See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 6

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous archive

Next archive

Talk page archive
This is an archive of talk-page discussions. Do not add any discussion to this page.

If you wish to reply to comments here, start a new discussion on the current talk page.

If you believe that a discussion was archived prematurely, move it from the archive back to the talk page.


Contents

quick note

Mr. Rayment, I made a correction to the RationalWiki article for you plus added some clarifying material. You can read what I added to the article plus I made a note at the talk page of the article for you. :) Ruylopez 02:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the creationist explanation of this?

[1] Jaxe 21:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaxe, you fool! It's obvious this just shows the migratory patterns animals used to get the ark. This proves the flood also because the land was broken up during the flood. Man, its easy being a creationist. Ace McWicked 23:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, Ace is almost correct. All this shows it that the continents were together at one time (which I and many other creationists agree they were before the flood); it doesn't say anything about when. --EvanW 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
[Deleted by Umpire] those continents must be flying along to reach their current positions in just 6000 years. Jaxe 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Try 4000 years. Ace McWicked 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
So simple to be a creationist! Ace McWicked 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Man, its easy being a creationist. Of course. Why look for obscure, difficult, answers when the truth is obvious and simple? :-)
EvanW is correct insofar as he goes. Many creationists agree with the idea that the continents were all one originally, an idea first proposed by a creationist partly on the basis of Genesis! (It took a long time for the secular scientists to catch up.)
However, I have to wonder if the evidence is really as neat as the diagram indicates. It just seems too neat and non-overlapping to be exactly what the evidence indicates, and I suspect a fair bit of supposition went into the diagram. Nevertheless, I'm not disputing the core point that similar fossils are found in areas which would have been roughly adjacent originally.
...those continents must be flying along to reach their current positions in just 6000 years. and Try 4000 years. No, try within one year—during the flood. And keep in mind that although secular scientists believe it took millions or billions, they don't actually have a mechanism that can keep them moving for that long, whereas the creationist with the world's leading computer model of tectonic movement has shown (via his modelling) that it could occur very rapidly by means of what's known as "runaway subduction". (Just as the secular view has problems, so does his, but the mechanism itself appears to work.)
So simple to be a creationist! Not really. As I said, that creationist model also (like secular views) has problems which are not simple to solve.
Philip J. Rayment 01:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It took a long time for the secular scientists to catch up That is so ridiculous I nearly comment but nonetheless scientists don't just go read one book and say "thats it, no more is required". That's what creationists do. Scientists study formations, propose hypothesis, debate the facts, do research etc and that takes some time. Ace McWicked 01:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If the continents moved that far in one year there would be very obvious evidence of this violently fast acceleration change. Instead we see very consistent steady change in all of the dozens of different mechanisms we use for measuring change. This also violates pretty much everything we know about geology, from crystallisation to volcanoes. If you've ever studied geology at even the most basic level you will know that heat and pressure, as well as the speed of change of those variables, have dramatic consequences for the types of materials and formations that get produced. Geologists have this kind of study down to an art science, and would certainly be able to detect this kind of event. Jaxe 10:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If the continents moved that far in one year there would be very obvious evidence of this violently fast acceleration change. Given that I have serious doubts that you would have any real idea what to look for in this case, I think that comment is meaningless.
Instead we see very consistent steady change in all of the dozens of different mechanisms we use for measuring change. "See" in the present, or in the past? We don't "see" the past, and nobody's suggesting that it's happening today to see.
If you've ever studied geology at even the most basic level ... Well, given that the scientist concerned has studied geology—in fact he is a geophysicist who has studied planetary mantle dynamics—I suspect that he's knows a bit more about what he's talking about than you.
Philip J. Rayment 11:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
... but less than real scientists. Editor at CP 11:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I did geology & physics at undergrad level, I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I know enough to know geology makes no sense on a 6000 year time scale. I also know all the worlds geologists are in agreement on that so don't take it from me. One or two religion corrupted scientists disagreeing with the majority consensus is not a compelling argument against it. Jaxe 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
... but less than real scientists. Of course. No real scientist is creationist. Here's one! He's a creationist, so he's not a real scientist! Now, what was that called again? The Scottish theory? Nope. The No Scottish theory? Nope. Oh, that's right! The No True Scotsman fallacy! Spare me.
Wrong. As usual. Editor at CP 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course! I'm the creationist, so I'm wrong by definition, right? After all, you've not pointed out how I'm wrong, so it must be simply by definition. Philip J. Rayment 13:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
A creationist is not wrong by definition, I believe for example that you got your trains right. But in this case you are wrong. Nothing surprising. Editor at CP 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Silly me for making a mistake like that. A creationist is wrong (by definition) whenever he's talking about creation and related matters! Better? After all, you've still not actually explained how I was wrong, so what else am I to conclude? Philip J. Rayment 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should stop assuming things and putting words in the mouths of others. Editor at CP 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
And maybe you should stop saying "you're wrong" without substantiating that claim. Philip J. Rayment 22:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I did geology & physics at undergrad level, I'm not claiming to be an expert... Unlike the scientist concerned. Case closed.
Philip J. Rayment 12:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop being so childish. The worlds experts find his ideas on geology laughable; and since neither of us are experts we should take their consensus seriously. This is not an argument from authority, it's an argument from informed consensus which is not a fallacy but a perfectly legitimate point to make. If you have trouble comprehending why informed consensus should not be taken lightly then you seriously don't understand science or critical thinking in general. By not even attempting to address this point you are conceding that your beliefs are not based on science. Jaxe 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop being so childish. Who? Me? You're the one using arguments like "laughable" and "religion corrupted" whilst lecturing me on critical thinking and legitimate points to make.
The worlds experts find his ideas on geology laughable; ... Oh? Please name some of these "experts" on rapid plate tectonics and runaway subduction. Or are they only experts in their own views?
By not even attempting to address this point you are conceding that your beliefs are not based on science. When you say that "all" the words geologists are in agreement, when they are not (see Support for creation and evolution#scientists) (and that's not taking into account that the figures are skewed against creationists by some of them being denied their qualifications) and dismiss the ones who disagree as "religion corrupted" and quote "experts" who, for the most part, have not studied the creationist models to have any authority to comment on them, then there's really not much of substance to address.
Philip J. Rayment 13:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
He should have said "all of the world's qualified geologists." And since when do we advocate becoming an expert in something like creationism in order to be comment on its utter failure to adequately address any scientific question in an intellectually honest and rigorous way? Creationism simply is not science. It makes no predictions. Its "creationist models" are post hoc rationalizations that seek to conform reality to a zealous minority's interpretation of the bible. Just-so stories told to credulous people like you with a high school science education who are wowed by sciency writing that comports with your biblical worldview. What qualifications does one need to observe that some non-scientific approach to discrediting a scientific theory is appropriate? I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'd like you to admit that the only thing that sets your strident support for creationism apart from the equally strident support some other zealot has for, say, the idea that the ancient egyptians were aliens, is your bible. That's it. And if that's all you got, you're really behind the 8 ball when it comes to providing any reasonable basis for believing the bible was written by anyone other than a series of Jews living in the desert up to 1900 BC who appropriated large parts of their story from neighboring religions in a series of stories that were to be recompiled over and over by many different non-divinely-inspired redactors. Why is your flood story, with its references to Noah and the "kinds", the authority over any of other flood stories from the Middle East? Etc. I think it's solely because you believe your bible says it's so. At best, creationism's interest is in providing fodder for stimulating philosophical conversation. When everything you believe essentially resolves to "I read it in the bible so that means god said so" you don't got much. Teh Terrible Asp 18:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) It makes no predictions Try looking into Russell Humphrey's [accurect and correct] predictions regarding planetary magnetic fields. He made them based on his creationist model. It still amazes me how often anti-creationists are happy to uncritically repeat baseless catch-phrase criticisms of creationism, despite their falisty being quie easy to establish. BradleyF (LowKey) 07:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

