Justtheinformation
|
Charles Darwin
editThanks for commenting at Talk:Charles Darwin, it'll be appreciated if you can discuss proposed additions or changes there as the article really needs to be as trim as possible while still covering all the main points. While writing, your edit to The Origin of Species making the intro read "Darwin's book was the culmination of observations he had witnessed on the voyage of the Beagle" was changed back by another editor to "was the culmination of evidence he had accumulated ....", and in my opinion that gives a better indication of the point that much of the evidence was in the form of collections which he'd not understood at the time. Comments or suggestions for phrasing it better will be welcome, .. dave souza, talk 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition to Dave's request, let me also suggest avoiding phrases such as "presented evolution by common descent as a scientific explanation" in place of "established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation". We know which camp these embellishments come from, we have seen them before. Please do not delude yourself that you can insert creationist POV into Wikipedia articles. I've seen your other contributions, and they are tendentious. You will find that the evidence-based world view very much prevails on Wikipedia. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I notice that, several times now, you've edited Charles Darwin in a way that suggests you don't know what theory means in science, you're playing games or you've been persuaded by typical creationist distortions that have been thoroughly discredited in the U.S. courts. Whichever way, if you repeat the exercise it will be treated as vandalism. If you have serious and well supported points to make, please raise them on the article talk page, taking care to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. It will be greatly appreciated if you can comply with policies and make a positive contribution, .. dave souza, talk 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all I never said I was a creationist. You did! You made an assumption based on nothing you knew about me and that makes you no better than the vandals that you are comparing me to. I'm not vandilising if I wanted to vandalise it I would say something like "Darwin provided a big pile of crap he called evidence to try to make people belive God isn't real." That is no the point I'm trying to make at all. The THEORY of Evolution is exactly that I'm not saying it is anything more or anything less. Okay if it was solid scientific fact totally agreed upon by everyone and everything scientific then it wouldn't just be a Theory. For example there are things that were theories that became LAWS such as Gravity and Relativity. If you wanted to show Darwinian Evolution as fact you would either need numerous accounts in the past from witnesses of the actual experiences of it or to go back in time and be a witness. We don't have the former and the latter can currently only be achieved in a Jules Verne novel. Also, Darwinian theories are not as widely accepted in the scientific community as you say there are numerous scientific minds in every field from Bacteriology to Physics that have published works that do not weigh in favor of Darwinian Evolution. Darwin's Theories are not the only ones that are finding ground in the scientific community hence they should not be presented as the only possibility. Besides, if I bother you people so much then why do you persistently change it back? I'm not selling Darwin short or anything, I am simply stating what was done in his life. It's not as big of "Crazy Creationist's (As I said before you were the ones assuming I was a creaionist) attempt to guide people away from seeking scientific truth". Please, I don't want to turn this into a debate so if so if we can get on to more important issues that would be nice. I call myself Just-the-information because that is what I am giving. No biases, no lies, no assumptions, just the information. I'd expect you to have the same decency.