User talk:Nathe37216

What I cannot understand is how Darwinism and the "theory" of evolution (which I believe to have become a form "secular faith") moved from being a scientific theory (which I was taught is a working hypothesis that can possibly explain observed evidence requiring testing through observation and experimentation, and is subject to being fallible) to an accepted fact along side known physical laws.

Although, there is real credence to Darwin's ideas about natural selection, nowhere has any one been able to show where on species evolved by this process to another. We observe similarities between species over time and make a subjective assumption that one evolved into the other. There is no concrete proof of this at all. Only rarely can we breed one species with another, and the resulting offspring are always infertile.

I was raised with a concept of a GOD who created all things, and have since broadened that understanding after first abandoning it - having been indoctrinated with the skepticism of much of the scientific community.

The thing that made me lose "FAITH" in the THEORY of evolution is this: 1. I was taught that a theory is only valid so long as it does not contradict known observations and facts.

2. The second LAW of Thermodynamics expressly states that all MATTER goes from a higher state of order to a lower one. Higher energy bonds to less bonded energy. ALL THINGS DECAY.

3. LIFE is the only process in the universe that we know of where according to evolution, simple things become more complex, from the molecular level to the organic and functional levels.

4. LIFE is the only process we know of that perpetuates itself indefinitely.

These things require an explanations, as do many other aspects of the complexity and wondrous, apparent design of living organisms.

Philosophy is also a science, and theological ideas are philosophy. Why should attempts to unify these two gnosis be characterized as pseudoscience.

I am not a member of any organization with any agenda. I am not a member of any church or subscribe to any formal doctrine. I am a student of the universe that desires to understand completely without anti-theological or theological bias.

'''Anti-theology is not Neutral. It is proactive, pervasive, and ultimately destructive. '''

I would like someone to explain to me how the theory of evolution can continue to stand and be considered fact in the light of the laws of thermodynamics.

September 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Intelligent Design, you may be blocked from editing. --Mr Fink (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I was making a serious argument. Not to edit the page, but to question it's bias, and make a case for real neutrality. I didn't know that Wikipedia was a bastian of atheism. Is it? Be plain.24.96.184.105 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in. Nathe37216 (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

'''"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.)

Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia."'''

I was not editing a page, I was contributing to "TALK"

Please do not use bullshit to try to stifle my expression. This deserves discussion.

Nathe37216 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your long post on the ID talk page was reverted, along with my response, which I'll paste in here:
 * Nathan, welcome to Wikipedia! This page is only for discussing how to improve this particular argument. Please read here about talk pages. I could have a brief discussion with you on my talk page. If you wish to pursue that, click on "talk" in my signature and write me a message. YoPienso (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)