|
Thank you for experimenting with the page Evolution on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Michael Johnson 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -- Michael Johnson 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I do mind. Your edits are adding POV to a featured article. You obviously don't understand what scientific theory is. If you want to make these type of changes to the article, I suggest you discuss it on the talk page. -- Michael Johnson 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is your POV, which is not supported by the scientific community, nor by most editors on Wikipedia. You should read some of the past debates on the talk page. You will find your edits are not regarded as "corrections" to the article, but are introducing unsubstantiated POV. You would have to support your edits with refereed scientific papers to get them accepted. -- Michael Johnson 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the scientific community is made up of scientists, who on the whole accept evolution by natural selection because it best explains the facts they observe in the natural world. You are right - 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how much you might want to believe a religious text says it does. I'm not sure what atheism has to do with anything - plenty of people who believe in God also accept evolution. BTW please sign your posts with the signature button on top of the edit space, or just type in four ~ . -- Michael Johnson 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
MX, please do not make changes to cited facts; adding your own spin on already referenced information is inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Creationist views are discussed in several of the religious and mythological articles on origins; see origin belief for one such treatment. Religious views are inappropriate for science articles; a discussion of the some of the religious objections takes place at Evolution#Social and religious controversies, with links to other articles where the disparity between the scientific and religious perspectives are more fully explored. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Whether you believe scientific or religious views on the origin of life is irrelevant. My beliefs are also irrelevant. If you have credible scientific evidence that appears to contradict evolution, you may include it, properly referenced, preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Your personal musings or doubts of the ability of science to explain the development of life are not appropriate for inclusion in the article. For Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. There is no need for you to go into detail; I am not interested in debating with religious topics with you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not place duplicate copies of my posts here, especially directly below the original versions. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes, like this:
~~~~. The books you mention are not of sufficient rigor to be used to provide scientific evidence. As I mentioned, such references should be in the form of articles in scientific peer-reviewed journals, especially when the claims made are in such contrast to established scientific positions. There is no evidence supporting creationism. By invoking the supernatural, creationism places itself fundamentally out of the scientific realm. This is not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing, but it means that the scientific method cannot be used to evaluate such a viewpoint. I do not care if you are an atheist or not, nor is it relevant. You wish to let the public know that you are right and most are wrong. That is fine, but hardly acceptable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to propound your personal views. Within the scientific community, there is no debate or controversy over evolution, and your attempts to portray it as such are misleading at best and deliberately inaccurate at worst.
- Please do not place duplicate copies of my posts here, especially directly below the original versions. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes, like this:
- I do not believe a single or your article edits survived for more than a minute. As you will see, the community here will not take kindly to your attempts to push your religious views. Please avail yourself of a weblog or another site to spread your message. I do not doubt that if you persist in this behavior, your editing privileges will be revoked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Even if evidence of a worldwide flood existed, it would not be evidence that God created lifeforms individually and simultaneously. Nor do your ideas regarding rapid fossil deposition and such. If they held scientific merit, they might weaken the case for evolution being an accurate model, but they will never be able to support creationism as a scientific theory; it simply cannot be one. There is no evidence for creationism. A viewpoint that includes supernatural forces such as God cannot be evaluated by the scientific method; it can neither be proved nor disproved. I do not see what you hope to accomplish with your claims about volcanos and climate shifts; surely you do not think I place more stock in your opinions over that of the scientific community. The supernatural cannot be proven. Even if your claims regarding preserved bodies is true, the lack of our ability to find a scientific explanation does not prove that a supernatural event took place. Even if they are being preserved by God, science will be unable to prove or evaluate this unless God were to do so through some physical means. Science is a philosophy that makes certain assumptions and proceeds in certain directions. You don’t have to agree with this philosophy, but your attempts to portray creationism as somehow conforming to this philosophy are misguided. Indeed, you seem unable to edit without your biases strongly reflected in your writing. If you cannot moderate your behavior, then Wikipedia is probably not the best place for you. I would suggest starting a weblog, or finding a religious-themed web site in which to participate, since you likely won’t have luck with science venues. Of course, should you decide to remain or to work on other areas of Wikipedia (perhaps areas in which you are not as biased or where you are more knowledgeable), I would be happy to help you. Please sign your posts. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- ALso, a minor note- even if you had compelling evidence for the existence of God or the existence of God and the correctness of a certain religion or whatever, that would still be most likely original research. Wikipedia is only interested in reliably sourced material with a neutral point of view. I could come up with a proof of the Riemann hypothesis tommorow and it wouldn't go on Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 07:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Per your email, I have decided to unblock you. However, if you repeat the behavior that got you blocked, you can expect to be reblocked. Raul654 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)