User talk:Alinnisawest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to yell at me for what I've done here!

Contents

[edit] The new and improved Wikipedia:WikiProject Artix Entertainment

I've just finished going through and cleaning up the entire project. It is now ready for active use. Please note that the project userbox has been moved to {{User WikiProject Artix Entertainment}}. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boxes

I love your userboxes! Do you mind if I copy some into my area? -I am the RockReader... I will answer all of your problems. 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faith

Can I argue with you about faith? I'm a Christian, and I believe the bible. It could just be that I am growing up in an athiestic world, but I also believe in evolution. I am the RockReader... I will answer all of your problems. 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished your articles, you're very clever, I'll give you that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockreader (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing it with someone. I try to consider myself a fairly open person... I mean, I am convinced that evolution isn't right, but I'm perfectly willing to fairly consider evidence for it. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here goes. How do you explain fossils, and the fact that we can carbon-date fossils? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockreader (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, often scientists actually do not date the fossils themselves. They date them by the rocks they find them in. So many fossil ages are based on what they believe is the age of the rock layer they are in- rock layers dated by radioactive dating, which has been shown to be inaccurate. For rocks that are known to be only 200 years old, radioactive dating has given values of 22 to 200 million years old! So dating fossils by the rocks they are in is generally a risky proposition, because the methods used to date rocks have questionable accuracy.
About carbon dating: You probably know how carbon dating works- they figure the percentage of carbon left in a fossil or artifact, and working backwards with the half-life of carbon-14, they determine how old something is. This should be a fairly accurate way of dating things. There's only one problem- it uses the percentage of carbon originally in the organism in the formula. But scientists don't really know how much was in the organism to begin with. They can guess, but they do not know for sure.
Also on the topic of carbon dating, it's only accurate to within less than 26,000 years. Furthermore, the decay rate of carbon-14 is actually still under question. Libby, who came up with the system, later said that the decay of carbon-14, under certain circumstances, may not always be constant. He also found a new system to readjust the ages found by the old method. Using his new method, many things dated at 20,000 years old with the old method have an age of less than 6,000 years old with the adjusted method- which is well within the young earth timescale. Alinnisawest (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've heard carbon dating isn't accurate beyond 5,000 years. I've also read that scientists have tried carbon dating a living shell fish once and got a result saying it had been dead for a long time. I don't know any unbiased sources for that though. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that neither creation nor evolution can be proven wrong. (please note that I am an Agnostic or an Agnostic Theist, as I mostly associate any faith I have with Christianity) Both theories and beliefs have roughly an equal amount of evidence in their favor, and both carry the distinct complication that non of us will ever see either happen in our lifetimes. Evolution is slow, and extended over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, while creation only happens once because God already created everything he wanted to. Radiological dating does have a varrying degree of accuracy to be admitted, but it isn't nearly as inaccurate as you think. In the other sense, God is said to be omnipotent. You cannot prove an omnipotent being to be non-existant because said omnipotent being may simply not want to tell you it is there. This is also because humans are mortal and therefore can be wrong. It is also considered blaspheamous by the Roman Catholic Church to place any limits on God's power. Being omnipotent, God can create the world in any way he wants, be it instant creation or in 4.5 billion years of evolution. More in favor of evolution is the fact that order can and does spontaneously arrise from chaos. This is plainly called spontaneous order. To apply the second law of thermodynamics to such a thing as evolutionary life isn't quite as gound-breaking as you might think. The very foundation of evolution is that life fixes itself over time. Harmful mutations quickly die off, while helpful ones live longer and reproduce. Over very extended periods of time, evolution naturally arrives at order. The second law of thermodynamics is no good arguement against evolution, as there is more than enough evidence that evolution follows the rule. Non of this proves or denies either belief, but exemplifies that you can't possibly prove either wrong. --Netaviofhell (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's no rule saying you have to be a major contributer to be part of the Wikiproject! It's just saying that you contribute a bit to the articles, or at least one of the articles. About the topic at hand though, don't forget that mutations that have a significant impact on an organism are A) extremely rare and B) almost exclusively harmful. The only significant, remotely useful, widespread mutation is sickle-cell anemia. It keeps its carriers from getting malaria, but they usually die at a young age anyway. So I never did understand how we are expected to believe that mutations can create such huge changes, even over supposed millions or billions of years. And, as a young-earth creationist, I don't really believe the world is billions of years old, anyway. Hmm, I should probably put up another section on that. I'll have to work on it. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I also have a pretty important question that you must consider seriously to have this be a truly neutral arguement. Though not specifically about evolution, it is related. The Big Bang Theory, stating that the universe began from the inflationary expansion (not explosion) of all space time and matter from a single infinitely dense point at some finite time in the past is the current scientific consensus about the beginning of the universe. Though today nearly anyone that believes the theory is an athiest, this theory was originally proposed by a devout Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. I'm finding it difficult to understand how an apparently religious man, who obviously never denied the existance of God and put a lot of logical thought into his work, would have proposed this theory. However, some understanding may come when you realize that prior to this theory the scientific community was even more blatantly atheist and denied that the universe ever had a beginning at all. They thought the universe had always existed in almost the same state for all eternity. --Netaviofhell (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Darwin was in training to be a minister. Just because someone's religious doesn't mean I agree with them. In Lemaître's time, people were grasping at whatever they could find to explain how to have God and evolution. I do not believe in evolution; thus, I do not believe the universe has to be millions of years old. Speaking of which, I need to add that to my userpage. Alinnisawest (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am the RockReader... I will answer all of your problems.

