User talk:Inthebeginning

Evolution addition

Whenever you add such a substantial and controversial section to a Feature Article, make absolutely sure that you cite your information. In a scientific topic, these citations should be mostly scientific publications. This will ensure that your additions will not be immediately reverted.--Roland Deschain 18:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. All your unsupported additions are contradictory to the supported material found in the Evidence of evolution section. Also go through the archives. Most of your additions have been discussed and found lacking.--Roland Deschain 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found wanting - by what standard? Certainly not a scientific standard. When you use a diagram of creatures that are all living at the same time to prove common descend you are obviously lacking in critical scientific analysis skills. You also use a double standard. Any argument that supports evolution no matter how weak, for example the morphological argument, requires no sitation; yet anyone that has visited the Field museum in Chicago knows that science can not explain first life and this would require a citation. I have citations. I was only omitting them to see if you were capable of unbiased thought. You apparently are not.

You are the one who should stop. You are holding back good science.

Comments for you in Homosexuality and religion

Hello, Inthebeginning. I am not certain where the best place to carry on a conversation with you about your edits to Homosexuality and religion is, on the talk pge of the article or here, on your talk page. I have chosen to leave comments to you there. Sean Lotz talk 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the talk page is better. I am all for a public debate and let the best information rise to the top. Inthebeginning 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hello. I owe you a bit of an apology. Recently, I called your addition to Homosexuality and religion "twaddle." That was an inappropriate choice of word. I have an unfortunate tendancy to speak (or write) to total strangers as I do to my friends. "Twaddle" is a word I would use to a friend, but I had no place writing it to a stranger, whose name I don't even know. I ask your forgiveness. Though I do believe your comments are illogical and, of course, I think them inappropriate in that particular article, I could have expressed the idea better and more politely with perhaps "illogical and suppositious." I wish I had done so, and I ask your pardon. Sean Lotz talk 07:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will want to attend to this

Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28_Homosexuality_and_religion_revert_war Sean Lotz talk 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your statement "What is more interesting than this fact, perhaps the most important fact science has proven, is that this creation was described thousands of years ago in the first sentence in the Bible. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' (Genesis 1:1)." I believe this does refer to the beginning of our space, probably from His word alone, however that doesn't mean there wasn't anything before that "date" but it is not within our concept of time or space.." God always existed... Higgy1

Robert J. Marks II, Ph.D.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert J. Marks II, Ph.D., and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/Marks/Bob/..%5CCV/bio.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Robert J. Marks II, Ph.D.

A tag has been placed on Robert J. Marks II, Ph.D., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. -- WebHamster 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID

Please don't add nonsensical edits, they will be treated as vandalism. BTW, work on this one, In principio creavit homo deos et ex eo tempore poenas dederat Jim62sch^dissera! 02:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'nonsensical' only to people who don't know what they are talking about. Scientist write science. Are you a scientist? Inthebeginning

edits on Intelligent design

Stop edit warring, or you may be blocked from editing. If you make an edit controversial enough to be reverted, please bring it up on the talk page rather than just reverting. The short answer is, there's no way you can describe ID as a scientific theory, because that's not neutral or accurate. Friday (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 RR On Intelligent Design

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligent Design. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You are on #4. Please stop. Baegis (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Vsmith (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are morons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inthebeginning (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 February 2008

If you're demonstrate that you're not here to contribute constructively, you're likely to be blocked indefinitely rather than just for a day. Friday (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:Civility. Vsmith (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]