User talk:Filll/Archive 5

Your discussion with User:Philip J. Rayment on science and religion

 * Hello, Filll. I read with some interest the debate and discussion that you and Phil Rayment were having on his talk page regarding the nature of religion and whether science/scientific thinking is a religion by its nature. To preface this, I am certain that you have devoted a great deal of time to this line of thought, as evidenced by your discussion.
 * A professor that I was close to in college once observed to me during a Philosophy of Religion course that the world's religions were diverse in almost every possible way- comparing Confucianism to Islam, or Hinduism to Judaism, it was pretty apparent, on consideration. The intriguing thing that he worked it down to in front of the class, was that the only connecting factor he (or I) could think of was this: that all religions as we know them have in common the idea of salvation from the human condition. All major religions seem to share it, from primal religions in which the salvation was often from mythical spirits or natural events, to the christian idea of salvation in an afterlife, to the buddhist idea of salvation from the cycle of living and dying, all seem to have this theme (and perhaps only this theme) in common. Many share a moral system, but not all do. Many share belief in a god or gods, but not all do. Religions have many faces, few in common, but all do appear to have that one.
 * Now, as that ties in to your argument with PR, science notably does not share these similar things with religion. It does not offer a moral system, and it does not offer salvation from a condition. Scientific thinking is a philosophy, not a religion, and the distinction between the two is important to remember, particularly when arguing nomenclature and "what's what". Hope you found some of this helpful. --HassourZain 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response on my talk page. I'd like to put this distinction somewhere it could help enhance everyone's understanding, but I don't know anywhere it would belong. --HassourZain 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure. I am thinking about finding some sources for it and incorporating it into some of our family of "objections to evolution" articles we are planning (see discussion at Misunderstandings about evolution on the talk page)--Filll 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why science does not include the supernatural
Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some physics homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. And complaining when the other student who does all 20 steps gets a better grade. Understand?
 * No, I don't understand. Your argument isn't logical. God isn't some maths problem that we can't explain, and then say it's a miracle. I don't oppose that science doesn't include a supernatural being, but science isn't the ultimate answer. Science is just a field of specialization. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to speak out of turn, here, but since I was writing on a similar topic in the above section, I figured I'd speak up. Supernatural thinking and scientific thinking operate in two completely different spheres. Supernatural thinking accepts facts which are beyond human understanding, and accepts incomprehensibilities at face value. Scientific thinking is empirical, answer-driven thinking, operating off of the basis that anything that influences the universe as we know it is by its nature observable. You're right that science is not the ultimate answer- it only answers factual, observable things. Things which are not observable, are not pertinent, to science. On the count that science is a "field of specialization", though, I could not disagree with you more. Science is a method of approach to the world at large that is completely different in assumption from a method of thinking that accepts supernatural thinking. I am not trying to assert that one is better than the other, certainly, only that the two are inescapably seperate. They can both be believed in (sometimes with difficulty) in one person, but I do not think that it is ever appropriate in terms of scientific thinking to incorporate something that for any esoteric reason cannot be explained. --HassourZain 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain is completely correct, in my view. Here is how I responded on the editor's talk page, to make sure we understood: And so on and so forth. Do we agree?--Filll 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Science does not give proof of anything. If you want proof, go to logic or mathematics, not science.
 * Science does not give truth or look for truth. Science only looks for efficient explanations. That is, science seeks the more parsimonious explanations that produce predictions that agree with the observations, either from the field or the laboratory (empirical results).
 * Science is not about finding the facts, except for the measurements. The measurements are the facts, and even those have error bars.
 * Scientific theories are not true in the conventional sense of the word true. They are only provisionally accepted until something better comes along. And there are usually exceptions to any theory. They are only accepted because it would be perverse not to.
 * I also corrected the item on my home page about the supernatural.--Filll 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also science is just a method for finding things out. Sometimes the word science is used to describe the things that are found out using the scientific method. --Filll 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Adriaans assertion that "[s]cience is just a field of specialization" is a common misconception about science. Science is a means of asking questions, rather than a field of knowledge.  Granted, "science" is often used to refer to the body of knowledge of any of the "hard" science, and in that context the idea that inclusion of the supernatural will destroy science probably strikes some people as odd.  Being aware of that misconception may make for better communication in the future.  Guettarda 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter C.
The people who challenged it before will probably challenge it again, but I think there is enough there to result in a keep. A scholarly article or two helps by impressing people, if you can find them. DGG 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it should help further to quote a sentence or two--no more--from 1 good review per project.--put the quotations in the main body not the notes.    I have it on my watchlist, and i will make an edit or two to get my name on the history. DGG 02:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With them its enough. It will certainly survive. DGG 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gets my vote. David D. (Talk) 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly prepared to let the spoorts fans do as they please, as long as they don't try to judge our fields. I only notice the things I do not much care about if I see some obvious inequity or prejudice. Done, I hope. DGG 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Horowitz
The article from Genetics and the refs cited therein are sufficient. Tell me when you add it. But, being chairman of a dept should not be over-rated. All the senior professors who are willing to do the work get picked in turn. You might also want to get in touch with User:TBHecht who is doing a project with the list of geneticists and related articles. Take a look at his user page, and you'll see why. DGG 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Irons in the Fire
Oh my ... I see you have indeed been busy. Just the traffic on your talk page speaks volumes. I have 52 term papers to grade so I am off-line for a while. Nice to see some activity in the Evolution Intro.

