as AiG does) that information theory makes evolution impossible. Jefffire 09:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'd say that's fair enough. I've never heard of this Don Batten guy before but I don't know if he was stating that information theory makes evolution impossible. But anyway, no information theory doesn't make evolution impossible; as a matter of fact we agree it occurs, though it doesn't change an alligator into a bird (or some such change). Scorpionman 16:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Only an intelligence could change an alligater into a bird. A bird from a therapod on the other hand... Jefffire 16:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe that but you can if you want. I've already been through an argument on the therapod-dinosaur subject. Scorpionman 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Peretti4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peretti4.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hunter 16:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem with Image:Peretti4.jpg

Image:Peretti4.jpg is tagged with {{AllRightsReserved}}. I speedily deleted it in accordance with the tag's directions: "If this image was uploaded after May 19, 2005, it will soon be deleted without further warning." Please do not upload further images that third parties may not use, as they will be speedily deleted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem with Image:Di deinonychus.jpg

You state that the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to this image, yet the source web site states "Copyright 1997 - 2006 by Link & Pin Hobbies." Could you explain why you believe all rights have been released? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I saw that on the source site, but I can change the rights. Should it be "all rights reserved"? Scorpionman 22:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Scorpionman 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, even if you didn't see the copyright statement, works are automatically copyrighted unless otherwise specified. In general, we can't use any images from the Internet unless they specifically allow us to (for instance, NASA imases being part of the public domain) or in limited cases, using them under fair use. {{AllRightsReserved}}-tagged images may be speedily deleted at any time (see the notice). Unless you have some information that the copyright holder has released rights to this image, it should be deleted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any copyright information at Link and Pin Hobbies, where I found this image. Perhaps there's a way to contact them? Scorpionman 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you do, you'll need to get permission from them to release their image either under the GFDL or one of the allowable Creative Commons licenses; basically, they will have to agree that the image can be used for any purpose, so long as they are credited. There is some information available at Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. If you are successful at getting permission, there is a place to document it there, as well as an e-mail address to forward the e-mail to. I'm going to delete the images for now since it's obvious we're currently violating copyright. If they do grant permission, please feel free to upload the image. I'm also happy to answer any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem with Image:Rel peretti.jpg

You state that the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to this image, yet the source web site states "© Copyright 2005 Frank Peretti." Could you explain why you believe all rights have been released? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No. If you aren't satisfied, change 'em. Scorpionman 22:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
If there is no statement that the copyright holder releases the rights, the image will have to be deleted. I'm sure this is frustrating for you; obtaining free-use images for Wikipedia is a major problem. It is difficult to find images we can legally use and reuse. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YEC isn't dumb!

I just want to say that I don't think Young Earth Creationism is dumb, or stupid or narrow-minded. I myself am a Christian (Catholic, baptised this year, although there is no definite Church teaching on the subject, we are free to hold pretty much any view) and I see more and more how a YEC view just makes sense. So I would just like to congratulate you for defending your belifs arounde here! --JoeTalk!WorkEspMail 02:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And I am most pleased to see a fellow creationist on this heavily biased encyclopedia! Scorpionman 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of advice from a fellow evolution article person...

