User talk:208.188.2.101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Electronic filter

Hi,

Regarding the disagreement over the phrasing of the sentence about Q-factor in the Electronic filter article. Q-factor can most definitely be defined in terms of the ratio of the passband bandwidth and the centre frequency. Therefore, the term "comparison" is appropriate in this context. I agree that the sentence doesn't read as well as it could, but it's certainly more correct than "about".

Perhaps we can find a better way to phrase the sentence, whilst still maintaining the meaning of "comparison".

Regards, Oli Filth(talk) 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Oli,
I appreciate your comment. Thank you for taking the time to post this. My main issue with the sentence is the way it reads, but I will defer to you on this. I appreciate your acknowledgment of my intended efforts from my revision.
Yours, 208.188.2.101 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Creation science, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please review WP:LEAD - the lead paragraph is determined by the contents of the body. Also, your edits have been contested, please discuss them on the talk page, in this case Talk:Creation science. Also note that wikipedia is not a soapbox and wikipedia articles requires verification through reliable sources. Creation science is a contentious subject and is not seen as scientific either on wikipedia or by any mainstream scientific body. WLU (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creation science. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I urge you to discuss the matter at Talk:Creation science. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning removal

Though you are permitted to remove warnings from your talk page, as you did in this edit, note that archiving is preferred, and admins who block people will check the page history to see if warnings have been removed. Such information is never removed thanks to the history tab. Further, on Creation science, please engage on the talk page. This is the appropriate action if an edit is contested. Just removing text you don't like will get you blocked. WLU (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT#FORUM

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Pseudoscience are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

I'm pasting this from talk:pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. What you or I think is irrelevant, what counts is sources. Please do not chat about this, or any other topic on wikipedia. You are wasting my time, your time, everyone else's time, and it is an inappropriate use of the encyclopedia.

You misunderstand. I am not arguing against evolution. I just want you to accept that, in order to be consistent with yourself, if evolution is somehow ever proven wrong, you will change your acceptance of it. Humor me. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WLU (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can state with absolute certainty that the Theory of Evolution will be proved "wrong" at least slightly. It will then be replaced by new version of the theory whose differences from the old one are most probably imperceptible to those outside the field of Evolutionary Biology. This has happened numerous times in the past, with each modification being smaller than the last. The probability of its wholesale disproof is far below that of me getting hit by an asteroid, so you'll forgive me if I don't give this scenario much thought. HrafnTalkStalk 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

208.188.2.101, read and follow the advice above, including all the linked articles, or I'll have to assume that you're trolling. For what it's worth, I'm sure aspects of evolution theory will be proven wrong again, and replaced by better understanding. On the other hand, do you have a verifiable source showing "creation science" proponentsists willing to accept disproof of their religious preconceptions, or of their reading of the bible? If so, bring the evidence to the talk page. If it's just your own opinion, it's not useful. .. dave souza, talk 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And repeatedly posting your question against the above good advice is WP:DE which will lead to blocking. Please stop. .. dave souza, talk 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My statement was no less relevant than the preceding. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
But the underlying, foundational assumptions of evolution will not change. So, creationists are justified in their foundational beliefs, by your standards, as long as they reexamine the transitory interludes. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The equivalence that you assume between the foundational assumptions of the entire endevour of science (not just evolution) and those of creationism is completely and utterly unmerited. The scientific method has been adopted, a posteri, because they have been shown to work. The examples of how it works are all around you from electricity to digital electronics, to modern medicine. What has creationism produced, except for a fragile comfort to those whose religious preconceptions are threatened by the modern world? Science and methodological naturalism works, Creationism and supernaturalism doesn't. HrafnTalkStalk 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me be specific. Creationism is a very specific aspect of science. It deals with origins, as does evolution. It is not verifiable, in the sense that evolution is not verifiable. It examines data against the backdrop of a broad assumption (i.e. biblical creation). It is not the laboratory-based, iterative process that isolates a given variable (i.e. that which is testable and reproducable). I do not see the difference that you are asserting. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No. "Creationism is a very specific aspect of" Christian apologetics. It deals with defending the religious viewpoint of Biblical inerrancy. Its claims (e.g. a global flood and a young Earth) have been throughly debunked, whereas the predictions of the Theory of Evolution have been repeatedly confirmed. It does not "examine data", it cherry-picks, distorts and misrepresents it. The difference is simple: scientists do research, Creationists then come along afterwards and lie about it. HrafnTalkStalk 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, we're all wasting our time at this point. DNFTT. WLU (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WLU: in the words of the Messrs M. Python, "you're no fun anymore" :P HrafnTalkStalk 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, I'm sorry you feel that way. I thoroughly disagree. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course you do -- hence the complete disconnect between Creationism and Science. HrafnTalkStalk 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)