But no one observed(™/creationists) the magnetic field of the earth in the past. How can we know it can be extrapolated back? After, the nuclear decay rates are all wishy-washy-like. (PS: References? Evidence?) Sterile 13:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about extrapolating Earth's magnetic field back into the past? Philip J. Rayment 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I did, look at Humprey's work. (It helps if you actually read the creationist references that you don't cite.) He is using a contrived exponential decay of the the earth's (not all planets, Bradley) magnetic field as support for a young earth; and yet I do believe no one observed the magnetic field of the earth 4000 or 6000 years ago. I love it when the creationists own arguments work against them! Anyway, this blog is boring again. Sterile 14:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm leaving it for Bradley to provide a link, as he brought it up, but are you sure you read the right thing? Although Humphreys has provided argument about the Earth's magnetic field (for which your original criticism was invalid), Bradley was referring to specific predictions Humphreys has made about other planets. Philip J. Rayment 14:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok then, Bradley, where's your accurate and correct sciency science from a board member of CMI? This discussion is entertaining. Dance for me. Teh Terrible Asp 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do goal posts keep shifting? Why now a "board member"? If you are referring to Humphreys, he is not, as far as I know, a board member. Philip J. Rayment 22:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
So sorry. I got my board of directors wrong. I was merely repeating Bradley's unsupported assertion that Humphreys' predictions about something you guys have so far failed to even identify were "accurate and correct." [I like how he had to add that little rhetorical flourish in brackets] I regret my entire question, merely asking for some support for a claim, became impotent because I incorrectly stated that Humphreys is a board member of CMI. He's a board member of the illustrious Creation Research Society, another thrillingly relevant institution we all look to for its groundbreaking creation research, not the CMI. He's merely employed in some manner by CMI. Mea culpa. I find it entertaining that you're so vain you think nobody notices when you spout off about things you don't understand. Goalpost moving means something very different than you think. It's sort of cute, really. You mouth the names of logical fallacies and rhetorical strategies in defense of your primitive myth. You even pretend that there's more to it than "my bible says so," while admitting that the existence of a non-interventionist god is unprovable. Keep it up. You might even start getting the quality of traffic CP: people other than the 6 editors active on your site coming here to laugh at your mental gymnastics. Teh Terrible Asp 23:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
When goalposts keep being shifted by critics, it's hard to tell when one apparent shifting is not part of a pattern. Nevertheless, I see that you used this as an excuse for some more unsubstantiated rhetoric, with nothing of substance to back it. Philip J. Rayment 03:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
How bout someone identifies the correct and accurate predictions Humphreys made so we can move on? BTW, I see that you used this as an excuse to dodge yet another direct request for substantiation of an affirmative claim. Let's start talking about Wieland and "spongy" blood vessels and "intact blood cells" next. Teh Terrible Asp 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you were keeping up, you would have known that Bradley was the one that mentioned the prediction, and I have already said that I was leaving it to him to provide links. But as it seems he is not around at the moment, try this which refers to it and has references. Philip J. Rayment 08:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but did or do not someone observe the magnetic fields of the planets during the time of creation? It's the same argument that you use all the time! Where is that recorded? It it's a prediction (or a "retrodiction"), it's based on current data. How is this different from the "retrodictions" of evolution that are based on current data? There's nothing in your creation.com article(suprise source there!) to explain how he used data to make that prediction.... (Or are we going to get the ol' "God observed it" reason?... Hopeful their math is better than the c-decay model embarrassment.) Sterile 12:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but did or do not someone observe the magnetic fields of the planets during the time of creation? It's the same argument that you use all the time! I use that argument regarding what supposedly happened in the past. This prediction was about the present. Big difference.
It it's a prediction (or a "retrodiction"), it's based on current data. It was a true prediction, because it was made before the measurements.
There's nothing in your creation.com article... Did you not notice that I said that the article "refers to it and has references". I never said that the article itself had all the necessary information.
Philip J. Rayment 13:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So what is the physical mechanism that is causing the magnetic field to decay? That's not moving the goalposts; that's asking the next logical question. That is, why was it so large 6000 years ago? Sterile 20:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that's not moving the goalposts, but that's two questions. Do you want to know the decay mechanism, or why it was what it was 6,000 years ago? I'm not sure that I know the answer to either. The decay mechanism would presumably be just natural 2nd Law decay. But how Humphreys calculated the starting strength in order to calculate the present-day strength is something that I simply don't know. Philip J. Rayment 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If it's a second law thing, something in the matter must change such that the energy spreads out. One might presume that there is a redistribution of matter or a chemical reaction. (The mechanism is what I was referring to.) I still don't understand the prediction thing. Are you saying that data taken in the present is evidence for creation? I honestly don't understand. If the data only fits with 6000 years (and not 14 billion or another large number), then it would seem to be evidence for creation based on data taken in the present, despite that magnetic field was not measured at the time. I'm not really sure that it's a prediction is that big a deal here. Sterile 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

stop

Philip: References? Evidence for the flood mechanism? It's amazing how many times I can ask the same questions and get the same convoluted answers. Sterile 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
sorry I have been away. Who is the scientist being discussed here please ? Well, given that the scientist concerned has studied geology—in fact he is a geophysicist who has studied planetary mantle dynamics Is that Dr Walt Brown - hydroplate theory ? Thorin 16:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
He should have said "all of the world's qualified geologists." Depending on your definition of "geologist", if you're not qualified, then you're not a geologist, so that changes nothing. In any case, the person being discussed is qualified.
And since when do we advocate becoming an expert in something ... in order to be comment on [it]? Since the beginning? We are not talking about "commenting", but on the weight of supposedly expert opinion. So you're saying that people who don't know what they are talking about are experts?
... its utter failure to adequately address any scientific question in an intellectually honest and rigorous way? Still resorting to gratuitous mud-slinging, I see.
Creationism simply is not science. False (insofar as you mean, that it contains no science), as has been pointed out numerous times.
It makes no predictions. False, as has been shown before. This is the problem with people who are not experts: they make silly, false, accusations from their ignorance. Bradley has mentioned one.
Its "creationist models" are post hoc rationalizations... You mean like much of evolution?
...that seek to conform reality to a zealous minority's ... Like the minority of zealous atheists who push evolution, such as Dawkins?
...interpretation of the bible. Whilst at the same time ensuring that it conforms to the evidence.
Just-so stories told to credulous people like you ... Sounds like evolution to me!
What qualifications does one need to observe that some non-scientific approach to discrediting a scientific theory is appropriate? For a start, an open mind that doesn't pre-judge the view before learning about it.
I'd like you to admit that the only thing that sets your strident support for creationism apart from the equally strident support some other zealot has for, say, the idea that the ancient egyptians were aliens, is your bible. I can't admit that, because it is emphatically not the case. If the Bible was the only basis for my creationist beliefs, then I would believe that creation occurred, but not argue the point in public, because I wouldn't want to be embarrassed. The only reason that I'm "strident" (as opposed to why I believe it) is because of the evidence that I can cite in support. This is why I say very little about, for example, Islam; because I don't have the evidence to support what I say (which is not to say that it doesn't exist; just that I don't have it because I haven't studied it).
And if that's all you got... Emphatically it's not all I've got. I've pointed this out many times, but you seem blind to seeing it.
Why is your flood story, with its references to Noah and the "kinds", the authority over any of other flood stories from the Middle East? It's not mine, but because it (a) is Divinely inspired, (b) shows evidence of being the most credible (the dimensions of the ark are those of a stable ark, the dimensions of the Gilgamesh ark show it to be an unstable cube) and this demonstrates that, if anything, the accounts of other cultures appropriated theirs from the Genesis account, as retelling makes a story less accurate not more accurate, (c) were committed to writing very early (if not at the time), and (d) were preserved by a people who are known to have preserved their holy text extremely accurately.
When everything you believe essentially resolves to "I read it in the bible so that means god said so" you don't got much. It only "resolves to" that in your closed mind.
References? Evidence for the flood mechanism? It's amazing how many times I can ask the same questions and get the same convoluted answers. It's amazing how many times I can give answers and be accused of not giving them. What exactly are you after this time?
Who is the scientist being discussed here please ? It is Dr. John Baumgarder.[2][3][4]
Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaking News

