User talk:Lordofthemarsh

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Lordofthemarsh, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

Hi, if you're the same person as 65.182.242.184‎ (talk · contribs), please note our policy on sockpuppeting; I realize it's also possible you just forgot to sign in. In which case, thanks for tagging your previously anonymous comment and please remember to sign in in the future. Below is a message I posted on User talk:65.182.242.184‎ and if you are the same editor, you should read it.

You seem to be interested in evolution, particularly from the perspective that it is false and creationism is a valid, competing theory. Please review the archives of various pages before posting more comments - as is they will not result in any change to the mainpage, and if conintued may possibly result in blocks for disruptive editing. Please review Talk:Evolution/FAQ; if after that review you still feel you have verifiable information that comes from reliable sources (note that the best sources are mainstream scientific journals and books published by reputed press - creationist journals that do not pass peer review by mainstream biologists, and publishing houses that publish religious topics only are not considered of sufficient weight to source any statements beyond the beliefs of creationists, and can not be used in articles addressing evolution. Only creationism and the cultural controversy) the please present the sources for review. Note that wikipedia is not a soapbox and can not be used to advocate a specific point of view. Thanks, WLU (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sockpuppeting, I created this account after I posted this, and signed my previously unsigned comment. That is all. As far as my NPOV, I am merely pointing out evidence and asking that evoulution be presented as the theory it is and not as inescapable fact, and that Intelligent Design be presented as a valid competing theory and not lunacy.

Then you'll be very interested in reading Evolution as theory and fact. The word "theory" has a more specific meaning in science than it does in common usage. Friday (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of the usage of the word theory in a scientific context, which is why I dispute evolution's claim to even be a theory.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant macroevolution.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to rehash these debates, but rather to write encyclopedia articles in a neutral way. Your personal opinion about evolution doesn't matter here, any more than mine does. Please don't use article talk pages to try to start debates. They're for discussing how to improve the article. Friday (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be missing the point. I feel that given the evidence, a neutral encyclopedic article should at least acknowledge the possibility that macroevolution never happened, and ID should not be presented as lunacy, if you truly believe in neutrality.

If the word "lunacy" appears in intelligent design, there's a good chance it's vandalism. I don't see it there now. What the article does say is that while it's often presented as science, intelligent design is not a scientific theory. This is accurate and neutral. Friday (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I was not accusing you of sockpuppeting (you'd be a terrible sockpuppet, given that you signed one of your anon comments!) My intent was to emphasize that posting under two different identities (lordofthemarsh and an anon IP) is frowned upon, to the point of being blockable (not in your case). It usually takes a while to get used to signing in to edit, and at least a couple reminders.

Note that the distinction between macro and microevolution, scientifically, are pretty much irrelevant. Please review the FAQ pointed out in my initial post; between that and the archive links listed on the page you'll almost certainly find your points addressed, which will save you and other editors time and aggravation over the long run. WLU (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your above comments, you might also be interested in talk.origins index to creationist claims and specifically the entry dealing with macro versus microevolution (also), and the pages on macroevolution and microevolution. WLU (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the difference between micro and macroevolution is "very" relevant. Microevolution is an observable phenomenon, macroevolution is not. I am also very disappointed to find that Evolution_of_the_horse does not even discuss the many problems with this sequence, such as, but not limited to, the following: The fossils are found on different continents, they all lived at the same time, and only the skulls and feet show any real pattern.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the definition - if you're talking about gross morphological changes, that's been observed in living things. If you're talking about speciation, that's been observed in living things. If you're talking about fish turning into mammals, that's been observed in fossils. If you have reliable sources discussing problems with the evolution of horses, bring it up on the relevant talk page. If you're assuming a polemic or apologetic position based on scripture, you're pretty much out of luck, but there is always conservapedia. Everything is based on sources, so if you've got good ones then use 'em. If you've got 'The Journal of Creationis Research' or 'Genesis and Creation Quarterly', you're not going to get anywhere here. WLU (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and Intelligent design[edit]