Also, I would like to briefly wade into the controversy here:

"While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view." Support for evolution

I fail to see how evidence for evolution is a POV article. Unless the evidence itself is POV; which it is not. Ah ... the POV of mainstream science I guess? I visited their talk page. It seems that much of their contributions involve "deletions". I was thinking it was a good entry; perhaps as a off-shoot on the main evo. article. ' A POV version might read: 'The evidence against Creationism' or 'Evolution and the Myth of Creationism'. An article titled 'Evidence for Creationsim' would be very short; being that their is no evidence. Like-wise for Intelligent Design. When I teach evolution in the class; I certainly state that their is evidence to support it. Then I go through this evidence. Am I being POV? The courts have ruled that it is NOT expressing a personal point of view. To do so with creationism of ID does not merit that protection. So write on Filll ... but get ready for the heat; for it shall rain down like fire from the heavens --Random Replicator 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If so, add your voices to those who want to keep it at its deletion page.--Filll 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is necessary. Even I want to keep it, with the moves that I proposed in the AfD, and thus have retracted the nomination. But while the nomination is obviously dead, there are still some delete votes and I'm not sure about closing it early.
 * As for Random Replicator, the issue was not that the article is POV in itself, it is that by only listing support for evolution, it is relegating that information into an obscure corner rather than presenting it alongside creationist claims. Also, the Support article is not the same as the Evidence article, which does exist, and contains proper scientific evidence. The support article is mainly about what groups support evolution, and in many cases this didn't make any sense, since in listing all scientific organisations that support evolution one must essentially list all respectable scientific organisations. The AfD wasn't started by a creationist, it was started by an Einstein's Witness who was concerned that the article would weaken support for evolution in Wikipedia.  --Philosophus T 00:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How do I get to be an Einstein's Witness? haha...--Filll 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice article about Harry Rimmer – any relation to Arnold Rimmer? ..... dave souza, talk 17:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Physics Lead Proposal
Hello. Please forgive the lateness of my reply - I was over 8,000km away from my internet connection (and a good piece of software away from any internet connection). I derive a little a pleasure from the fact that my suggestion has received so few votes - I don't know how much expertise those who are voting really have (I imagine not much, on the whole), and the fact that they don't agree with me just elevates the correctness of my position. Now, leaving my snobbish attitude behind, I do humbly accept that it has flaws (it is a little vague, and perhaps actions are too technical for the lead, etc.), and more work needs to be done, but at least more editors are now contributing in order to aide this process. Whichever proposal "wins", I hope that it's faults will still be corrected, and the broad-view is still mentioned somewhere (even if not in the lead). Interestingly enough, I always envisioned the lead section as an abstract - a paragraph or two that doesn't get too technical as the other two seem to get in places.

On the contrary, I would be more than pleased to hear your analysis (the longer and the more detailed the better!) I always love a good long discussion with fellow academics. One who is eager to talk must be eager to listen. Krea 17:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read up on the comments that have been made since I've been gone, and do you know what? Looking back, the second paragraph of my proposal really is horrible (probably because it ended up being the child of two opposing viewpoints). I'd probably agree with you and just leave out all the technical stuff until later: explaining why some people say "physics is the science of nature" is probably too involved for the lead section. So, in reflection, I'd just have the first paragraph as a lead (with maybe a few minor changes). This puts it near to what you suggested under "General description", so we both sort of have the same idea of what we want to say. I think you expressed my feelings quite well when you said that the others sounded amateurish - I, personally, didn't feel that they truly understood what physics is, but rather just strung a few facts (or perceived facts) about physics together. Maybe this is too harsh an accusation, but that's what comes across to me on reading their lead suggestions.
 * Waiting aside, I'm interested at just what will happen next: I really don't like the other two suggested leads because they seem muddled and confused, but one of the two will "win". I suppose we shall just have to wait and see. I expect things will pick up once the vote officially finishes. Krea 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