This just in! Geophysicists push age of earth's magnetic field back 250 million years! Sterile 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Summarising (tell me if you think I'm wrong), the new age is based on measurements of rocks, not on a model. Do they have models of what it should have been? Does this measurement agree with the models? The new measurements are not consistent with older measurements. They have measured (supposed) 3.2 million-year-old rocks at 50% of today's strength, now 3.45 million-year-old rocks that are no weaker, and perhaps ever stronger (50% to 70% of today's strength). Presumably they now consider the older measurements inaccurate, despite the newer measurement having a 20-percentage-point range of error. Have they retested the 3.2 million-year-old rocks with the new techniques to see if they are now consistent? Or is this a case of now having a figure that's less of a problem for evolution they will simply ignore the previous problematic measurements? And I note that the previous figure was a problem for the origin of life, but not one that was well-known, which seems to be another example of highlighting the evidence favouring evolution but not mentioning the evidence that was a problem for evolution. Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell you that you're wrong because I don't claim to be an expert on the magentism of rocks, and I'm not about to brush off a paper based on my preconceptions of the way I think a paper ought to be. What are your credentials on the magnetism of rocks? Perhaps you'd like to write a letter to the journal Andy-style, if you are so convinced you are right. Sterile 11:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (PS I'll obtain the Science article and take a good look at it.) PS: Also in that issue: "The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary," a review article here. The conspiracy runs deep. Sterile 11:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) PS, Your comment "20-percentage-point range of error" as well as your comment about the origins of life would indicate you don't understand the science. Sterile 12:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Um, Sterile, 50% to 70% is a 20 percentage point range. What else would it be? BradleyF (LowKey) 12:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you know about error analysis? Sterile 21:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not Andy.
...if you are so convinced you are right. Right about what? My post was mainly questions, and apart from the percentage, you've not pointed out anything wrong with my understanding of what they are claiming.
Your comment "20-percentage-point range of error" as well as your comment about the origins of life would indicate you don't understand the science. And yet you provide nothing in the way of description, let alone argument, let alone evidence, of what I supposedly don't understand.
Philip J. Rayment 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And you, Philip, do you have any intention of looking at the Science article? They have newsy version you know, but you'd probably have to go to a university to get a copy.
If you truly want a response, well then here it is: It's standard creationist fare. You bring up the word model for no apparent reason; mostly the description is about a measurement. You still confuse measurement, observation, hypothesis, theory and now model freely. You snarkily question the age of the rocks with no reason: What else could you mean by "(supposedly)"? What are your reasons to doubt the measuremnet? Please explain. You presume that the first measurement is now wrong and that the science is shoddy--again without looking at that measurement--and you presume that a 20% range in values based on the current one is erroneous, when you have no actual idea of what the science is. Just because there is a 20% range in two rocks does not mean that there is something wrong with the science, unless you have a reason to believe so. Please tells us, Philip or Bradley or any other creationist here: what is your expectation of how the two measurements should be, based on either the old earth timeframe or, for that matter, a young earth timeframe? The point being, a 20% range does not necessarily imply anything wrong about the measurement. (Of course it's an error range; it's the implication that there is something wrong that's the problem.)
Again, we can look at the original paper if you want together, but it's difficult to have these conversations if you're just going to jump on the science without considering it. And again, if you think the measurements are in doubt, please, write the journal. Science and other journals have been known to publish corrections and retract whole articles. Don't just write a tiny wiki: take some action by becoming part of the scientific debate. The problem with Andy was that he didn't listen and his criticism was unjustified. But maybe yours is. From what you wrote about, it is not. I'm sure we can find someone at RW who can discuss the science with you if I can't. I don't claim to be an expert, but I can read the paper and try, and I have a geologist friend who could help out. What are you willing to do?Sterile 13:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If there is a freely-available on-line copy of the Science article, I'll look at it.
You bring up the word model for no apparent reason; mostly the description is about a measurement. Yes, initially, that was my point: I was just wanting to make sure that I understood the article, and was saying that it was based on measurement rather than a model. Rather than simply agree that I got that point right, you are trying to make out that I'm somehow being obtuse. I then went on to ask if there were models, and if so, did they agree? I've found in the past that the evidence is very selective, where they tell you the stuff that agrees and gloss over or ignore the bits that don't agree. I was doing what a good scientist does: being sceptical.
You snarkily question the age of the rocks with no reason: What else could you mean by "(supposedly)"? Not with no reason. All dating methods are based on assumptions, and often assumptions that presume uniformitarianism or reject biblical creation, and the dating methods have been shown to be unreliable.
You presume that the first measurement is now wrong and that the science is shoddy--again without looking at that measurement... Apart from not accepting secular dates, it wasn't an assumption; it was based on the first measurement apparently not being consistent with the second.
...and you presume that a 20% range in values based on the current one is erroneous. Apart from not accepting the secular dates, no I didn't.
...what is your expectation of how the two measurements should be, based on either the old earth timeframe ... I'm starting to wonder myself! When I came to answer this question, I suddenly "realised" that I'd got the whole thing back to front. Then looking at the article again, it seems that I may have been right in the first place, so now I'm just not sure.
Are they claiming that the magnetic field has got stronger or weaker? The magnetic field is weakening today, which is why I suddenly "realised" that I got it all back to front. But the impression I got from the article is that it has been getting stronger. This is suggested by the claim that there was once a time that there was no magnetic field, then one formed. Therefore it subsequently got stronger.
If that is the case, then my expectation is that the older (latest) measurement is going to show a weaker magnetic field than the younger (previous) measurement. But the older measurement was not weaker, but either the same or stronger.
Given that, I further assumed that the answer to this anomaly would be that the previous (later) measurement was not as accurate (the article notes that the latest measurement has been done with newly-developed equipment), hence my questions about retesting the previous samples. It further seemed odd that, if the latest measurement was considered more accurate, the latest measurement had a 20 percentage-point margin of error when no margin of error is listed for the previous, presumably-less-accurate, measurement. I wasn't questioning the 20 percentage-point margin in itself.
I admit that there are a number of assumptions in all that, but that was why I asked if I understood it correctly. Rather than just clear up my misunderstandings, you've gone on the attack. So now that I've (hopefully) made my comments clearer, are you able to explain the apparent anomaly with the two dates?
Philip J. Rayment 14:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
* 3.4 bya 50-70% (new equipment)
* 3.2 bya 50%
* today 100%
the article is showing that a magnetic field approx half the strength of todays was present 250 million years before previously known. It does mean that the atmosphere was protected from the solar wind, which is significant. This finding will change the theorized model of the early environment but there doesnt seem to be enough data to determine an increasing or weakening field over that first 250 million year period. I would be curious to see a paper on the time taken to create the liquid iron core of the earth Hamster 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
So you're not going to read it if you can't google it? Then you are willfully ignorant of the science, and have no way to be informed about your "skepticism." It's not skepticism if you aren't addressing the content of the paper.
As to your special plead about lack of uniformitarianism, please provide a citation of an example in which nuclear decay did not occur with first-order kinetics. After all, nuclear decays has been observed 1000s of times. It's based on the assumption that each nucleus has an equal probability of decaying in each unit of time, and it comes right out of the calculus. It's used in scientific research in biology, chemistry and medicine all the time. The same pattern is seen throughout science, in bolus drug serum levels, in residence times of compounds in the environment, in population genetics, etc. Pardon me for being unimpressed at your special plead! While you're at it, please provide an example in which a creationist has done rigorous error analysis of radioactive decay to show the error bars.
As for my "attacking," (which doesn't address what I'm saying, merely characterizes me) I'm the one saying to be on the side of caution about interpreting the paper, while you jump to the conclusion that it's wrong! Phrasing it in the form of questions is cute, but without being informed about the content of the paper, is poor and a known trick of creationist rhetoric. It's an attempt to put doubt in the science without doing the work of addressing it.
Do you not care to look at the paper? I recognize that the universities in Australia are spread out; sometimes bookstore will have issues of Science. You can get it for $15, of course, but I think I know where that will go. They also have this magical thing called "interlibrary loan," at least in the US. If you have no interest in looking at the paper, then this conversation is done. As per usual, you cut things short because of your unwillingness to look at things that conflict with your "worldview." Your congnitive dissonance must be extreme.
If you express an interest in reading the paper then this can continue. Otherwise I'm done. Sterile 14:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not skepticism if you aren't addressing the content of the paper. The definition of scepticism is not in any way tied to scientific papers only. I was sceptical in addressing the content of the article.
As to your special plead about lack of uniformitarianism, please provide a citation of an example in which nuclear decay did not occur with first-order kinetics. You mean an example where the rate was changed? See http://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory and http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment.
...please provide an example in which a creationist has done rigorous error analysis of radioactive decay to show the error bars. I don't follow, but if you explain your point perhaps I'll understand better.
I'm the one saying to be on the side of caution about interpreting the paper, while you jump to the conclusion that it's wrong! Insofar as my first response is concerned, no I didn't do that.
Phrasing it in the form of questions is cute... It's not "cute", it's being sceptical.
It's an attempt to put doubt in the science without doing the work of addressing it. Only if you're putting that in a place where people can't respond. On this page, they were genuine questions that were hoping for answers.
If you have no interest in looking at the paper, then this conversation is done. As per usual, you cut things short because of your unwillingness to look at things that conflict with your "worldview." Your congnitive dissonance must be extreme. You are wilfully misrepresenting me. I explicitly said that I was willing to look at the paper, and that my only hesitation was a practical one. I have no idea what access non-students have to university libraries, and in any case I work full time and the only time I have to go to a university would be a weekend (are they open then?) or when I'm on holidays or have a day off. I could probably go to my local library on a Saturday morning and ask them to get it in, but then it would be the following Saturday before I could collect it. The time and effort involved with any of these is not worth it to answer every objection put to me on these talk pages.
Philip J. Rayment 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Continued...

It's undeniably true that scientists in the many separate fields of science have all independently formed strong consensuses about reality, and none of them support the creationist view. Most of them directly contradict it. You're up against the biologists, the physicists, the chemists, the geologists, the astronomers, etc, even the social sciences are not in your favour. All you have to explain this phenomenon is a load of conspiracy nonsense and a persecution complex. Picking out extreme minority positions in each of these fields and saying 'oh but this guy is qualified and says X' is just pathetic. That's not how science works. I think your fundamental problem is that you don't trust the scientific method. You've been taken in by organisations like CMI who write sciency sounding articles with sciency terminology and sciency looking references but reject the scientific method. It's just modern day cargo cult-ism, going through the motions of science without doing any.