I've just realised, I'm the only person, apart from you of course, to be talking here! Should I shut up now?

Eh, I don't care! Alinnisawest (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

It's your peer from the MechQuest team, Sunsetsunrise. Could you review the McGill University for me? And once your done reading this, the review is here. Thanks, once again, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MechQuest

About the SDF: Under Style in the VG project guidelines it says, "When writing about a game's story elements be sure to keep a real-world perspective. Simply put, do not describe fiction as fact. For example: "Link awakened after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda." This sentence talks about fiction from a perspective within its world. "The start of the game shows Link awaking after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda." This sentence talks about fiction from the perspective out of its world." Does that help explain what I was trying to say?

The Melee Combat edit: Great job! It's much better now. Could explain saving somewhere though? Sorry I haven't had much time to help out lately. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Characters in DragonFable

Thank you so much for taking on that page - I've been dreading that one ever since I started the clean-ups ^_^;. If you want any help with it, please let me know (like if you want me to tackle a few characters to give you more time on the rest, or if you have any questions on wikipolicy, or whatever). Keep up the good work! --Eruhildo (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't know why I decided to take it on, but it's just... so horrible!! I guess the only thing to do is take it a section at a time. Speaking of which, what sort of things do you think should be in each section? I don't think there needs to be an explicit listing of every single quest they feature in, maybe just a short review of their backstory. Sound OK? Oh, and I could throw in a note for Artix, Cy, and so on about how they're staff members. Alinnisawest (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds perfect! --Eruhildo (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Creation of Nearly 30 Accounts in the Past Two Days?

I recommend you look at WP:ACC. FunPika 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

People who do work at that process can access this page to see a list of pending requests for accounts. I have been handling account requests on that list recently. FunPika 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Barks

Hi, just thought I should explain why I have again reverted your addition of the unref tag. The "refimprove" tag should be used once sources are added and not the "unref" tag from which it shoudl be changed. I have added that tag onto the article now. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanation understood perfectly. Thank you for taking the time to explain your actions- most people wouldn't have! Alinnisawest (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I just didn't want you to think I was interfering or anything!! Good work though and Have fun!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Christainity

I saw that you have removed your membership from Wikiproject Christainity . May I know if there is there a particular reason ? We really wish to have you back onboard -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Joining the Wikiproject

I'd be happy to join the project, I was the one who initially re-vamped the AQ page a while ago. While the whole idea about AQW not needing an article till release is reasonable, most games on Wikipedia get articles before their release. Wrath of the Lich King, for example. Just incase it DOES get deleted, I'll save the page in a word document now. -AQWIKI (Talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)