One thing i've learned over the months is that distinction between definition of words is critical. Whenever people are talking about "Evolution is a fact!" This generally refers only to microevolution, though it is mostly obvious that their implying macroevolution is clearly indicated from it. When Creationists (Much like yourself) counter with "Evolution is a lie!" most evolutions seem eager to pull the old definition switch and assume that we're talking about microevolution, since it must seem so "obvious" to many that microevolution and macroevolution are just the same to people going by the natural selection theory. The distinction therefore goes as follows, the theory of evolution contains Microevolution, macroevolution, and natural selection. As I think i've picked up, the theory part that they'll admit is the natural selection bit, which apparently explains to them how macroevolution is possible. But the microevolution bit isn't a theory at all, although you'll mostly see microevolution in the context of "Well, its just small bits of macroevolution", all it really is factually is just the observations of some species changing a little without really becoming anything else. I just thought i'd give this out to ya, because all the definition switching people tend to do closes arguments very quickly here :/. Homestarmy 17:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...Yes, I see what you mean. Basically, microevolution is the part that's a fact, and macroevolution is the theoretical part of it. Of course, the evolution page says that it explains the species divergence in the world, which is based on speculation, not observability. :p Scorpionman 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the speculation part is the key to being able to find holes in the theory :). I already gave my best effort against this article awhile ago, and all I wanted was a single NPOV sentence about creationists who were also scientists, but I couldn't get a thing :/. Homestarmy 22:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem here. Wikipedia's biased against creationism, and the evolutionist users are controlling everything. You can try to be NPOV and civil and just get a single sentence about scientific creationists, but the evolutionists on here won't tolerate it (the administrators aren't doing anything about it, you'll notice). You can throw the most convincing evidence at them and they will make up some crazy explanation for it. The best way to explain why is because they are "willingly ignorant" (II Peter 3:5). None of their actions surprise me.:( Scorpionman 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
If I may make a suggestion, based on the troubles you seem to be getting from all the articles related to evolution, this may not be a fight that can be won feasibly. It's true that evolution often gives some people an excuse for more atheistic leanings, but one thing i've come to learn, is that even if you prove to someone that the theory of evolution is wrong, will that prove Christianity right? What I mean is this, if an evolutionist somehow decides to renounce the theory based on something they read or hear from you or another creationist, will renouncing evolution automatically lead to creationism, and therefore becoming a Christian? It's highly possible a person who no longer believes the theory of evolution to be true will simply not choose any side, or may pick up creationism from a compleatly different religion. The thing is, proving creationism shouldn't have to be a necessary part of showing people the truth, and as it appears you've discovered, takes up a....signifigant amount of time to little effect on the other side. Perhaps broaden your horizons on Wikipedia, there are many other places and discussion to get into which, with proper citations (Yes, its possible to cite things which defend Christianity and are actually good citations :) ), can certainly serve to defend Christianity with far more minimal an effort and possibly with much more impact than the evolution vs. creationism debate. Articles like Jesus, Jesus-Myth, Day of Truth,(that one might be merged by the time you see this) might be examples where you can talk about the Christian perspective, (And maybe help improve those articles, Jesus in particular needs alot of citations for something), or hey, even relatively unrelated articles give plenty of chances to discuss things with people, such as John Hagee, D. James Kennedy, Law and Gospel, Fundamentalist Christianity, or who knows what! The possibilities are much more complex than a head-on popular-apologetics-discussion which often frustrates people and comes to nothing, maybe you could even help out on the Good Article collaboration, we even got Jesus as the collaboration for the very first one, but there was pretty much no participation :(. Perhaps if the collaboration gets more active, its effect will be increased, so the next time someone nominated a Christianity related article(Like, I dunno, Christianity :) ) it will actually be improved to featured status, and may get on the main page so that many can see it. It's those sort of things that, in their own way, can be used to actually help out Christianity without getting into frustrating arguments which solve very little, after all, we are commanded to be "...wise as serpants, and harmless as doves" :). Homestarmy 13:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest trying your hand at some of the pseudoscience articles. Some of them have become very POV under unchecked editing from supporters. A hard head and tenacity would be quite helpful there. I think it would do you good to work on something where you agree with the scientific consensus. Jefffire 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing previous comments on talk pages