Aren't there any conspiracies that you can agree are utterly ridiculous and aren't worth the time to debunk? The idea that aliens built the pyramids for example. They too have qualified physicists and historians to back up their silliness but I don't see you jumping to their defence. Jaxe 14:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's undeniably true that scientists in the many separate fields of science have all independently formed strong consensuses about reality, and none of them support the creationist view. It's undeniably true that there are many (albeit a small minority, but still many) who do support the creationist view, and it's undeniable that many of them have done so on the basis of the evidence.
You're up against the biologists, the physicists, the chemists, the geologists, the astronomers, etc... Against the majority, but being in the majority does not mean it's right.
All you have to explain this phenomenon is a load of conspiracy nonsense and a persecution complex. I have explicity denied conspiracy numerous times, and nobody's tried to demonstrate that creationists do claim conspiracy, and I have a lot more to explain it than the large number of verified cases of persecution.
Picking out extreme minority positions in each of these fields and saying 'oh but this guy is qualified and says X' is just pathetic. Because.... you say so? Most of the time those not-so-extreme-minority positions are quoted to refute ridiculous claims such as in this post of yours that "all" scientists are opposed to creationary views.
That's not how science works. Exactly. So stop using the false as well as invalid "all scientists accept" arguments.
I think your fundamental problem is that you don't trust the scientific method. Evidence? It should be clear from many things that I've written that it's not science that I have a problem with, but the anti-science presumptions such as materialism.
...been taken in by organisations like CMI who write sciency sounding articles with sciency terminology and sciency looking references but reject the scientific method. Again, nobody has provided evidence (as opposed to accusations) that CMI rejects the scientific method, nor that their "articles" do not in fact include peer-reviewed scientific papers. You are high on accusations, and low on actual evidence.
Aren't there any conspiracies that you can agree are utterly ridiculous and aren't worth the time to debunk? The idea that aliens built the pyramids for example. Yes, ones that have no real support. But a creationist I know wrote the best-selling refutation to Von Daniken, used even by the anti-creationist Australian Skeptics to argue against Von Daniken. (I don't recall if Von Daniken actually claimed that aliens built the pyramids, but he claimed things about as silly.) The point being that such claims do warrant refutation rather than being ignored or suppressed.
They too have qualified physicists and historians to back up their silliness ... To the best of my knowledge, not on the scale of support for creation.
...but I don't see you jumping to their defence. Why would I defend something that I don't agree with? If you are talking about defending their right to be heard, then I quote someone that I mostly don't agree with, Carl Sagan (talking about Velikovsky):

My own strongly held view is that no matter how unorthodox the reasoning process or how unpalatable the conclusions, there is no excuse for any attempt to suppress new ideas—least of all by scientists... Therefore, I was very pleased that the AAAS agreed to [hold a discussion on Worlds in Collision, in which Velikovsky took part].

Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
So you agree your world view is only supported by science if you take minority positions from each field which the majority position says is impossible? And furthermore you only take those minority positions because you have some preconceived notion of what the conclusion should be? If you had no prior assumptions then you should have taken the majority position of each field. Jaxe 15:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
<pjr> The bigoted majority only says the minority position is impossible (<asp>it actually doesn't say it's impossible, only that there's no good evidence for it</asp>) because it has a closed mind and is predisposed because of being aggressively atheistic to scorning creationism, despite the strong evidence in favor of a young earth! </pjr> Teh Terrible Asp 17:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Technically a young universe is a statistical impossibility based on all the evidence we have. The only way to get away from that is to say the universe was created old which implies a deceitful god. Jaxe 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
a 6000 year old universe is certainly a bit tight for nucleosynthesis and such , but perhaps God (the christian one) wanted to reinforce FAITH by deliberately confusing things with his statements in the BOOK. An inscription on the back of the Moon would have been a nice touch though. Not the alien moonbase , just an inscription in 50 foot high letters "I God made this" Hamster 21:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
So you agree your world view is only supported by science if you take minority positions from each field ... Are you saying that science consists of "positions"? I would have thought that what I'm saying is clear: (A) that the science (as distinct from the "positions" of scientists) favours creation, and (B) that the argument-by-majority evolutionary claim that "all" scientists reject the idea that science does favour creation is false, as there are a small-but-significant number of scientists who don't reject the claim.
And furthermore you only take those minority positions because you have some preconceived notion of what the conclusion should be? See (B) above.
If you had no prior assumptions then you should have taken the majority position of each field. See (A) above.
Technically a young universe is a statistical impossibility based on all the evidence we have. Elaborate please (else this remains an argument by assertion).
The only way to get away from that is to say the universe was created old which implies a deceitful god. If God did what He said, He is not deceitful, no matter how much you might interpret the evidence differently.
a 6000 year old universe is certainly a bit tight for nucleosynthesis... Given that God would have created heavier elements directly, this seems to be a case of Logical fallacies#Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.
An inscription on the back of the Moon would have been a nice touch though. ... an inscription in 50 foot high letters "I God made this" Let's see if I can tease that out a bit (and let's see if you will actually answer these questions):
  1. Are you suggesting that you would believe in creation if such a thing was found?
  2. If so, is this because you acknowledge that such a thing would not occur naturally?
  3. To put that another way, is this because you acknowledge that such a thing could only occur by the agency of intelligence?
  4. If so, does that mean that you acknowledge that evidence of intelligent design is valid scientific evidence?
  5. If so, does that mean that you acknowledge that Intelligent Design is a legitimate avenue of scientific pursuit (regardless of whether you agree that it's producing correct results)?
  6. Or, if your answer to these question is in the negative, why are you proposing a "test" that you would not accept the results of anyway?
Philip J. Rayment 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You still don't understand what science is. Science is the product of the scientific method, which is a process for acquiring knowledge. Like it or not informed consensus is a vital part of the scientific method, and you are dismissing it out of hand. Saying 'science supports x' is largely meaningless; maybe you meant 'the evidence we have supports creationism'? If so then the majority of scientists in every field of science disagrees with you. This is the heart of this discussion and so far you have avoided answering it: Why do you consistently reject the informed consensus of (almost) every field of science? Jaxe 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
If God creates heavy elements and yet leaves evidence that such materials are created within stars by natural processes (the cosmic background radiation isnt needed for a created universe) then God is being deceptive. If I found a 50 foot high sign on the back of the Moon saying anything then it would lead to a new line of investigation about Earth History, alien visitors or a dozen other possibilities, it would not automatically prove God. Intelligence does not automatically mean GOD. Intelligent design as stated by DI is not science, because it leads to no predictions and leaves the question of creation unanswered. A designer may show a lot about himself in his designs, a creator shows something of his limitations in his creations. Stating I can detect design, but that test is not falsifiable and we cant discuss the designer or creator, his motives, methods, capabilities really leads nowhere.
I do tend to believe in a creator, but dont need to find proof of him. Its a matter of faith, you believe or you do not. Attempting to explain how or why he did something is likely to be wrong, unless you posit your creator to be Human, and seeking proof in itself demonstrates a lack of faith. Hamster 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You still don't understand what science is. Science is the product of the scientific method, which is a process for acquiring knowledge. And what makes you think I don't understand that? I do.
Like it or not informed consensus is a vital part of the scientific method, and you are dismissing it out of hand. No, I'm not dismissing it out of hand. I'm saying that the evidence trumps the views of scientists. Surely that's what you believe about Darwin? The "informed consensus" at the time was that God had created, yet Darwin bucked that and claimed to have evidence (some at least) that went against the consensus. So was Darwin not doing science because he was going against the "informed consensus"?
Saying 'science supports x' is largely meaningless; maybe you meant 'the evidence we have supports creationism'? Yes, "science favours creation" was shorthand for "the scientific evidence we have supports creation".
If so then the majority of scientists in every field of science disagrees with you. As they did with Darwin at the time. So what?
This is the heart of this discussion and so far you have avoided answering it: Why do you consistently reject the informed consensus of (almost) every field of science? I haven't "avoided" answering it; I don't believe that it has been asked of me in that way. I reject the (claimed) consensus because we are talking about an area that relies heavily on presuppositions, not (primarily) on evidence, and I reject those presuppositions. That is, I reject the presupposition that the explanation has to be a naturalistic one; the presupposition that rules out a creator a priori. That presupposition is not science.
If God creates heavy elements and yet leaves evidence that such materials are created within stars by natural processes (the cosmic background radiation isnt needed for a created universe) then God is being deceptive. But you are talking about evidence which you interpret in that way, and presume that your lack of knowledge on why something exists is evidence that it's not needed (an evolution-of-the-gaps argument).
If I found a 50 foot high sign on the back of the Moon ... it would not automatically prove God. Yet you failed to answer my last question: "why are you proposing a "test" that you would not accept the results of anyway?"
Intelligence does not automatically mean GOD. I agree. Yet critics of ID almost without exception reject it because, they claim, the designer must be God!
Stating I can detect design, but that test is not falsifiable... Why not?
...we cant discuss the designer or creator, his motives, methods, capabilities really leads nowhere. Not knowing motives, etc. doesn't preclude us from concluding that there was a designer. Forensic scientists can determine that human activity (i.e. intelligence) was involved without knowing anything about that human agent. Archaeologists can determine that a human agency was responsible for, say, stone tools, without knowing anything about that human agency.
Its a matter of faith, you believe or you do not. Faith is based on evidence; it's not belief in the total absence of evidence nor belief contrary to evidence.
Attempting to explain how or why he did something is likely to be wrong, unless you posit your creator to be Human... Why? It's likely to be wrong if you know little about Him, but given that He has related, to some extent, how or why He created, there's every chance that it's likely to be correct. And that is the basis for science.
...seeking proof in itself demonstrates a lack of faith. So? Seeking proof because of a lack of faith has the goal of increasing faith as there is now substance to it. Thomas had doubts that the risen Jesus really was Him, so sought proof. Rather than be reprimanded for having doubts, he was shown the proof.
Philip J. Rayment 04:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"I'm saying that the evidence trumps the views of scientists" is like saying "A crime scene trumps the views of forensic analysts". What could you possibly mean by this? To a non-expert a crime scene is meaningless until interpreted by experts. You are a non-expert rejecting the informed consensus of a team of experts in favour of individuals that give the conclusions you like. That's about as anti-scientific-method as you can get. Individuals and much more likely to be wrong than what a group of experts can agree on. In the rare cases where individuals have revolutionised an idea (Galileo, Darwin, etc), it wasn't until an informed consensus was formed around the new idea that it became 'correct' for non-experts to accept it. eg A non-biologist at the time just before the publication of Origin of Species would be entirely justified in rejecting Darwin's idea in favour of the consensus of the time. You are choosing the conclusions you want and then looking for individuals that give those conclusions and ignoring everything else. That's anti-science. Science does not reject the idea of a creator, it's rejects ideas that can't be falsified. Scientists follow the evidence, wherever it leads. You only accept if it leads to places you like. Jaxe 12:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"I'm saying that the evidence trumps the views of scientists" is like saying "A crime scene trumps the views of forensic analysts". No, it's like saying that "The crime scene evidence trumps the views of forensic analysts".
The crime scene is the evidence you silly person. Jaxe 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
To a non-expert a crime scene is meaningless until interpreted by experts. Yes, but if the experts say one thing and the evidence shows another, the evidence wins.
You'd only know what the evidence shows if you were an expert. You are not an expert. Jaxe 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You are a non-expert rejecting the informed consensus of a team of experts in favour of individuals that give the conclusions you like. You're ignoring the presuppositions I mentioned, and are mischaracterising a minority view as "individuals".
There is no informed consensus on creation. Your supposed presuppositions are a feeble excuse to ignore the informed consensus of every field of science. Jaxe 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
In the rare cases where individuals have revolutionised an idea (Galileo, Darwin, etc), it wasn't until an informed consensus was formed around the new idea that it became 'correct' for non-experts to accept it. You've now switched from talking about whether it was "science" to whether it was "accepted".
We're talking about non-experts accepting science. You're very confused aren't you? Perhaps if you hadn't exploded the discussion into nonsense yet again there wouldn't be so many separate topics. Jaxe 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You are choosing the conclusions you want and then looking for individuals that give those conclusions and ignoring everything else. No, I'm not "ignoring" everything else; I'm rejecting the interpretations that are dependent on presuppositions that I reject. Again, I've already explained that, but you have engaged in some "ignoring" yourself.
What have I ignored? Actually don't bother answering because this has nothing to with anything, you're just trying to derail the discussion some more. Jaxe 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Science does not reject the idea of a creator... Materialistic scientists do reject the idea of a creator.
Nope. Jaxe 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
...it's rejects ideas that can't be falsified. Scientists follow the evidence, wherever it leads. You only accept if it leads to places you like. As I've said before, that's a nice story, but it doesn't occur that way in practice, as those scientists are fallible human beings who have their own presuppositions and prejudices into which they attempt to fit the evidence.
Philip J. Rayment 13:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Which is why informed consensus is so important. You've trapped yourself, well done.
Don't bother replying; this conversation has crashed and burned into meaninglessness. Jaxe 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Science does not reject the idea of a creator... Materialistic scientists do reject the idea of a creator Perhaps some clarification. Science does not reject a creator. That is TRUE. Science has nothing to say about a supernatural being/event/action since by definition that would not be science. A Scientist doing science will not use a creator to explain anything since that again by definition is not science. What that scientist believes otherwise is entirely up to him. A very well known evolution supporting scientist is a Roman Catholic. Others are Hindu, Baptist, Methodist, Shinto etc. Hamster 21:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The crime scene is the evidence you silly person. I would have thought that the crime scene was the scene or location of the evidence, rather than being a euphemism for the evidence itself. If it is the latter, I fail to see how that misunderstanding makes me "silly".

