This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Since you (and many other Wikipedia editors) appear to have no idea what ID is or isn't, I recommend you watch the video below. At least then you will be moderately educated on the subject. As it stands now, you are not qualified to discuss or have an opinion on the matter. Please refrain from edits on ID pages until you know what you're talking about. I don't edit pages on skateboarding or football because I don't know much about those topics. I recommend you stick to editing things you're educated on.

Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

And feel free to continue stalking me on Wikipedia. You have my permission. Saxophilist ( talk) 07:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Saxophilist: As a devout Catholic you should know that the Catholic Church has no quarrel with the theory of evolution and did not put its money upon intelligent design.

Let's say science has proven that God exists and that Jesus is God. Do you realize what this means? The death of revealed religion, the death of theology. Why read St. Augustine when you can do scientific experiments in order to determine the scientifically correct religion? Scientifically incorrect religions would be declared illegal, and such illegal religions may include the Adventists, the Catholics and the Southern Baptists. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I never said I didn't believe in evolution. Saxophilist ( talk) 22:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ID doesn't necessarily rule out evolution either. Saxophilist ( talk) 22:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Saxophilist: I watched the YouTube film. My conclusions are:

1. Meyer is incompetent in biology.
2. Meyer did not convince the organized skepticism. This means he utterly failed.
3. Meyer does not understand the difference between philosophy and science.
4. At first sight this is a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any see [1]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to watch the interview. It's very admirable of you. I disagree with you that Meyer doesn't understand biology or the different between philosophy and science. Can you please elaborate what brought you to those conclusions? Saxophilist ( talk) 23:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Saxophilist: That he did not convince the scientific community: that is a hard, obvious fact. He speaks of the God hypothesis having explanatory power. But his God hypothesis is a philosophic hypothesis, not a scientific hypothesis. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or gods. And the Catholic Church is fine with that. He thinks that he does biology or cosmogony or whatever (meaning science), but in fact he does ontotheology. Wikipedia distinguishes between the teleological argument (which is respectable as philosophy) and intelligent design (which is disreputable as science). I mean: study any empirical science at a reputable research university and you'll see that rational argumentation (rhetoric) plays a minor role in science (scientists are interested in hard evidence, not in elegant prose). If it is not backed up by empirical evidence, prose is entirely unconvincing. He gave no inkling of knowing how biological design works, nor of how biological design is operationalized. How do I know that he is incompetent in biology? Because his tropes (e.g. the Cambrian explosion) have been debunked for many years. He seems entirely unaware that these have been debunked. So he is either extremely ignorant or a pathological liar. So, he misunderstands the science of biology either because he is ignorant or because he is dishonest. The design argument has been wholly debunked by Darwin and the scientific community wholly supports this conclusion. Meyer cannot change this judgment of the scientific community either because of his own ignorance or because of being a fake. Many thousands of hours of scientific work support the theory of evolution and Meyer thinks he can undo that through mere rhetoric. And as Alvin Plantinga stated, Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that. ...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God. Meyer is simply a religious loon who thinks he can undo one of the cornerstones of modern science by spewing nonsense about God or gods. See http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2012/01/276-stephen-meyer.html?m=1 tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Is [ this] you? CycoMa ( talk) 22:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@ CycoMa: Yup. That's me. Hard to miss, since I have filled my diplomas on my user page. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have recently seen the discussion you had with some users in the Abraham page. While I agree with you that the Patriarchal stories are legendary, I would like to invite you not to insult people just because they are evangelical. Insulting people is never good, especially on the base of their religion. Also, saying that an evangelical scholars is an idiot only because he's evangelical is not very intelligent either, since we all know that there are serious evangelical scholars. And I am not an evangelical, nor do I plan to become one. - Karma1998 ( talk) 21:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Karma1998: AFAIK I have never said that evangelicals are idiots. As far as I remember, I said that bibical inerrantism is WP:FRINGE. A completely different statement. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

And I agree with you, @ Tgeorgescu:, biblical literalism is nonsense and I think most of mainline Christian actually agree with this. I'm saying this because I actually used to be a biblical literalist and I later realized how this position is untenable, whether one is Christian or not. But there are ways and ways of saying it. I'm simply asking you not to be so harsh on evangelicals. Explain your point in a kind way, without involving discussions about religion or the Trinity that are well beyond this encyclopaedia. BTW, I'm sorry for attacking you and saying you were anti-Christian in our discussion about the Census of Quirinius. I was behaving like a fundamentalist crank and I realize I was wrong about it. Now I always use reliable sources when I try to prove my point.- Karma1998 ( talk) 23:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I answered their charges after they said that I deny believers their human rights. This is a wholly preposterous, inane and absurd statement, which convinced me they are a troll.