Please stop making inflamatory comments on Talk pages and then editing them shortly after. It gives me the impression that you want to stir up trouble. Ladlergo 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?!! Scorpionman 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The Tiktaalik page, for one. Here's one series of edits:
April 22, 12:44: So why do you think that the Starlight problem and Tiktaalik fossil are big problems for AiG? They are also of the opinion that there is a lot that we don't know the answers to.
April 22, 12:45: So why do you think that the Starlight problem and Tiktaalik fossil are big problems for YECs? They are also of the opinion that there is a lot that we don't know the answers to.
April 22, 13:34: We'd better stop this argument before you get even more ludicrous.
April 22, 13:35: We'd better stop this argument before it gets even more ludicrous.
Is there another impression I should be getting from this behavior? Ladlergo 01:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I edited the comment "We'd better stop this argument before it gets even more ludicrous" twice. I don't know why that happened. Scorpionman 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're listed as editing it to the final comment at all the times listed above. If you don't know what happened, would you care to make a guess? Ladlergo 15:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I probably clicked the "Save" button more than once. Is that good enough, or should I tell you that it was done by bug-eyed aliens from Saturn? ;) Scorpionman 19:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
While I just tried that on my talk page, it didn't work that way, but I'll assume that it worked that way for you. In the future, would you please refrain from making comments that appear to others to be personal insults, even if you immediately change them? It doesn't give the impression of civil discourse. Ladlergo 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Please don't add to my signature again like you did on April 20.
Okay. Fair enough. No, I won't add any more emoticons or anything else to your signature in the future. Scorpionman 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Several other users and I have warned about your inappropriate behavior, yet it continues to worsen. I was disturbed to see a highly inappropriate comment, and a review of your recent contributions reveals many problematic statements. Calling other users prejudiced [9]. You have no evidence that he is prejudging anything instead of evaluating its merits, nor is personal commentary on the editor relevant. Discuss the contention, not the contributor. You claim evidence against evolution [10] without explaining how it invalidates evolution. You agree that creationism is not science [11] and have never addressed the explanations I and others have given you on it, either agreeing or saying you can't argue it, yet you wander from science article to science article complaining about how creationism is really scientific and that everyone else is biased, such as [12] and [13]. Appending others' comments [14] with emoticons is inappropriate. Calling someone's comment "stupid sarcasm" [15] is inappropriate. You remove a reference and replace content with original research [16]. This is inflammatory, at best. Your "atheist vs. Christian" comment [17] was especially bad, and what drew my attention in the first place. Not only does the talk page of this and other articles clearly show you to be the one challenging science, not the other way around, I have not seen anyone propose any evidence that God does not exist. And the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant to evolution. In any case, it does not help and can only harm discussion to improve the article. Either you know this, and are deliberately being inflammatory, or you don't realize it and just lack understanding. If the former, it's clearly trolling, simply trying to get a rise out of others. If the latter, then while you may be well-intentioned, your grasp of these matters makes you ill-equipped to discuss them, as you also mentioned to me before, and you should refrain from making those comments. Especially for articles such as these which contain matter controversial in some countries. As you know, article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not the topic. Yet you continue to attempt debate of these in multiple ares, changing the Talk:Evolution header [18]; even your user page proudly proclaims "I am a young earth creationist (as some editors know very well) and have done quite a bit of debating on the theory of evolution." (It then goes on to say "I respect the Answers in Genesis organization (a lot of editors here don't respect them at all, but I won't get into any arguments)", though you clearly get into many arguments). You make a presumption of how I would react [19] to evidence against evolution, despite having no basis for making such a judgment and despite my personal reaction being irrelevant. Discuss the material, not the contributor. This [20] is unhelpful and rude; if you disagree with the statement, either explain why, or refrain from commenting.