You'd only know what the evidence shows if you were an expert. You are not an expert. Then I guess that juries are useless, because they have no ability to evaluate any competing claims about what different experts may say about the evidence.

There is no informed consensus on creation. There isn't? Why is that? Because creationists are by definition not "informed"? That's bigotry, if that's what you are saying. Or because there is no consensus amongst creationists? In that case, you are simply wrong.

Your supposed presuppositions are a feeble excuse to ignore the informed consensus of every field of science. Your answer was a feeble excuse to avoid answering a valid point.

We're talking about non-experts accepting science. You're very confused aren't you? No, we were talking about whether it was science. This part of the conversation traces back to this comment of yours: You still don't understand what science is. Science is the product of the scientific method, which is a process for acquiring knowledge. Like it or not informed consensus is a vital part of the scientific method...

What have I ignored? The role of presuppositions. Such as materialism.

Actually don't bother answering because this has nothing to with anything, you're just trying to derail the discussion some more. Certainly not; presuppositions are crucial to it.

Nope. Yep.

Which is why informed consensus is so important. I never denied that it was important; merely that it is the ultimate decider of truth.

Perhaps some clarification. Science does not reject a creator. Partly because science is (historically) based on the idea of a creator.

Science has nothing to say about a supernatural being/event/action since by definition that would not be science. That depends on how you define science. Given that it was based on there being a creator, I reject that a fair definition makes it not science "by definition".

A Scientist doing science will not use a creator to explain anything since that again by definition is not science. Again, that depends on definitions, but why not? If the Creator is the correct explanation, why should science arbitrarily exclude that explanation? What you are confusing this with is the fact that science cannot study the Creator; it cannot measure, test, run experiments on, etc. the Creator. However, that does not mean that science cannot conclude that a creator is the best explanation, and in fact science does this all the time. See design argument.

And you still haven't explained why you proposed a test that you would not accept the results of.

