Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:04, 25 February 2007

Archives

/Barnstars /Mainpage Archive /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8

Information

Articles planned

• Norman H. Horowitz Caltech biology professor

Projects underway

• Objections to evolution drafts
  • falsifiability
  • Evolution as theory and fact rewrite
  • evolution as religion draft
  • Level of support for creationism Name controversy
  • History of evolution additions
• Evolution Discussions

Articles in need of help

Pain scale, Dol, Dolorimeter, Stress (medicine), Post traumatic stress disorder, Hans Selye

Amazing website

Advances of the ancient world

Using a video game as your main reference

Abus Gun, and I suspect several other contributions by the main editor, draw on video games as their main sources of information and reference. Is this reasonable or advisable?--Filll 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural selection

... is the current science collaboration of the month and will hopefully be substantively improved in the near future, so if you want to write about evolution and take a break from arguing over the title for the level of support article, you should stop by. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A war on science

Hi, just noticed your comment at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy#Johnson in A War on Science: have you any links to the Regents Lecture right after he published his book "Darwin on Trial"? My curiosity is piqued, though I've not really got the time to get really expert on the ghastly subject. While the BBC documentary didn't hammer home Johnson as a liar, to me that brief section is shockingly candid in setting out the aim to subvert science. But no doubt you chappies hear that sort of thing all the time – I'm not sure if I've ever met a creationist, thought when two Jehovah's Witnesses came to the door I shocked them by not slamming the door on their toes, and instead asked what they thought about evolution. We had a nice chat, and they didn't seem very sure though one of them thought human's weren't descended from lesser creatures. The other pointed out that science didn't explain where it all came from, then when asked if he knew where God came from he amiably acknowledged the point that it was the same problem moved back one, and they parted amicably. They just didn't seem very clued up about it, but to be fair the sort of behaviour you seem to have come across would not get them far in Scotland. However no doubt creationists are about somewhere, trying to subvert science.. . dave souza, talk 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Look here for Regents Lecture:

• Darwinism on Trial. Address at University of California, Irvine, 1992--Filll 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the monkey song, at 2 minutes into A War on Science someone says "the monkey song, I don't know what else to call it" and as a school bus goes along a country road, children's voices sing "I'm no kin to a monkey on a rope, a monkey's no kin to me tada da" etc. A catchy piece of daft propaganda. .. dave souza, talk 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If I was from the UK, I would not be too smug. Look at Truth in Science for example.--Filll 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Dave should meet Dr. Monty White; the UK's version of Ken Ham. The zealots are global. --Random Replicator 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis started in Queensland, Australia. George McCready Price was Canadian. And so on...--Filll 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, to clarify I didn't mean to imply they're entirely absent here – the Time ed supp reports there's even one lecturing at Glasgow uni, and UK unis are starting to introduce compulsory lectures on creationism and intelligent design into zoology and genetics courses. And we're getting a Ken Ham tour round Scottish cities, but don't think I'll be going along. There's a modern church hall / cafe / bookshop in Greenock, and a while ago I admired but failed to purchase for our boy a "how the dinosaurs fitted on the ark" children's book. However, if I remember your account correctly, having a work colleague go in the huff because you're insufficiently creationist would be considered astonishing anywhere I've worked. Mind you, there haven't even been open conflicts about more serious religious issues, such as Rangers FC versus Celtic FC. Is Glasgow the only city where the Orangemen wear blue? ... dave souza, talk 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what "having a work colleague go in the huff because you're insufficiently creationist" means. Isn't English wonderful? So many regionalisms.--Filll 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just a vague memory of you telling the tale of some female at work getting upset at you and refusing to speak to you after you'd defended evolution, or something along those lines. If my memory's at fault, my apologies. Don't know if you read the LA Times, but this article from Feb 12th caught my eye, and wow that's scary. Puts me in mind to try looking for some local creationists to chat to, but not sure where I'd find any around here. Terribly un-British to discuss religion. ... dave souza, talk 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Baraminology

Er, Filll, I wasn't suggesting Baraminology be deleted completely, just merged (as it is already, in fact), with Created kind, so that we aren't reduplicating a lot of effort on two articles that heavily overlap. Adam Cuerden 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An absolutely amazing webpage

"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution, ignorance is", John Stear, No Answers in Genesis

--Filll 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're going to drive yourself crazy reading this garbage. But of course I read it. Orangemarlin 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just about died laughing reading it. But it is like crack or crystal meth. It will rot your brain.--Filll 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the whole website is very well done. I just don't get Creationists. Orangemarlin 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kandice Pelletier

I see you've noticed the "little" debate going on :P. Care to offer your opinion on the talk page? I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, I would just like an independent opinion! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Filll 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See, reading those websites did drive you crazy. Now you're editing beauty pageants. It's sad to see what they did to you. Orangemarlin 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The truth about Genesis and the origin of life

You have to read this one:

--Filll 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict thesis

I'm not a philosopher (and I really don't play one on TV). You're the scientist, so what is this about? Is this a crazy article, or is it really a philosophy? Orangemarlin 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not philosopher either, and there is an awful lot of this kind of stuff here, that is for sure. Seems like too much to me.--Filll 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis

Huh???? I was just walking through Misplaced Pages, trying to confirm whether I really believe that this encyclopedia is Christian biased, and I'm beginning to be convinced. This article is a travesty! It's not encylopedic, it's unbalanced, and it doesn't even pretend to bring in a literal viewpoint of Genesis. This is frustrating. Orangemarlin 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw thank you!