Please understand that you cannot simply wander from page to page, trying to stir up trouble. Please also ensure that you are familiar with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, including WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. Also realize that when one leaves one's local group and interacts with others on the Internet, one finds a much more diverse group than one is used to. If you feel that everyone else, consider the possibility that you may be a bit mistaken yourself. In any event, this behavior is counterproductive and not appropriate. I attempted to explain to you why it was inappropriate before; you replied that you lacked the time and knowledge to discuss it and then went on to initiate discussion in multiple articles. I understand it's frustrating when others don't share your beliefs, but I think you are getting too worked up over this, and lashing out at other editors in this manner only harms you and your position. I would like you to take a short break from Wikipedia. When the block expires, you are welcome to resume editing. If I see you making inflammatory, counterproductive comments again, you can expect another block. Enough is enough. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me get something straight here. You block me for some comments that you think are "unhelpful and rude", but you don't get after users who say utter nonsense ("The scientific way of dating the age of the earth...Isn't a point of view; it's a fact" -Cyde Weys)(If I misquoted him, let me know) Science has never proven anything to be a fact, and you ought to know this since you claim to be so scientific yourself. You argue against creation, yet you told me that you aren't even interested in learning about it in the section above "Re:Trolling". This is the way of Wikipedian evolutionists (and most other evolutionists); they go on scavenger hunts to find ways to bash creationists. You said that the "Atheist vs. Christian" argument was "especially bad"; what about the "Christian vs. Atheist" argument above it? You didn't delete that, simply because it was put there by an evolutionist. You say it's wrong for me to call other users "prejudiced" and "biased", and yet you never get after evolutionists who call creationists like Ken Ham biased. As for my edit on "Criticisms of CreationWiki", I reverted it due to the tags on the page. Forgive me if I am misinformed, but the evolutionist editors on here seem desperate to get me blocked so they go and find edits that I have made that they dislike so they can block me. Scorpionman 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "Calling someone's comment 'stupid sarcasm' is inappropriate" Making sarcastic and flippant comments such as the one made by DinoGuy should be inappropriate. He completely misunderstood what was being said. Scorpionman 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should be blocked... Jefffire 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I blocked you not for any single lapse, but the pattern of disruption that I have been seeing develop over the last week or so. Unable to get your way in articles, you appear to wander from article to article, trying to start a fight. This is not acceptable. I do not argue against creation; and I ask you once again not to put words in my mouth. I argue that creation is not scientific; that it cannot be part of a well-formed scientific theory. To me it appears that the posts on Evolution, Tiktaalik, and so on do not discuss creationism until you or other editors come along and start trying to add Christian perspectives. I hardly think it can be construed as going on a scavenger hunt. I didn't delete the "Christian vs. Atheist" argumement because I don't like to delete comments from talk pages; I didn't delete your "Atheist vs. Christian" argument either and your conclusion is unwarranted. I neither condone nor condemn the portrayal of Mr. Ham, I lack the knowledge to know if the portrayal is accurate. Discussing other editors is different from discussing notable figures outside Wikipedia with regards to how they might figure in article content. Outside of Wikipedia, who is saying something is very important, for that is how we supply references. The qualifications and credentials of a source are vital. Within Wikipedia, that is largely irrelevant. You should address the objections or points other contributors are making without insulting or passing judgment on them. It is all right that you are misinformed, but no, I don't believe that anyone is desperate to get you blocked; if so, you would have been blocked long ago. Quite the opposite, I see several users, including myself, pointing out inappropriate behavior and trying to get you modify your behavior so it would not come to this point. Certainly no one asked me to block you and I am not aware of any discussion regarding save for the Administrators' noticeboard mention when your behavior was especially poor.
Your block will expire in a couple hours, and you may resume editing. Please find constructive ways to contribute to articles. Use talk pages to discuss how an article might be improved. And if other editors don't agree with you, accept it and move on. They don't always agree with me, either, and it's frustrating when others don't see things my way, but I accept that things can't always be the way I want them to be. Don't simply visit talk pages to argue the merits of the topic or to insult other editors. If you do, I will not hesitate to block you again. Please contact me with any questions or concerns, or if you are unsure what sort of behavior is appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Steel drum.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Steel drum.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.109.179 17:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and very rude! Every time I upload an image it gets deleted! What's the point of uploading images to this Wikipedia if all that's going to happen is they're going to get deleted because they don't satisfy some communist's idea of "released rights"! Scorpionman 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/User_talk%7EScorpionman_archive_1_b1f0.html"