You probably should read Talk:Intelligent_design/FAQ. As you might guess on a controversial topic like this, we very often get new editors coming in with questions and concerns like yours. The FAQ is an attempt to address this. Friday (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful on talk pages[edit]

Be sure to focus on how to improve the article, rather than on discussion of the subject of the article. You won't make yourself appear very credible if you just parrot what various creationist authors have written. If you give the appearance of wanting to debate rather than wanting to improve the article, you may find yourself in hot water. Please understand, on scientific articles we're going to favor sources from reputable peer-reviewed journals way more than from books written for the masses, for example. See also Wikipedia:Undue weight. Friday (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I remind you that in pointing out facts not mentioned or given adequate space in the article, I may very well be contributing to its improvement. Furthermore, as far as "parroting creationist authors", I did not used to quote or reference them, and you claimed I did not have sources! Which is it?Lordofthemarsh (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as reputable scientific journals, this is the garbage that most creationists have to deal with. Rather than discussing the evidence, you prefer to ridicule, claim that my sources are not reliable, or some such thing. Most of said journals are controlled by evolutionists who won't even allow the discussion of alternate ideas. Would you accept a publication called Darwin Today if a fair number of people knew about it?Lordofthemarsh (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I certainly did not mean to ridicule anything. I was just trying to explain how we source articles on scientific topics. Here's the thing- you seem to be asserting that there's some vast conspiracy in science, against creationism. We don't need to debate whether or not this is true. It would be pointless to try to debate that. But, Wikipedia is only going to be as accurate as our sources. If these sources are tainted, as you seem to be claiming, you have to fix them first. You can't start by fixing Wikipedia- that's backwards. We use sources; we even consider which sources are considered reputable in various fields. But if the source is wrong, we'll be just as wrong as the source. This is by design. This is what encyclopedias do. Friday (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have, however, failed to answer my question. Would you accept a fairly well-known publication by the name of Darwin Today?Lordofthemarsh (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not being familiar with it, I cannot speculate on its reputation, sorry. For general guidelines, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If it's a creationist publication, it might be a usable source for describing the positions of creationists. If it's a scientific publication, it might be a usable source for describing science. Does that help? Friday (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are not familiar with Darwin Today because it does not exist. However, it has been stated that anything with the word "creation" in the name cannot be used. However, a publication of obviously no more reliability "might be a usable source for describing science". If it existed, Darwin Today would be as biased as Creation Weekly. Yet you would consider one, but not the other.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said. Also, anyone looking no further than the title should probably not be in a position to judge the reputation of a publication. We can certainly do better than that. Even the KKK newsletter is a reliable source.. for describing the opinions of the KKK. It's not a black and white world, here. Friday (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant criteria for a reliable source is the publisher, in some cases the author, both of which are short forms for the degree of oversight and fact-checking given by the publication. Creationists don't get published by Nature (journal), or Oxford University Press because the degree of editorial oversight would not allow them to include the quote mining and factual errors which comprise the majority of the contents of creationist literature. Creationism's Trojan Horse is a reliable source, not because of the name but because of the publisher (Oxford University Press). Creationists do not publish in journals that actually specialize in evolutionary biology because they are not subject matter experts or produce the kind of new research which is of interest to their audience. Plus, their arguments and facts are full of holes, miss the point, are apologetics or try to shoehorn data to fit preconceived notions. You're not going to 'trick' editors in to allowing an unreliable source through wordgames or preconceptions - we deal with specifics of sources. I can not guarantee that your sources will not be applicable, but I am absolutely certain that creationist beliefs will not appear on wikipedia in a discussion of the science of evolution. WLU (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Dudley Brown has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like the Charlie Brown teacher. Ban away!

License tagging for File:PC-hag-artwork.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:PC-hag-artwork.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]