User talk:Albert Einstien's ghost
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Submachine (game series)
What happened to the article on the Submachine game series? It seems to no longer exist :(
--220.237.112.48 10:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently, somebody (I think it was an admin) deleted it. They said the the "notability" of the article was not asserted. I think it's a piece of bull, but that's the way it is. And I don't think I can ever get the article back. It's quite sad really.
- Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to recreate the Submachine (game series) article then go ahead; it's fine by me. I would do so if I had the time. --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to macroevolution. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Baegis (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please tell me how my edit could be considered vandalism. --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- You attempted to insert nonsense into the article. The "controversy" you speak of in Macroevolution exists only in the mind's of those who have another a separate problem with evolutionary theory. If you think there is an actual controversy, among those in the field (ie, actually study these things) bring it up on the talk page. Aside from that, it's patent disruption. Baegis (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Nonsense! Really, now? What is this "separate problem"? The controversial issue is the theory of evolution, or more specifically, of macroevolution. How can there not be any controversy among scientists about macroevolution? None? None whatsoever? Please explain this. --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
That's scary that there is no controversy in science. In order to for knowledge and reason to progress, it seems to me that new ideas have to be introduced. These new ideas will likely create friction with other ideas. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely, JBFrenchhorn! Your idea is at the core of knowledge, and therefore the core of science. However, macroevolutionists often hate to debate with those scientists who believe in the theory of intelligent design by dismissing them as "pseudoscientists". Why is this? Is it because macroevolutionists fear that their theory is flawed? Or is there another reason? That, I cannot answer. --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
dear AE's ghost, i'm a postdoctoral science professional and i can tell you FYI that it's been several decades since evolution was disputed within science circles. there is literally millions of published, peer-reviewed articles by hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world from numerous scientific disciplines that provide evidence for evolution. you will not find a genuine scientist today that questions evolution - why? because there is no solid evidence that refutes it, and as above, there is a ridiculous amount of evidence for it. the only "scientists" you hear from or read about that "question" evolution are not real scientists. why? because they have no scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals - ie: they are charlatans. eg: try finding any articles that present evidence against evolution on pubmed. you won't find any. hope this clarifies things :-) Mjharrison (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there really no evidence at all that seems to oppose macroevolution? For example, isn't the basic premise of macroevolution that all of life came into being from non-living matter? How does that work out? I am also uncertain that macroevolution adequately explains the truly vast complexity of life forms. Lastly, how does macroevolution explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Thanks, --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- "isn't the basic premise of macroevolution that all of life came into being from non-living matter" No, that's abiogensis, about which there is considereable debate.
- "I am also uncertain that macroevolution adequately explains the truly vast complexity of life forms." You can be as uncertain as you want. Wikipedia articles require reliable sources.
- "Lastly, how does macroevolution explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics?" It doesn't, that's physics, not biology. thx1138 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If that is the theory of abiogenesis, then how did life come into being under the theory of macroevolution?
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that (quoting the article) "the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium". Couldn't this be used as an argument against macroevolution?.
-
-
-
- Thanks...Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, it's not that the earth is a "non-isolated system" that reconciles Evolution with the 2nd Law of Thermo. You can take Evolution to have occurred in "the Solar System," if you like, which I would say is isolated enough to be considered "closed" as far as the 2nd Law is concerned in this case. (The Sun, of course, does have a lot to do with life...).
- But let's just take the Earth to be closed, Albert, for the sake of argument. Are you sure that Entropy hasn't increased on Earth "over time"...? I think you would like to argue that "the truly vast complexity of life forms" you mention above is a manifestation of order, when, in fact, of course, it is a manifestation of complexity, and therefore the Earth in that sense is in a state of greater entropy than would be a system without that "vast complexity."
- Or was it the 2nd Law you wanted to call into question...?
- Anyway, the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, Albert. In other words, it could be wrong. Or, certainly, incomplete. That is because it is a scientific theory, with the requirement that it be falsifiable. One of the things that makes "Intelligent Design" non-scientific is that it is not particularly falsifiable. I could be wrong about that, though -- what's your view? Could "Intelligent Design" be wrong, do you think? Are you be willing to accept that possibility at least as much as I accept that Evolution could be wrong? Are you willing to look equally into the evidence both for and against both "theories" and then on that basis alone decide for yourself which of the two best accounts for all the data available? Yes or no?
- Just curious, —Wikiscient— 14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Re: "the way life began" - as they've implied above, the Darwinian theory of evolution only explains things after life began. The process of the beginning of life is the realm of something else (you can talk to abiogenesis people about that).
-
-
- Also, if it's any help, this is how I've always thought of life in the context of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Yes, the organisms on earth make the planet more ordered than it would be without them. This is a local decrease in entropy. So how does life do it? Well, in order to create order, life takes sunlight (useful, low-entropy energy) and converts it to waste heat (unuseful, high-entropy energy). It siphons energy out of this low- to high-entropy flow in order to build up complex, ordered life. But overall, more entropy is created by the creation of heat than is lost by the creation of life. So total disorder still increases. Qwerty0 (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
