User talk:Matthewgibson3321

Welcome!

Hello, Matthewgibson3321, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Cat
Unfortunately, your edit summary will be viewed as non-constructive by many. AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Response

Whether or not it is seen as constructive is besides the point. I am following the rules of Wikipedia. It does not matter what the [seemingly] common consensus is. -- 05:26, 8 January 2012‎ Matthewgibson3321


 * Unfortunately, if ID has no real acceptance among scientists, then discussion of it belongs on articles about evolution controversies, not on 5000 different articles on various species... AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Intelligent design is not an valid alternative to Evolution! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cat shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, Kim van der Linde did not leave the 3rr message, I, *IAN.THOMSON*. did. She is nowhere near violating 3rr, but you have indeed reverted three times: first revert, second, third.  You were reverted by four different editors, so please be nicer to Kim instead of chewing anyone out.  Pay attention to usernames if you want to have any hope of resolving anything here.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. No worries, false accusations are generally a sign of editwarriors. It just confirms the rest, and it generally leads to very short tenures at WP. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Also, while not a guideline or policy, I recommend you check out this user essay on how Christianity and the NPOV policies can cooperate to each other's benefit. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=This does not constitute edit warring, I was unprecedentedly attacked for my placement of the NPOV tag on a page, due to its OBVIOUS biased. Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You reverted one, two, three, four times and completely got the intention of 3rr backwards. "If you restore your work three times everyone else is edit warring," it is "if you restore your work three times, you are edit warring."  Again, as multiple editors have explained, NO MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC WORK ACCEPTS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.  It is on you to prove otherwise by providing reliable sources demonstrating that mainstream science has accepted ID and rejected evolution.  Wikipedia does not care what fringe scientists have to say until their views become mainstream.  That is not bias, it is avoiding giving undue weight, which is avoiding bias.  Also, "biased" is an adjective, "bias" is the noun form.
 * You were not attacked, but you did accuse an editor of violating guidelines without evidence and accuse an editor of violating 3rr despite the fact that she has only reverted you twice.
 * Also, I recommend checking out WP:NOTTHEM. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=There were two people that undid work of mine. The first person DID violate the 3rr, and I (mistakenly) assumed that the second would too. As far as the theory of evolution...Charles Darwin himself later admitted that it was not correct. EVEN SECULAR SCIENTISTS are admitting that evolution is false. Look at the Law of Entropy...this is proof in-and-of-itself that Evolution is EXTREMELY unlikely and HIGHLY unscientific. Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your rant against evolution is based on boiler plate creationist rhetoric. Darwin never said what you claim, the law of entropy is never refuted and consistent with evolution, not ID or creationism and evolution is supported by many many science articles. So, I suggest you go to Conservapedia for a wiki based on an explicit Christian POV. -- Kim van der Linde {{sup|at venus}} 06:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I NEVER said that the theory of evolution should be removed from this article. I simply put the NPOV tag on the page. Why did I do this? Because listing only one out of three (I say three, though there are more [the three that come to mind are Evolution, ID, and Creationism (ID and Creationism ARE slightly different)] constitutes bias. Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | decline=You were obviously edit warring, so there are no grounds to be unblocked. Moreover, on the basis of your posts here it appears that you're on some kind of campaign to advance your personal views, so I'm extending the block duration to indefinite. Please note that this is not a permanent block, but rather a block until you demonstrate that you will edit productively. Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)}}
 * You keep missing the point. Wikipedia is not based on opinions, but on reliable sources. And there are no reliable sources that show that ID or creationism are even remotely acceptable alternatives to evolution. PS, just respons, do not use the unblock template over and o0ver again. -- Kim van der Linde {{sup|at venus}} 06:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please look up the definition of "theory" and learn it. Entropy states that the universe gets more and more random, Evolution states that a mass of chaotic energy magically exploded into order; this is highly similar to the ancient Grecian idea of how the world began (do we now take Greek Mythology as fact now? where is my Pegasus?!?!).

since no one today was alive at the time things began all of this stuff is THEORY, whether or not it is popular. I use ID and CSM as basic examples. There are MANY theories of how things got started, but NONE of them should be accepted as fact. Posts referring to evolution should state "according to the commonly accepted theory of evolution..." or something similar to that. This avoids having to list 9000000 different "the beginning" theories, while at the same time, NOT stating one THEORY as Axiomatic.

Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * {{ec|3}}Actually Matthew, one, two, three, four editors reverted you. None of them violated 3rr, as they only brought the page to its original condition once or twice. You, however, reverted four times. That's violating 3rr. Try reading the guidelines and looking at the article's history. As for your story about Darwin, that story is apocryphal at best. The rest... Wow, you were homeschooled, weren't you? You know nothing of mainstream science. Entropy actually provides a mechanism for evolution, since can cause degredation of DNA (which is necessary for mutation). Also, you have yet to cite any sources for your claims about Darwin, secular scientists, or entropy.
 * As for your new post, you have only demonstrated you know nothing of evolution. Evolution is highly chaotic, full of mutation and competition, with the life of all things balancing on the edge of a knife by living.  Species rise, fall, and give way to new forms like empires.  Mutation results from what would otherwise be damaged genes surviving and even thriving, which entropy can contribute to.  Plus "order" and "chaos" are philosophical concepts, not scientific ones.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Theory in natural sciences is not theory in daily usage. The first is a well substantiated concept supported by enormous amounts of evidence, while the latter is just a hunch. As for entropy, you make the classical error to treat an open system as a closed system. If the earth was a closed system, you would be correct, but it is not as it receives sunlight in huge amounts. The entropy in the sun and earth combined increases consistently. Evolution does not say anything about the origins of the universe, nor does it say anything about abiogenesis. -- Kim van der Linde {{sup|at venus}} 06:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I only saw 2 of the editors who reverted my work. No, I was not homeschooled. I know plenty of "mainstream" science. Entropy can provide a mechanism for evolution NOW...due to the fact that THERE. IS. ORDER. At the start, according to theory of evolution, EVERYTHING was chaos; why would it change if the Entropy was in effect already? Chaos-->Order-->Chaos???? Science and Religion/Philosophy MUST be mixed...in the theory of evolution, the religion is atheism. In the theory of ID, there is no one religion, but many fit it. In the theory of Creationism, the religion is Christianity.

'ONCE AGAIN, I DID NOT STATE THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS INCORRECT, I SIMPLY STATED THAT IT IS BIASED. THIS CONSTITUTES, ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA, THE NEED FOR CLARIFICATION (TALK PAGE) THIS IS WHY THE NPOV TAG WAS ADDED. QUIT PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewgibson3321 (talk • contribs)
 * So, wait, first you say that evolution is order, then you say that its chaos when countered? Do you have a position or are you just looking to argue?  Entropy partially contributing to evolution doesn't imply order as a middle ground, you only perceive patterns in the chaos as order because of your cultural upbringing.
 * The religion of evolution is not atheism. Science is neither atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist; anymore than a bucket can be a follower of those religions.  Read the articles Theistic evolution and Omega point for examples of non-atheistic and even Christian understandings of evolution.
 * Also, you're using the term creationism completely wrong. Creationism simply refers to the belief that the world was created by a higher power of some sort, and makes no affirmation or denial of the idea that the higher power could have created the world through abiogenesis and/or evolution, or through willing it into being in an instant or over the course of a several days or millenia.  Intelligent design was a pseudoscientific rejection of evolution created by fundamentalist Christians to try and pass off their unartistic interpretation of Genesis as having any relation to science.
 * I do agree that science and religion must be mixed in that religion should accept what science finds, otherwise we all become Gnostics in rejecting what we can see for some fantastic interpretation of the scriptures with no bearing on reality.
 * And again, because mainstream scientists accept evolution (see E. coli long-term evolution experiment for pretty hard physical evidence), and do not accept intelligent design (this is not rejecting creationism, but rejecting a pseudoscientific rejection of creationism), Wikipedia follows suit. It would be biased to incorporate ID ideas into articles that are not about ID.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: my position is that NOWADAYS, we live in an "ordered" world. IF the universe did indeed start with a mass of energy...that WAS complete CHAOS. Somehow, this mass of chaos just so happened to implode/explode so 100% perfectly (no matter how astronomical the odds are against) into [the start of] our modern-day world. Look at this pattern: Chaos (energy mass)-->Order ("modern" world)-->Chaos (the modern effects of the law of Entropy)

That right there is VERY unlikely from a mathematical (and thus scientific) POV.

As for your experiment...are they not still e. coli? They might be different types, but they are still e. coli...they didn't turn into e. albertii or e. vulneris.Matthewgibson3321 (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, more boiler plate creationist arguments. They are all well known and do well in creatinist circles but also show others that you have a clear and strong Christian POV that you want to insert to the article. Unfortunately, I really do not have the time to debunk each and every creationist argument against naturalism (as some of your arguments have NOTHING to do with evolution in the first place). There are good web sites out there that will do an excellent job on providing you the answer that you need. -- Kim van der Linde {{sup|at venus}} 15:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If he gets to have his theory of creationism or intelligent design added to "CAT" then I demand that mine be added also, because as he states, it is a THEORY and holds just as much weight as his. http://www.venganza.org/ I believe the universe was created by the FSM.  Ramen.129.139.1.69 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)