Philip J. Rayment 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I didnt in my first post actually suggest it was a test that I would accept, it was more a throw away line that had a literary referant. There is no way to prove a supernatural event anyway.
the way I define science is the way the US Academy, European and every other university defines science which is methodical naturalism. If you want a different definition be my guest but you will simply confuse anyone doing Science.
If a creator is the best explanation then I nominate TwinkleBlossom the Fairy. She hasnt killed hundreds of thousands of people, bombed anything with hellfire (brimstone) or had a servant of hers kill every firstborn in a city. A much nicer God than Old testament Bible, and just as valid. No scientist doing methodological naturalism type science accepts the DI version of DESIGN. There are numerous critiques of Dembskis paper on the web.
since you dont accept the definition of science theres not much point debating because you are in your own unique world , bye then Hamster 00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I didnt in my first post actually suggest it was a test that I would accept... I agree that you didn't explicitly claim that you would accept it, but mentioning in the context that you did constitutes suggesting that it was a test that you would accept. Otherwise there was no point in mentioning it (that I can see), unless you were trying to mislead.
There is no way to prove a supernatural event anyway. There is no way to prove anything in science, so that comment is a red herring.
...the way I define science is the way the US Academy, European and every other university defines science which is methodical naturalism. Only you are not. You are defining it as philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism refers to the methods of science (scientific method, etc.), whereas you are talking about not allowing God as an explanation (even if true!), which is nothing to do with the method, but with the philosophy. (Note that I'm not suggesting that you are the only one equivocating on these terms.)
If a creator is the best explanation then I nominate TwinkleBlossom the Fairy. Why? The point of ID is to see if the evidence exists for a creator, not to attempt to identify that creator. And probably the same applies with creationism, insofar as the science of it is concerned. Creationism, conversely, does identify the creator, but not from the science so much as extra-science sources and reasoning.
No scientist doing methodological naturalism type science accepts the DI version of DESIGN. Some do; the ones doing ID for example. The rest generally don't because of a commitment to philosophical naturalism.
There are numerous critiques of Dembskis paper on the web. As there are numerous critiques of evolution. So what?
...since you dont accept the definition of science theres not much point debating because you are in your own unique world... No, I'm not. "My" definition is in line with all other scientists who don't accept philosophical naturalism, and in line with the creationist founders of science.
Philip J. Rayment 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
My comments on RATE were professional technical evaluations of the published work they did. I assume that you mean that your comments were about professional technical evaluations. No Phillip, I mean it was MY opinion that the RATE papers were flawed. I went to my bookshelf and pulled out my copies of the books on each test they did, reviewed the sample preparation and the cautions section about known problems, looked at their maths where shown , and decided that their helium diffusion rates looked odd. I then went to a website publications catalog and pulled out several papers on helium diffusion and checked for any similar results. Three papers later I found one that discussed the RATE paper. A quick read of that confirmed that the diffusion rates were out of range and why.
I did radiometric dating in a college lab. We mainly did radio carbon to support the colleges archeology department , and sent all samples out to another lab for verification. The students ran samples to learn the techniques and a major part of the learning process was examining errors. It was considered a big success to get the same result as the pro lab, and we even had a few occasions where the pro lab had a contamination error (which they did question to be fair.) One of the professors ran the testing of older samples (not C14 dating), it needs to be extremely precise. The pro lab was more accurate with smaller error bars but the student work was generally very close. (our equipment was an old donated system) We ran a blind sample method where different students ran samples from the same material. All test results were forwarded to the department that asked for the test with a summary report. Not ideal but it was an educational program, and not leading edge research Hamster 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
First, I guess, thanks for the clarification on what you were meaning. However, although it's not particularly relevant, I fail to see how they were "professional" evaluations. Were you paid to do them? Second, whilst I now understand you to be saying that you evaluated them technically, your comments were not technical evaluations; your comments on the RATE research consisted merely of I am saddened that the RATE team results are still being used to try to show radiometric dating is incorrect.(if that is the group that you refer to) There are several papers refuting the RATE team findings with fairly detailed explanations of where the errors occured. And do I presume from your reference to "evaluations of the published work they did" that you have read the two books that comprise the results of their work? Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

pulled out my copies of the books on each test I mean I got my copy on the handbooks of radiometric dating procedures and looked up each test rate did using the RATE teams published paper. I then made a lot of notes on anything the handbook warns about that RATE did not note as being handled. Then taking my notes I looked up existing papers and compared my notes with the published papers. Then on the basis of several years of performing radiometric dating tests and dealing with all the errors that can occur I formed the opinion that the RATE team made some fairly basic mistakes in sample selection ,sample preparation, test selection and inadequate check tests. AS far as I am aware RATE has not responded in the journals to the published papers critical of their results.
I have read everything the rate team put out. Why would I put a technical evaluation here that is in many scientific peer reviewed journals, you can read them yourself, and why would I put something here that you said you dont understand. Why would I be paid to evaluate RATE and why would it make me a professional ? I think my comments were very clear about how and why my comments on RATE are not the same as your opinion on RATE, all opinions are NOT equal Thorin 04:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So Thorin = Hamster?
pulled out my copies of the books on each test I mean I got my copy on the handbooks of radiometric dating procedures... I didn't ask about that phrase; I asked about "evaluations of the published work they did". I was asking what RATE material you had read, as the main report from the research was two books, yet you referred to "published work" and "published paper", suggesting that you may not have read their main report on the research.
AS far as I am aware RATE has not responded in the journals to the published papers critical of their results. You surely do realise that they have responded to some of the responses to their work. Is it your point that they haven't responded "in the journals"? If so, were criticisms of their work published in the journals?
Why would I put a technical evaluation here that is in many scientific peer reviewed journals... I'm not saying you should. However, you appeared to claim that your comments here were technical evaluations, when they were nothing of the sort. This is not a big issue, but it did cause confusion.
Why would I be paid to evaluate RATE and why would it make me a professional ? The word "professional" is often used to indicate that someone is being paid for their work. I now gather that you are saying that you evaluated it as an expert; as someone who does this sort of work for a living, even though in this case you did it on your own time. Again, it doesn't matter, except that it did cause confusion.
...all opinions are NOT equal Agreed, but that doesn't mean that expert opinion is correct if it's influenced by incorrect presuppositions or biases. You and other evolutionists have one expert opinion; creation scientists have another expert opinion.
Philip J. Rayment 05:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I can help here. A professional is someone who works in the law, medicine or (god help us) the clergy. --The Ghost of Horace 06:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
yes oh great wise Ghost (er when did Horace die , I didnt send a card ) , a professional, from one who professes. I use the term in the common usage, one who does something as a full time job and therefore should know what he is doing :)
funny though how anti-creationists get pretty accurate and consistant radiometric dating results and creationist scientists just dont seem to ...
and yes , I meant reply to the journal that published the paper critical of the work. A journal will always publish a response to an article like that, its part of what they are for.
Hamster 06:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not the only definition of "professional".
Secular scientists don't always get consistent results. See radiometric dating.
I meant reply to the journal that published the paper critical of the work. What journal and paper? All the links were to on-line sources.
A journal will always publish a response to an article like that... Yeah, right.
Philip J. Rayment 12:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for evolution

The following post was moved here from User talk:Lucho/Moon Hoax#Evolutionism vs. Creationism (sequel of debate above)

