User talk:Atl braves

Please do not add original research to Wikipedia, as you did to the Human evolution page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. bikeable (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it qualifies as vandalism, but it was a bad edit all around because it did not adhere to NPOV standards and no original research policy.

It was kind of a naive treatment of creationist beliefs. Some pointers on arguing your point:

A)The big bang is a seperate issue from evolution. The theory of evolution would not be affected if the big-bang were disproved.

B)Micro-evolution HAS been observed, and one can infer from that that macro-evolution takes place (when combined with other evidence such as fossils and genetic evidence)

C)The improbability of a chemical which reproduces is way overstated when you account for the millions of years and of the amount of cubic liters of pre-cursor protiens which it could have happened in (and if you include panspermia it almost makes it certain that its goingt o happen somwhere). All it needs is one relatively simple reproducing chemical to take hold, and then its not a matter of probability any more. (Evolution is not about randomness)

Read up a little more on the evolutionary theory before you try and refute it (but if your going to add the info to the article see wikipedia NPOV and NOR policy). And don't get the issue of the big-bang muddled with it, its a completely different theory. The big-bang happened a long time before biological evolution started occuring. And is a simple inference from the fact that all the galaxies are moving away from each other, and from that you infer that they were all once near each other, then you deduce what a universe in which everything was near each other looked like: then you get the big-bang. Whether or not God exists doesn't mean the big bang didn't happen. Evidence would indicate it DID happen whether a God had something to do with it or not.

(As an aside the pre-big bang was not a "ball of compressed gas". Gas did not exist until a bit after the big bang, and there is no "before", because time itself is different in that state. (besides the same point can be made about God: where did God come from? Basically the creationist answer to "where did complexity (including intelligence) come from?" is "from a intelligent being!" You see the problem in that? )Brentt 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

I noticed you edited another user's post on Talk:Jesus. It is almost never appropriate to alter the text someone else posts on a talk page. Even correcting grammar and spelling can be offensive to some users, so it's best to avoid editing their text in the first place. On top of that, your edit changed a perfectly acceptable British spelling to an American spelling (baptised vs. baptized). Just giving you a heads up. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hey!

Thanks for leaving me a message! It looks like we've both gotten in trouble for "vandalizing" (a.k.a. making the articles more truthful) too. Well, I'm off to go vandalize some more (not really). --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist Scientist?!?

From Life article:

There is no such thing as 'creationist scientist'.
The Bible is no proof that life started only 6,500 years ago.
No believable or verifiable references to your rather bad spelled entries.
Please stop reverting well researched material.
Feel free to start a religious article if you can document it well.

-BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]