Thank you so much! You don't know how badly I needed that. Wow! Have you seen this? I really feel I'm going loopy. Another thing is User:PageantUpdater/Evrik conflict which I'm using to try and calm myself down by objectively documenting the entire crazy episode. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw. It seems sort of nuts to me.--Filll 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm just thinking that I need to cool down a little, so needing to do a little more than editing history related articles, because with those last days happenings in those articles I'm fealing I'll kick some butts if I don't cool down. So, if you think any article need improvement (content based, as I can't be of any help in grammar). I'm a scientist and can help on biology, biostatistics, environment. You sound to be interested on evolutionary stuff, so maybe you would know. Fad (ix) 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, mutation needs to be cleaned up and made more accessible. I also think the same is true of gene and genetics and also gene. I also think that introduction to genetics needs work. I would also ask User:Opabinia regalis for her opinion and a few others perhaps. They might see your request on my page and respond. What articles have you edited that are driving you nuts? --Filll 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the mutation article. I also found Cyanobacteria article to not be on such a good shape either. Fad (ix) 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your question, lets just say they're nationalist driven articles. Not science related. Fad (ix) 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to help out with black people and eventually I gave up. Just too many angry people with too many conflicting agendas.--Filll 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Judaism and evolution

Hi, I've been working on Articles missing a category possibly due to vandalism; I noticed that you deleted categories from the article Judaism and evolution without listing a reason in your edit summary. I re-added the categories, but please feel free to edit those categories if necessary and provide a rational in your edit summary or on the talk page. Thanks, -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that I'm assuming you deleted them accidentally! Let me know. -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea I had removed a category from Judaism and evolution. It was obviously some sort of mistake and I apologize. I am glad you caught that! --Filll 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is odd. I went over to look at the article, and I found that I had edited it and left a comment. I don't recall ever seeing this article. Orangemarlin 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo, Filll. I'm just trying to be thorough. I run into this problem sometimes with newer Wikipedians, but you are obviously not a newcomer! Happy editing, -sthomson06 (Talk) 04:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazing discussion

You have to go see this section and read all the links. Incredible!--Filll 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman gun

The article is not clear, but this is real world, adapted for a game. They did use such very wide bore inaccurate guns. 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it might have some element of truth in it. I believe it might be named after a town in Turkey. However, the references are fairly scanty and I could not find much. However, I do not know what should be done; if it should be left alone or deleted. I looked for more material to improve it but so far I have not been successful.--Filll 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested at this AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution--Filll 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik

Would you care to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you possibly be able to "certify" the RFC...? I'm not exactly sure what the process is but I'm worried it will be deleted... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 08:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Baraminology

Ye might like this Adam Cuerden 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now with a sequel. I've also used my research on this to update the article, using only things they say themselves. Adam Cuerden 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough...

I think I might need your help in understanding something science related. I'm in a discussion on Talk:Christianity with someone, and we're going all philosophical with what to "know" something means, and it would probably impact the wording in several important places in the article. My question is, someone else is saying that because Christians don't know "scientific" truths when it comes to our beliefs, and therefore because we know only "religious" truths, that rather than say that Christians know anything, that we just believe or have faith that something is true. (Which, in context with the article, would probably just implicitly read "blind faith", since of course the article isn't arguing or showing support for what we know or anything) My problem is that from all my silent background watching of the Evolution talk page, it has always seemed to me that science isn't about truth at all, and that's not a bad thing. Rather, it has always seemed to me people say it helps to find models which will work out to be correct when applied to our observations. Is this accurate? Homestarmy 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely correct! I am glad that we managed to make that clear. Science is not about truth or proving anything really. Science is about providing a compact temporary explanation for data. This explanation of course is expected to change later. I might come to the page and see what the excitement is about.--Filll 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I have to admit, sometimes I think I know too much and jump into these big hard discussions and then end up wrong much later :/. This stuff gets terribly complicated....Homestarmy 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (sorry I put that on your user page, thanks for moving it ·Maunus· ·ƛ·)

Curious about editing discussions

Would there ever be any value to having a room or two to discuss editing on Skypecast? It is free of course.--Filll 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps editing discussions should be conducted in the open.DGG 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be done in the open. I am not suggesting a closed session. There might be a value to discussions in real time, however. And it is a trivial matter to record the discussions and then have them universally available to anyone on the internet.--Filll 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unintelligent design

