Sparrows point
It seems you are trying to push a POV. Joelito (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Not so, only trying to correct this article. I have not mentioned creationism or God in my revision. Attempts to pass off the Theory of Evolution without calling it a theory is disingenuous and dishonest.
- You have not mentioned it but you are trying to modify the text to possibly imply God. I consider that dishonest. Joelito (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you want to put the word theory in? Everyone KNOWS it is a theory. It is very famous. It is tedious to repeat it over and over. Also, remember that the scientific meaning of "theory" is completely different from the regular English usage of the word "theory". --Filll 01:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you not include the word "theory" when discussing the theory of relativity?
It would appear your agenda is to get people to believe that ToE is proven fact. Other than that, what real reason would you have?
I agree that a discussion of God and/or creationism and/or intelligent design is not suited for inclusion in this topic. This is a biological reference to evolution. The many scientists who work in this field would want this topic to be as accurate as possible. Inclusion of the word "theory" is integral to fact.
But they do not need to say the word theory over and over. Just as for relativity or gravity or plate tectonics or quantum mechanics or any other scientific theory. You might mention it once. But you do not use it over and over. Everyone who is a scientist knows that gravity is a theory. So do you use the word theory every time you discuss gravity? How often does the article here on wikipedia use the word theory?--Filll 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am afraid that the problem seems to be that you, like about 99.999% of creationists or supports of intelligent design etc do not know the meaning of the word theory. And refuse to learn what it means.--Filll 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Addition of the word "theory" twice in an article this size should not be considered "overdoing it".
By the way, I'm new to this. Can someone tell me how to send messages to other contributors? I'm not sure I'm doing this the proper way.
- You click on their name, and then on the "talk" tab and type on their talk page. You think that the word theory is not in the article? I find that hard to believe.--Filll 01:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I started counting the number of times it was called a theory in the article. I stopped counting at 25. And there were a lot more still. Come on, they do not have to repeat it constantly. Everyone KNOWS it is a theory. It is one of the most famous and successful theories every in the history of science!!! It just sounds to me like you do not understand the meaning of the word "theory" which is EXTREMELY common among creationists. I see this over and over and over. Literally hundreds upon hundreds of times. Not a single creationist seems to know the meaning of the word or be able to learn it !! Wow...makes you wonder doesnt it?--Filll 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Let me add that there are millions of scientists who understand the word Theory and how it is used and billions of scientifically literate students who also understand the term. Perhaps it is time for you to join them. Candy 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The question I have for you is, what is your purpose? Do you want to know the truth or do you want to harass and irritate people? What is your purpose? Going over and over the same old turf of evolution which is so well supported is not going to give you any evidence in support of God or the supernatural influence in our world, if that is what you want. If you want that, I can give you some suggestions of places to look. Unfortunately, you might actually have to think about these issues, and it is not easy, it is HARD HARD HARD. It is not a matter of just spewing half digested crap some deranged religious leader has spewed like a drooling lunatic, charges that were dismissed effectively over a century ago in most cases. If you have the guts, chew on these:
More fruitful directions for creationists to concentrate edit
- abiogenesis
- nature of consciousness
- balance of physical constants
- questions about the role of the observer
- work done on whether God had a choice when he created the universe
- experiments suggested and ongoing in physics looking for evidence of a creator
- the nature of renormalization
- the nature of the vacuum
These and other areas are places where a scientific mechanism has yet to be successful. Attacking science in areas which are reasonably well understood and well supported with evidence is not particularly productive.
What it seems to indicate, is that creationists are not interested in:
- finding the truth
- working in a constructive manner with others who are trying to probe the mysteries of nature
- compiling evidence demonstrating that God might be necessary to explain what is observed
- allowing the pursuit of knowledge
but in trying desperately to defend biblical inerrancy. Not the best possible strategy, frankly.
You have been blocked from editing for violating the three-revert rule on Evolution. You have been blocked for four hours starting now, so you will be able to edit again approximately 24 hours after violating the rule. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)