White flag of surrender
I don't get how the Religious people always get their way, whether to keep science out of their myths, or whether to keep their myths out of science. I'm reading a whole argument that creationism needs to be put into the Dinosaur article. The Religious right (whether it's Christians or Hindus or Muslims or Jews) fight with passion, and don't care about rules unless it helps them. People like us fight with passion, but always allow the other side a voice, even if they don't give us the same respect. It's because scientists are not absolutists, whereas these religious Taliban of all sorts believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Noah's Ark, plain and simple, never existed. Why does that article make it sound like it did.

I don't have the time. I have a company to run and a life to lead, and although this is the most intellectually stimulating thing I've done in 10 years, I can't be insulted over and over again by people like Codex and Phillip Rayment, and enjoy myself. Fight the good fight, I'll be watching. I do enjoy helping edit your "offline" articles before you post them, so just ask. Mostly, I'm going to stick with the articles on history that usually aren't controversial, and have much more reasonable people on both sides, and political correctness isn't a standard.

I do think that the Religious Taliban have hijacked the rules and regulations of Wikipedia to meet their own needs. Of course, if you listen to that group, they claim the same about us.

So anyways, you have much more patience than I do. I'm a CEO of a company and a physician--for the past 25 years I usually get my way with everything, so I guess I'm not exactly of the mindset to put up with their rantings. The funny thing is, I think some of these guys are very bright. I'd probably hire one or two of them, not because I like fundamentalists, but because i like bright people doing smart things.

Good luck. Orangemarlin 17:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont blame you. Since Noah's Ark has FA status, it has an extra measure of protection. I can see from Codex's statement:
 * Wikipedia simply reports what is actually believed today, not what you would like people to believe, or what you would "teach" them to believe.
 * that there is some interesting stuff going on here. At least this is educational. I am amazed what some people believe based on no information or minimal information.--Filll 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Codex is arrogant and condescending. He seems to have a monopoly on the literal translation of Wikipedia as well as his bible. I don't think his vocabulary contains "interpretation".  It's like those Constitutional scholars who think that it says what it says it says.  Meh.  Orangemarlin 20:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What a bunch of generalizations... shame. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting reversion you handled. [].  Not well written, but boy would I love to vandalize like that.  Just once.  :)  Orangemarlin 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re
"I don't get how the Religious people always..." "their myths" "The Religious right" "don't care about rules unless it helps them" "People like us" "they don't give us the same respect" "scientists are not absolutists" "these religious Taliban of all sorts believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong"

Please don't pretend to be retarded. There are your facts. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't insult people. The above are our opinions, this is not an article, it does not attack an individual, and that's it.Orangemarlin 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Diderot
Although I lived in France for a year, my two daughters are French citizens, and I speak it well enough to get around, this is hard!!!!! LOL. I think your French skills are far superior to mine. Mon dieu!!!!!! Orangemarlin 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Futuyma
Good! After I requested deletion and left my house I realized I could have just done what you did. Thank you for that. --Kripkenstein 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Walk away if you want.
Choose your battles. No one will blame you for walking away from a vandal. It's better for everyone if you don't get burned out. Right now I'm feeling lucky, so that's why I entered the ring. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. I think I can handle it with everyone's help. Xiner (talk, email) 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Challenge
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
 * currently alive and actively working in science
 * believes in biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy
 * works in a part of science that overlaps with creationist claims, such as biology and in particular, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. --Filll 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Define prominent ;) David D. (Talk) 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Prominent would be a tenured faculty member at a major school, for example. A government scientist at a senior level.--21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What a coincidince! Here's five! http://www.creationresearch.org/speakers.htm
 * 1) Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics, Chairman of the Department of Physical Science at Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana
 * 2) Michael Oard, M.S. Atmospheric Science, recently retired from the National Weather Service
 * 3) Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Oklahoma State University
 * 4) Dr. David A. Kaufmann, Professor of Exercise Science, University of Florida (l970 –l998)
 * 5) Dr. Kevin Anderson, Ph.D. Microbiology, Kansas State University, National Institutes of Health postdoctoral fellow at the University of Illinois, and later a professor of microbiology at Mississippi State University