How about this, Philip? You say that there is the "same evidence" for evolution and creationism, right? That must mean that you think some evidence supports evolution. What is it? (PS: I really don't think calling people you don't know well a bigot. Perhaps that's a US-Australian divide thing, but it's rather offensive.) Sterile 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't follow from the fact that the same evidence can be interpreted in favour of both evolution that I therefore think that some evidence supports evolution, although, incidentally, I do think something along that line.
One major problem with evolution (and this applies equally to creation, despite what some people infer from my comments) is that it is a story about the past, and therefore is not directly scientifically testable. Just as miracles are scientifically untestable because you can't set one up to test it, neither are unique past events (such as fish turning into amphibians) testable. It is possible, however, to make predictions and postdictions based on different views, and see if these match the evidence. The problem I see with these is that very often the predictions are simply too vague to be very objective. For example, it is claimed that Tiktaalik was "predicted" before it was found, and although I don't know the details of this claimed prediction, I'm sure that the "prediction" was not one that gave precise details of exactly what this fossil would look like or what exact features the creature had. Rather, it would have been a vague "something intermediate between X and Y" type of prediction. The strength of a prediction—and therefore the argument based on it—depends on how specific the prediction was. The predictions that Humphreys made about the magnetic fields of other planets (mentioned in another discussion) for example, would be totally meaningless if he had predicted them to be in a range from A to B, where A was zero and B was the maximum possible strength. For the sake of argument, let's say that B = 100 and the actual measurement turns out to be 63.346. If Humphreys had predicted that the fields would be in the range from 10 to 90, that may not be that significant either. A prediction in the range of 60 to 80, however, would be notable, and a prediction of 63.346 would be remarkable. There is, however, more to it than that. Even if Humphreys had made a broad prediction in the range of 60 to 100, it may not be remarkable if that turned out to be correct, unless the competing (naturalistic) prediction was that it would be in the range of 0 to 40. In this case the evidence could truly be said to be in favour of the creationary view. Yet a revised naturalistic prediction (based on revised assumptions) that gave a result of 40 to 70 would mean that the creationary prediction of 60 to 80 was not as impressive as might at first seem (but still a valid successful prediction). (By the way, I don't know how specific Humphrey's prediction was, but it was apparently significantly different to the mainstream prediction, which turned out to be quite off.)
To take another example, was the Grand Canyon formed by a small amount of water (the river flowing through it) over a long period of time, or a large amount of water (such as global flood runoff) occurring over a short period of time? Superficially, both are possible explanations (assuming one is not ruled out a priori on the grounds that it is proposed by creationists). But which is the better explanation? That's not so easy to determine. We have seen canyons form quickly (over days and weeks), but not slowly (over hundreds of thousands of years). Of course one possible reason we haven't seen them form slowly is simply because we have not been around long enough to see that, so the slow-and-gradual explanation has not actually been eliminated; it simply doesn't have particular supporting observations that the quick-formation explanation enjoys. And in this particular example, there's lots of other factors to take into account. For example, the source of the Colorado River is lower than the plateau through which the canyon cuts, which suggests that the slow-and-gradual explanation has a problem. But there could be a solution: perhaps the land was uplifted after the Canyon was formed? Okay, but wouldn't such an uplift have uplifted the canyon itself and caused a blockage for the river? You would think so, unless the uplift occurred slowly enough that the eroding river kept matching the lift, thus maintaining (and deepening) the canyon. Is it possible that the downcutting of the canyon would so closely match the uplift of the plateau? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely? Hardly. But that's a judgment, not an empirical test, and I doubt that an empirical test could be devised that directly tests that.
My point in all this is to demonstrate that what we are talking about is evidence that appears to fit better with one view or the other, and that there is often no hard and fast/yes or no, results. There is some evidence that I believe is explained better by evolution, although not that much, and none of it I consider to be strong arguments for evolution.
But having set the perspective, I'll get on to the specific answers to your question.
One example, is, admittedly, radiometric dating. Creationists have done a good job of showing that radiometric dating is not the absolute reliable method that it's perceived to be, and they have further produced good evidence that there has been a change in decay rates, but I don't think they've yet got to the point of completely explaining the calculated dates.
Another may be geographic distribution of animals. I don't know of a good creationist explanation of why rabbits didn't make it to Australia before Europeans. And neither do I find the creationist explanation of so many marsupials being in Australia to be that strong. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the evolutionists have a better explanation of this one either.
A third might be the fossils in the geologic column. The creationist explanations of hydraulic sorting, burying in ecological order, etc. are valid, but may be insufficient to completely explain the order. On the other hand, I have seen a quote from an evolutionist that basically says that the order doesn't match the evolutionary order as well as generally understood either.
So in summary, in my opinion there's lots of evidence that fits the creationary explanation better, a little that appears to fit the evolutionary explanation better, but no knock-down evidence in favour of evolution. Any model that covers such a broad spectrum as evolution or creation is going to have some problems, and the problems that I see for creation are within what one would therefore expect, and nothing to be overly concerned about.
As for bigotry, I don't think that it's an Australian/American thing. But when one is prejudiced against an opposing view, then one is a bigot, by definition.
I knew this wouldn't be a short answer, but I didn't expect to write an essay!
Philip J. Rayment 02:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi bigot! not a member! 08:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well done on the flannel, sorry, essay, Phil. ...I have seen a quote from an evolutionist ... Anyone in particular or a creationist masquerading? Theresa Wilson 09:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Editor at CP: I have never called anyone a bigot without providing some justification for doing so, unlike you just did there. I'll let this one pass, but I won't always.
Theresa, no, it was a reasonably-well-known name, from memory, but I can't recall who at the moment, else I could probably track down the actual quote.
Philip J. Rayment 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You are nice as always, Philip. Seriously, are you not "prejudiced against an opposing view"? not a member! 14:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, are you not "prejudiced against an opposing view"? No, I'm not. There is a difference between prejudice and disagreement. I disagree; I'm not prejudiced. The prejudiced ones in this case are the ones who say that <the other side> are stupid, unintelligent, unscientific, or whatever simply because they hold the views they do. I say that evolutionists are mistaken or wrong, and that their views are based on their ideology or worldview, but I don't go around saying that they are stupid or non-scientists or etc. simply because they are evolutionists.
If that is not prejudice, what is? not a member! 16:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I give examples of both prejudice and non-prejudice, and you ask "If that is not prejudice, what is?"? Sorry, but the question is unclear if not itself confused. Philip J. Rayment 01:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Saying that evolutionists are mistaken or wrong, and that their views are based on their ideology or worldview, is incredibly prejudiced. Clearer now? not a member! 11:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Not clearer at all. How does making that claim make one prejudiced? Philip J. Rayment 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That is a prejudiced claim, and makes you react with prejudice to what evolutionists say. not a member! 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a prejudiced claim, and it doesn't make me react with prejudice. I react to what they actually say, not to the fact that they are evolutionists. Philip J. Rayment 13:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Wrong on both counts, Philip. Ask any sane person. not a member! 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Again... because? I'm sane, and I don't agree. How does your argument not amount to saying that any disagreement constitutes prejudice? How do you decide which is which? Philip J. Rayment 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've found the quote that Theresa questioned:

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation-evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood Geology.— David Raup[5]

Is Raup actually "a creationist masquerading"?
Philip J. Rayment 14:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
No Raup is not a creationist masquerading. All that quote says is that the fossil record is incomplete. Something that no-one disagrees with. Not that it is flawed. Theresa Wilson 15:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a lot to say about your paragraph above (data vs. evidence vs. prediction), but I will point out that "closed minded" is far less inflamatory than "bigoted." Sterile 18:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I am saddened that the RATE team results are still being used to try to show radiometric dating is incorrect.(if that is the group that you refer to) There are several papers refuting the RATE team findings with fairly detailed explanations of where the errors occured. There are issues with all dating methods , but the majority are known , and handled by calibration techniques, or simply identifying that a particular method is not valid for the sample in question. Zircons,Helium ,"Refuting RATE"
The predominance of Marsupials in Australia is almost a classic example of evolution within an isolated environment.
Increased nuclear decay rates would require a change in quantum mechanics and maybe the properties of half a dozen subatomic particles which a GOD could do, while cleaning up all the heat produced so his creation doesnt MELT and the radiation which would leave traces. Thorin 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, marsupials. I miss the good ol' days at Conservapedia, when the Kangaroo article made the internet headlines. not a member! 20:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Australian marsupials are quite interesting. I dont think I saw the Conservapedia article. Was it better than Volcanoes as a means of distributing small animals ? I think that was a joke though, hard to tell with Conservapedia sometimes. I have been banned from there, although that makes me one of many :) Thorin 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not just admit it Philip, the attempts by "Creationists" to use science to support their beliefs is built of fail. Why not just say: "God did it - no arguments"? If you've got this "being" who can vary the laws of space and time, why not allow that anything that is or was could have been created as it is or was in an instant, with no need for altering physical constants or similar jiggery pokery? Could it be that you don't believe that your God can operate outside space and time and the laws thereof? Theresa Wilson 22:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
No Raup is not a creationist masquerading. I'm glad you conceded that! Too often when I make valid points they are ignored in favour of making further criticisms.
All that quote says is that the fossil record is incomplete. No, that is most certainly not all it says. It specifically says that it is not as complete as is commonly believed, even by creationists who have a motive to refute it. It strongly implies that the record is so poor (in the sense of supporting evolution) that there's nothing for creationists to refute!
I will point out that "closed minded" is far less inflamatory than "bigoted." Perhaps so, but they are not synonyms, so substituting the former for the latter is not appropriate.
I am saddened that the RATE team results are still being used to try to show radiometric dating is incorrect.(if that is the group that you refer to) Yes, I was referring to them when I said, "they have further produced good evidence that there has been a change in decay rates". And I'm saddened that anti-creationists keep trotting out old and long-refuted arguments, vilification, and so. But of course they don't see it that way, just as I don't see it your way.
There are several papers refuting the RATE team findings... There are several which attempt to refute them. Whether or not they succeed is another matter.
There are issues with all dating methods , but the majority are known , and handled by calibration techniques, or simply identifying that a particular method is not valid for the sample in question. Often in a very ad hoc way, where problems are identified where the results are not as expected, but if they are as expected, there's no need to look for problems. It's not possible to calibrate most dating methods except against other methods which themselves are subject to the same problems of calibration.
Ah, marsupials. I miss the good ol' days at Conservapedia, when the Kangaroo article made the internet headlines. Based on one of the most blatant examples of taking a quote out of context that I have ever seen. The article said, in a setence which is indisputably accurate:

According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood.

But this was reported as:

Their entry on kangaroos, for instance, says that, "like all modern animals . . . kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood."