@ Karma1998: I mean, it's so absurd because I never had positions of power over other people. Not even as a teacher or a functionary. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: OK, that's fine, you are clearly not denying anyone's human rights and you were correct in saying that this encyclopaedia is not a place where everyone can write everything they believe. But we shouldn't aprioristically deny sources: I usually avoid quoting evangelicals such as Kenneth Kitchen or James K. Hoffmeier because of their Maximalist positions, but some of their points may be right and they are without doubt excellent scholars in their fields (Egyptology and Old Testament studies). I simply believe they should be quoted when their views are in line with mainstream scholarship and when there's a scholar debate. - Karma1998 ( talk) 23:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you recently posted a notice about discretionary sanctions on a topic of controversy, Alternative Medicine. First of all, thank you for letting me know that information, as it's helpful. I was hoping you could help me with some questions I have about Wikipedia guidelines and editing, if it's not too much trouble. I am trying to avoid an edit war and I want to know what is the appropriate way to proceed. I have brought in a third party on the Talk Page discussion, and another third party reworded to come to a compromise which both of us conceded to. Another editor reverted that edit that was the compromise, however.

I have just posted this to a Noticeboard here.

My question is, am I in the wrong for making these edits, and taking this to dispute resolution? I have received messages from the editor I originally disputed with that I am vandalizing, will get banned, etc. Is what I'm doing wrong? Thanks so much for your time. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 01:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Pyrrho the Skeptic: Dispute resolution is the way. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 16:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Shadybabs ( talk) 12:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for being the only one willing to have a real discussion with me about the alternative medicine article. I'm not going to continue the argument any further, I'll back off form the topic, and I'm sure you'd rather I left Wikipedia, but I learned a lot about Wikipedia and how it works over the past week, and it's because of editors like you who are willing to humor me and at least see where the discussion goes. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 19:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Pyrrho the Skeptic: You're welcome. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This is my first time communicating through talk, so I apologise in advance if I am not supposed to be writing on this part.

I made an edit yesterday to Daniel 8 and you removed it for "no wiki source" even though I had provided sources to both Daniel 8 and the book of Revelation to provide evidence that they both could be related, and most probably are. Here was my edit:

"Another interpretation to who the little horn is, is the beast spoken of in Revelation due to Daniel 8 confirming that the prophecy concerns the end times. Daniel 8:17 Daniel 8:19 That can also be validated inside of Revelation as we are told this prophecy concerning the beast; "The beast that once was, and now is not, is an 8th king. He belongs to the 7 and is going to his destruction". Revelation 17:11 And just as the little horn wages war on The Messiah. Daniel 8:25 The beast in Revelation also wages war on The Messiah. Revelation 19:19 There are very striking similarities between the small horn and the beast. Thus, it should not be ruled out as a viable interpretation."

Under the premise of no wiki source to validate the interpretation. You would have to remove the interpretation above the one I wrote:

"Daniel 8:13's "holy ones" most likely means angels, rather than saints, as in the King James Version.[23] Sometimes in the Hebrew Bible it seems to refer to the Israelites.[24] Stars were commonly identified with angels in ancient Israel, and in 8:10 the reader is told that the little horn "grew great ... and some of the host of the stars it cast down to the ground and trampled upon them", indicating that Antiochus fights against the "heavenly host" of God's angels.[25] Indeed, he "aspired to be as great as the Prince of the host," God himself.[21]"

(The bold text was highlighted by myself to show that even the writer also new that this information may not be factual). I would even go as far as to say that my interpretation holds more weight as it provides more sources from a biblical viewpoint. The book of revelation is a book for the end times. Daniel was told his prophecy of the little horn concerned the end times. And due to the similar nature of the little horn in Daniel 8 and the beast in Revelation, we can make a fair assumption that they must be one of the same! With that being said. What was the purpose of reverting my edit?

You posted your propaganda on my page about Christianity and Atheism. My profile states I am a devotee and follow Sanatana Dharma. Your very rude post was not appreciated. I don't even know you, have never interacted with you. Where do you think you can post your propaganda about issues that don't even involve me on my page?

Clarification request: Pseudoscience which you filed has been closed. You can view a permalink of the discussion here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This is to inform you that a section has been started on /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Tgeorgescu that may concern you. Thank you. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 ( talk) 04:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)