One or two of them might be a "stretch" for your standards, but it's a start... enjoy! --Paul McDonald 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Not to clutter up your talk page, Filll, but I just wanted to point this out) Only one of the examples that you have given fulfil what the challenge has asked. Primarily (as he has addressed his concerns on your talkpage) the credentials of Oard and Deyoung, and the fact that all but one of these individuals are not teachers/professionals in the pertinent areas (Kevin Anderson being the only exception). --HassourZain 18:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree hassour. I examined a few of these, and some others produced by someone else. In both cases, all they did was cut and paste people from creationist websites. Well, that does not take very much imagination. And their choice of people and their lack of proper credentials really indicates something to me. Oh well. I do not think this is a fruitful endeavor, although I am working on some related material at Support for evolution, which will probably get renamed.--Filll 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Respond to "Young Earth" evidince
Thanks for asking -- and I don't believe I'll change your mind here... but thanks anyway! Here's some of what I see that makes me think of a young earth. I apologize for not having time to cite sources.
 * Oldest desert is Sahara, less than 10,000 years old
 * Largest river delta, Mississippi, less than 10,000 years old
 * Niagra falls has less than 10,000 years of erosion
 * The changes in the lunar orbit do not allow for a millions/billions of years age of lunar orbit
 * Largest/oldest reef, Great Barrier Reef, is less than 10,000 years old
 * Oldest living tree is about 3,000 years old
 * Rate of salinization (saltiness) of the oceans support a shorter time period and not a longer one

Just a few observations that I see to support a young earth.--Paul McDonald 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OMFG. I wouldn't even want to bother addressing any of these issues.  Not a single item you've listed above is even scientifically accurate.  Except for the trees.  I'll give you trees are the oldest living organism, but who cares???  Every biological organism has a finite life span.  And trees are subject to so many events, I think it's nice that there are a few that are 3000 years old.  Orangemarlin 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we have trees that are ALIVE and go back about 5 or 6 thousand years (bristlecone pines in CA I think), and can count the rings, and these line up with dead trees that go back much much further in a continuous record well before he claims the earth was formed (10s of thousands of years or 100s of thousands or more I think; I was thinking of a job once at a tree ring lab), and also coral reefs wehre we can count the rings back past 100 million years, and layers in snow in ice fields and benthic sediments that also go back well earlier than his date for creation of the earth, I did not know what to say. One does not even have to rely on evil old radioactive decay ! (which agrees with the dating from rings and layers by the way so they check). And several other dating methods also agree. But then he told me that the earth was BORN OLD LOOKING and I knew it was pointless. What is the point of even talking at that point? Just flush all reason down the toilet.--Filll 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Last Thursdayism; first discussed by Bertrand_Russell in the form of his Five minute hypothesis. Certainly worthless debating it. David D. (Talk) 22:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Great User Page !!
I loved your user page: its hilarious. I hope you get the creation and hinduism thing back, 'cause I like those articles you're working on, and I'm going to try to follow them. Richiar 03:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

since you asked
another WP editor for a online statement of his beliefs and background, you might feel more comfortable eiditing your user page to show just a little of your own background. I do not think you are under any obligation to state your beliefs. Not that you or anyone is generally ashamed of one's own beliefs, but it leads to the wrong kind of discussion. In friendship DGG 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it was asked at User_talk:Paulmcdonald on  03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)04:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read your email. As forthe qy you asked, most people give some indication of education, occupation, and location. And sometimes interests on WP and special concerns, if it isnt obvious. 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pitch Drop
Hello,