I'm still laughing. And I never knew the rabbit digestive process. That isn't Unintelligent Design, that's downright Daft Design!!!! This section is always a wealth of good information. Orangemarlin 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Organizing the Evolution and Creationism articles

Every day, I seem to find a new article (not new in the sense of being written, but new for me to read) in some wikilink from one of the multitude of articles. And some of the articles are beginning to sound a lot alike. For example today I ran across Politics of creationism. Frankly, some of these articles are forking in repetitive ways. What do you think about setting up a Wikiproject on Evolution and Creationism to begin to get this field of articles under control. Even the Creationist articles belong in this discussion, because first, there is a need to keep those articles intellectually honest and NPOV, and second, because much of the Evolution article is written with Creationist arguments in mind (sad, but take a long read when you get a chance, because it almost sounds defensive). I'm not much into the science of evolution, because it really isn't my interest. However, I am very passionate about the politics and social ramifications of Creationism and Evolution, so I know I'd participate. The Wikiproject could set the rules of engagement. I participate infrequently on a Wikiproject with respect to the NHL. We make decisions on what to include and not include on various team pages, and everything else. Believe it or not, the passion there is not so different from the religion vs. science stuff here. What do you think? Orangemarlin 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. For my own amusement, I started a list to try to organize all the articles I was finding at Talk:Evolution/controversyarticles. This list is not even close to complete. I think that it is sort of surprising we do not yet have a Wikiproject set up. I am not sure how to set one up, but we definitely should.--Filll 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if controversyarticles is a bit too tough for this project. Orangemarlin 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean just too ambitious? I do not understand what you mean. Do you have a headset? We should meet at in a skypecast and discuss it.--Filll 20:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of discussion that should be held in real time in the regular space, so people have at least a little chance to think before replying. If we ever to go to a Skype conference, we will need a moderator. I've been in many phone conferences, and they fail completely if the matters are too contentious. I do not know if this has ever been discussed before in WP, and I think you should ask at the village pump. There has recently been a discussion of the proper role of IRC there--which is similar---anyone can in principle join, but few do. Remember also that some of the people who would want to contribute are in Australia, and most of us work or go to school. the regular mode lets everyone participate when they can. DGG 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that everyone should have access to it. However, I have tried the IRC here and found it particularly unhelpful, although it potentially could be very useful. Also, having a discussion in IRC, or by email with one or two others, or by phone, or jointly editing some article by email or in a sandbox before presenting it to the wider body of Misplaced Pages is perfectly reasonable and normal, and is obviously part of standard Misplaced Pages practice, as near as I can determine. Having a Skypecast, or Skype conference, or doing something similar using MSN messenger or Yahoo! messenger or AIM or any similar technology is just an extension of the email and IRC discussions already taking place. I would gladly ask about it at the Village Pump, but I fail to see how this violates any "rules" or standards on WP.--Filll 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Races

Filll,

while I agree (completely) with your point on Talk:Black People, I do not agree with the WP:Point you are making with the link. I think it is needlessly inflammatory, and suggest you delete it. Jd2718 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The uncomfortable truth

Why hide this? Inflammatory? Yes. True? Unfortunately such attitudes exist. And the efforts of some of the editors on the black people article over the last year or so have encouraged this sort of stuff. I think we should acknowledge it exists, but instead focus on the most accurate current modern most accepted scientific views, instead of out of date, controversial discredited material. I know that black people really badly want to believe that they are a separate species or race and superior to other races, but unfortunately science does not support this view, and this view really encourages the absolute worst extrapolations, like the chart I displayed. You want to deny that such things exist? You want to deny that these nonscientific attitudes can be exploited to support the worst possible conclusions? Hmm...--18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is easier to edit, and to change and improve things when no one is up in arms. It's always going to be a struggle. Pissing people off isn't going to make it easier. On the contrary.

Did I deny that the image exists? No. But you've implied that here. I'm getting off your talk page. But do be careful what lines you choose to cross. Jd2718 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have followed the page at all for the last few months, or looked at the history, you will know that someone is ALWAYS pissed off on that page. They are so angry that they have driven away most other editors. Huge amounts of valuable material have been flushed down the toilet. You are free to try to "improve" the article, if you want. I do not know what your own personal views are or what your agenda might be. I might cross a line or two with my POV. I find that about 50% of the editors on that page also cross one or more lines, depending on your own personal POV. I would far rather that science and reason and tolerance be used as guides for editing the article, but unfortunately, past experience indicates to me that this is not the case for the black people article. It is mainly a platform for people to push very narrow angry objectives, in many cases. So be it. I have mostly distanced myself from that article and the editors on that page.--Filll 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And I thought Evolution was bad. Orangemarlin 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden vandalism

Please see the creation-evolution controversy article, and weigh in on his removal of the section on falsifiability. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 05:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)