User talk:DSG2

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Doc  Tropics  05:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Evolution Edit
I have reverted your edit to Evolution. It is against Wikipedia policy to make such preliminary edits in articles (especially Feature Articles). In addition, I deeply disagree with the proposed section so you might want to take your case to the evolution talk page before writing a section that will be deleted right away. A more appropriate article for sections like that (and I'm pretty sure the topic of evolution as religion is already covered there) is Creation-evolution controversy.--Roland Deschain 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also. You may want to make your proposed section in a separate page such as possibly something like User:DSG2/Draft. Drafts in mainspace are generally not good. JoshuaZ 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes! Please be more circumspect in adulterating articles with controversial or outlandish claims. Candy 08:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this edit in so far as it is strongly POV and unsourced. I suggest you read the article on evolution and the article Creation-evolution controversy in detail before making any more edits on these topics. And please, whatever you do, read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. JoshuaZ 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. DSG2 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not telling you you can't edit- I'm suggesting you read those things before making more edits. See the difference? JoshuaZ 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is to say what is neutral, only the people who BELIEVE in evolution? I already read those things, why don't you read them again. DSG2 03:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting a word in all caps doesn't give it any more force. Please bear in mind the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV and that Wikipedia cares about verifiability not truth. Regardless of what is true the scientific consensus for evolution as science and not religion is overwhelming and the Wikipedia article describes it as such. JoshuaZ 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Go through the Talk:Evolution page. Right at the top are many discussions that state why your edits have been consistently reverted. --Roland Deschain 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that Wik only cares about verifying and not truth is absurd. Only things that are true can be verified and anything truly verified is true. The problem is that different people accept and/or reject different sources. Also, that you say evolution is science and not religion is open to controversy. If a cat said, "I'm a dog, and that's not my religion," should we believe the cat that he's a dog. In fact, the real answer as to how the universe got here is NOT a question of religion or science, but a question of history. The Bible itself is NOT a book about religion, it is first a history book. It is the rewriters of history, the believers in evolution, that are crazy, fanatical religious extremists who can believe anything no matter how illogical and unscientific. Spontaneous generation was disproved by LP, which disproof is one of the foundations of true science. DSG2 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Capping words obviosuly does not give them more force, but it can give them more recognition. The second was my intent, kind sir. DSG2 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does care more about verifiability than truth. Please read the relevant policy. To use a concrete example of how they are different (and it should indicate why we care about verifiability rather than truth) suppose that we were writing Wikipedia in 1400 and I asserted that there are four unknown continents and wanted to add this to the article on continents. This would be a true and unverifiable statement. JoshuaZ 04:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You might find much more support over at CreationWiki. They do not have the pesky rules that keep your opinions out of Wikipedia articles.  Plus they start with the assumption that the Bible is 100% correct and then design all their articles based on that overarching assumption (they might even claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but then again, I'm pretty sure they interpret the Bible correctly so as not to reach such a retarded conclusion).  Save us and yourself the grieve of your evangelizing and start editing over there.--Roland Deschain 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about CreationWiki, and btw, I'll evangelize where i want to, it's no grief to me. If you want to make a big deal about those who incorrectly thought the Earth stood still, we can also talk about the many hoaxes that the purveyors of evolution have concocted. Being mistaken and being deceptive are not of the same species. DSG2 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your statement regarding the "hoaxes" in evolution as it is good to see that you are able to highlight a difference between truth from science and truth from revelation. That you even know of these hoaxes immediately highlights the self-correcting nature of science and that Evolution is clearly in such a scientific field of endevour. No such process exists to identify the truth in religion (well other than sectarian violence) and in this light if you are Islamic I probably wouldn't recommend CreationWiki as they have a Christian Bible bias as opposed to a Quran bias. Both equally non-correcting. Ttiotsw 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)