Did you end up resolving the licencing issues with the pitch drop experiment image ? User A1 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bug you about this, but there may be some confusion, it seems people were going to delete it if it "can be used on your website (wikipedia)" as this was not a sufficiently broad licence according to wikipedia policy or somesuch. Did you broach the possibility of a broader licencing agreement? The final comment on the image page is "What is the status of this" User A1 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I sent a couple of emails with instructions. My understanding is that they responded with the appropriate licensing agreement. Where is this discussion taking place? --Filll 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Proposal
Yes, I am alive but I haven't logged onto WP in forever. What's the proposal (I can't guarantee I'll get to it right away but I'll try)? standonbibleTalk! 15:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you live on Wikipedia?
No, seriously. lol. - Ins-dragonclaw 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding cats
Yep, and once the new material is added, I won't object to having creationist cats added. But since it's due to appear on the Main Page's next DYK section, I'd rather have the cats apply to the text as it is now, rather than as it may appear in the future. Feel free to re-add the creationist cats when the article actually does actually fit in 'em :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Page
In case you didn't know, Misunderstandings about evolution is on the main page as a "Did You Know" article. Orangemarlin 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. I don't want more of that stuff here any more than you do, but Homestarmy isn't gonna change his mind, so I think we should just let him have the last word (well, actually as it stands you and I do). He won't get to change the article, and that's all that matters. Xiner (talk, email) 01:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, whatever floats your boat. I'm curious now, though. Can you describe your religious beliefs for me (as succinctly as possible)? Xiner (talk, email) 02:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got a better picture now. And I'll keep it a secret. Xiner (talk, email) 04:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstandings about evolution/TheoryvsFact
If it is part of a talk page, the page name needs to be precededed by "Talk:" -Drdisque 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use the + tab when starting a new conversation on talk pages
When you want to start a new conversation on a talk page (and a few others like the village pump), please use the + tab next to the edit tab at the top of the page. When you added User talk:Drdisque, you did so by clicking the edit link for User talk:Drdisque. That resulted in the summary "(→Tagging articles for speedy deletion)". When I saw that, I thought you were replying to my post. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Cahill
Hello, From your comments I see you've read Who owns the world. I've just made a page for the author and when you have a free moment from defending evolution (noble task) wondered if you'ld add something about the book. Cheers! Dmanning 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gravitationism
Knowing your input into tables comparing gravity with evolution (unfortunately without giving due credence to Intelligent Falling) I thought you'd be interested in this cite – "In an 1837 notebook Darwin jotted down this reflection: 'Before the attraction of gravity was discovered . . . astronomers might have said God ordered each planet to move in its particular destiny. In the same manner God orders each animal created with certain forms in certain countries. But how much more simple and sublime to let attraction act according to certain law.'" from this article. .. dave souza, talk 17:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is a great quote. I will put it in the rewrite.--Filll 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding cats
Yep, and once the new material is added, I won't object to having creationist cats added. But since it's due to appear on the Main Page's next DYK section, I'd rather have the cats apply to the text as it is now, rather than as it may appear in the future. Feel free to re-add the creationist cats when the article actually does actually fit in 'em :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Page
In case you didn't know, Misunderstandings about evolution is on the main page as a "Did You Know" article. Orangemarlin 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. I don't want more of that stuff here any more than you do, but Homestarmy isn't gonna change his mind, so I think we should just let him have the last word (well, actually as it stands you and I do). He won't get to change the article, and that's all that matters. Xiner (talk, email) 01:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, whatever floats your boat. I'm curious now, though. Can you describe your religious beliefs for me (as succinctly as possible)? Xiner (talk, email) 02:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got a better picture now. And I'll keep it a secret. Xiner (talk, email) 04:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstandings about evolution/TheoryvsFact
If it is part of a talk page, the page name needs to be precededed by "Talk:" -Drdisque 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use the + tab when starting a new conversation on talk pages
When you want to start a new conversation on a talk page (and a few others like the village pump), please use the + tab next to the edit tab at the top of the page. When you added User talk:Drdisque, you did so by clicking the edit link for User talk:Drdisque. That resulted in the summary "(→Tagging articles for speedy deletion)". When I saw that, I thought you were replying to my post. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Cahill
Hello, From your comments I see you've read Who owns the world. I've just made a page for the author and when you have a free moment from defending evolution (noble task) wondered if you'ld add something about the book. Cheers! Dmanning 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gravitationism
Knowing your input into tables comparing gravity with evolution (unfortunately without giving due credence to Intelligent Falling) I thought you'd be interested in this cite – "In an 1837 notebook Darwin jotted down this reflection: 'Before the attraction of gravity was discovered . . . astronomers might have said God ordered each planet to move in its particular destiny. In the same manner God orders each animal created with certain forms in certain countries. But how much more simple and sublime to let attraction act according to certain law.'" from this article. .. dave souza, talk 17:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is a great quote. I will put it in the rewrite.--Filll 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't look like a vandal. Please provide an edit summary when you edit.
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

I really appreciate when summaries are provided for all edits. It makes my patrols much faster. I generally end up being able to skip items with a summary. Items that have no summary look like a vandal edit until I check the diff (which takes time to load). Will (Talk - contribs) 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)