Critics who accuse creationists of taking quotes out of context should be ashamed to make that accusation in the light of this example. See cp:Conservapedia:Alex Beam's column about Conservapedia.
I fail to see the "quotes out of context". And anyway, the part that I was referring to, and that maybe introduced me to that wonderful place, was "Also according to creation science theories, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[5] -- as Australia was still for a time connected to Europe by a land bridge similar to the one that connected Asia to America[6] -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.[5] Another theory is that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there". Ah, memories! not a member! 09:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The context was that it was stating that this is what creationists believe. Philip J. Rayment 10:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That is, Conservapedia. And it is fun. not a member! 11:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it was stating what creationists believe, not what Conservapedia believes. Philip J. Rayment 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So, why do you think people make fun of Conservapedia? not a member! 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not just admit it Philip, the attempts by "Creationists" to use science to support their beliefs is built of fail. Why am I expected to "admit" to something that I don't believe???
Why not just say: "God did it - no arguments"? Because I'm concerned about the truth. Why is it that critics want so badly for creationists to use an argument that amounts to a concession of no argument? Is this a tacit admission that the arguments we use do have merit?
If you've got this "being" who can vary the laws of space and time, why not allow that anything that is or was could have been created as it is or was in an instant, with no need for altering physical constants or similar jiggery pokery? Because that is NOT what the Bible teaches. These attempts to invent new arguments for us to use, which have no basis in anything, are bizarre. Although I'm not really getting your point, as creationism is, to a fair extent, that very claim: that God created everything instantly (that is, in many relatively-instant creations spread over six days).
Could it be that you don't believe that your God can operate outside space and time and the laws thereof? No, it has little if anything to do with what God could do, and everything to do with what He said He did do.
Philip J. Rayment 01:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
yup, God created a lot of stuff from nothing, then he separated some stuff, made animals out of water, and more animals out of dirt, then made man out of dirt, tried to pair him up with an animal, and when that didnt work , made a woman out of a piece of rib. Very sciency and subject to investigation. He made an old universe but it was really young. How are creation scientists doing with explaining the transmutation of water to dirt ? My comments on RATE were professional technical evaluations of the published work they did. Your mocking me doesnt win you any arguements. Perhaps you could explain the results of each paper and why its technically correct ? Why do you know the papers refuting the findings are flawed ? can you show where the flaw is and explain why its in error, or are you just taking the word of a creationist ? CMI must always be right ? Your comments on calibration of radiometric dating shows you dont understand how its done, you use a calibration sample that is compounded to be a specific age. Thorin 04:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
yup, God created a lot of stuff from nothing... True, although many of your subsequent details are incorrect or unknown.
Very sciency and subject to investigation. Yep, about as subject to investigation as fish turning into amphibians.
He made an old universe but it was really young. No, he made a universe that you interpret as looking old, despite not having anything to compare it to.
My comments on RATE were professional technical evaluations of the published work they did. I assume that you mean that your comments were about professional technical evaluations. I think I could dispute the detail of that, but it's not worth it.
Your mocking me doesnt win you any arguements. You mean the bit where I said the same sort of thing that you said, about being saddened? How is it legitimate for you to make that sort of comment but not for me to?
Why do you know the papers refuting the findings are flawed ? I didn't claim to know that. I'm merely pointing out that writing a rebuttal doesn't automatically mean that the rebuttal is valid and therefore the argument is refuted. Most rebuttals of creationist claims that I've seen and understood are flawed, and although I can't say that of this one as the arguments are beyond me, why should I automatically assume that you are correct when obviously the papers have failed to convince the creationists who do understand them?
Your comments on calibration of radiometric dating shows you dont understand how its done, you use a calibration sample that is compounded to be a specific age. Could you elaborate on that please, as I don't understand "compounded to be a specific age"?
Philip J. Rayment 04:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this a tacit admission that the arguments we use do have merit? You're joking. of course. I'm trying to give you an out.
(that is, in many relatively-instant creations spread over six days) so why not allow that the value of such things as the decay rate, or at least the appearance of the decay rate, could have been fabricated by the being without your having to invent varying decay rates and so on. Where does the Bible teach anything about such things?
It appears that you need to alibi your being all the time by trying to limit His[sic] deeds to jibe with something that's never mentioned in what you claim as a truthful account of the events. Just as the method of "creating" life, the universe and everything is not detailed, neither is the condition of (e.g.) the C12:C14 ratio at the time of this "creation" so why do you need to assume a subsequent variation in its decaying? Such things are NOT mentioned in your Biblical account. Even things like the Grand Canyon, you have to "explain", why, it's not mentioned in your "factual account"? Surely God could have created them as they are?
The distance of the stars and galaxies: why not just accept that that is how they were created, with the light already en route for instance, instead of pleading for varying light speed or fluctuating time rates?
By your spurious attemts to demonstrate scientific validity, you discredit your belief in the omnipotence of your Being.
You're an <unparliamentary comment deleted>, Philip. Theresa Wilson 09:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You're joking. of course. I'm trying to give you an out. The thing that irks anti-creationists so much is that rather than us just saying that this is a private belief, we are claiming that this is reality. Your "out" is that we concede that it is just a private belief and not reality. You would then be free to ignore the claims.
so why not allow that the value of such things as the decay rate, or at least the appearance of the decay rate, could have been fabricated by the being without your having to invent varying decay rates and so on. Because this Omphalas argument has never held water, as it doesn't actually explain anything and makes God out to be a deceiver.
Where does the Bible teach anything about such things? All the places it teaches that God doesn't lie.
It appears that you need to alibi your being all the time... Not at all. I'm not offering alibis; I'm countering anti-biblical arguments.
... neither is the condition of (e.g.) the C12:C14 ratio at the time of this "creation" so why do you need to assume a subsequent variation in its decaying? Poor example, as I don't think there is a need to assume it in the case of C14, but there is in other cases. The reason is that radiometric ages are used as evidence against the biblical account, and as we are to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5), then finding the flaws in the radiometric dating claims is necessary.
Even things like the Grand Canyon, you have to "explain", why, it's not mentioned in your "factual account"? Surely God could have created them as they are? Even though it's not mentioned in the Bible, the Grand Canyon existing at the beginning is inconsistent with the biblical account, as it cuts through layers of rock which contain the remains of once-living creatures, which would not be the case if God had created it that way.
The distance of the stars and galaxies: why not just accept that that is how they were created, with the light already en route for instance... Because that light contains images of stars being destroyed, which stars never even existed if the light beams were created in transit. Again, that argument makes God out to be a deceiver. By what's wrong with these explanations, in principle? Why don't the secular scientists, supposedly open to the evidence, accept that the simplest explanation is that it was all made by God, instead of "pleading for" cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy, and things appearing from nothing? That makes at least as much sense as what you are proposing.
Because God gave man the five senses and intellect to discover the beauty of his creation (word not used in the creationist sense). Only some idiots behave like you and dismiss centuries of Christianity. not a member! 11:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
By your spurious attemts to demonstrate scientific validity, you discredit your belief in the omnipotence of your Being. First, the attempts are not spurious; asserting that they are doesn't make it so. Second, believing that God created the entire universe is not exactly watering down any concept of Him being omnipotent.
Philip J. Rayment 10:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Because God gave man the five senses and intellect to discover the beauty of his creation... That's a non-sequitur. It is not an answer to the question.
It is.
Only some idiots behave like you and dismiss centuries of Christianity. Creationist beliefs are very much in line with centuries of Christianity.
Creationist beliefs are not in line with centuries of scientific discoveries by Christians.
And stop the name-calling.
Philip J. Rayment 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Philip, YOU started. If you didn't repeatedly insult me over the months, I wouldn't react so directly. not a member! 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It is. Because...?
Why? My God, read some history of science. Read some history of religions. Read just some history. not a member! 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So instead of answering the question, necessary to justify your claim, you attempt to throw the onus on me. That is not an answer. Philip J. Rayment 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Creationist beliefs are not in line with centuries of scientific discoveries by Christians. "Centuries of Christianity" is not the same thing as "centuries of scientific discoveries by Christians". I could still disagree with the latter, but the point is that you've just changed the accusation, not supported it.
It's the same thing, Philip. Don't play with words. not a member! 13:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not the same thing at all. The former says nothing about science. Philip J. Rayment 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Philip, YOU started. If you didn't repeatedly insult me over the months... Where have I repeatedly insulted you, other than telling the objective truth?
Philip J. Rayment 13:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Too many times, Philip. not a member! 13:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, that's not an answer. An accusation without evidence to back it is hollow, and unless you do, you will incur a block for a civility breach of making unsubstantiated accusations. Philip J. Rayment 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
These discussions are a fruitless waste of time. No one gets persuaded of anything, unless you count becoming more persuaded that they themselves are right, patience runs out and people get angry, leading to ill feeling and resentment on both sides. What's the point?--CPalmer 14:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The point, sir, at least for why I'm here, is that I believe creationism and the other ad hoc pseudoscience PJR splurts forth on this site are harmful mind viruses, as infectious and hideously painful to their hosts as any other horrible disease you can think of. If just one person reads this page to learn about the dishonest strategies employed by creationists here, mission accomplished. Hope this helps, buddy. Cuddles,Teh Terrible Asp 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
But there are already many such discussions (arguments) on this site. What does it add to keep producing new ones?--CPalmer 15:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Because you guys are like the Energizer Bunny. Teh Terrible Asp 15:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean why do you keep doing it, not how is it possible. You are also like the Energizer bunny.--CPalmer 16:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Your failure to comprehend my prior statement is a pretty good indication of why you continue posting nonsense like this, isn't it? You are sick with a disease that only rationalism can cure. I'm here to help you see past those parts of your god fantasy that interfere with your ability to think rationally even if tough love is what's called for. I'm obviously still in the process of determining what strategy to employ (i.e whether you'll respond better to abuse than robotic ad nauseum repetition of points you doggedly resist understanding). Think of me as a doctor and you as the patient, albeit under battlefield conditions. Cuddles, Teh Terrible Asp 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. You are a valiant footsoldier in the war on unreason, in which www.astorehouseofknowledge.info is a key battleground. Good for you - keep on fighting the good fight, if that's what you think is best to do.--CPalmer 16:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
...I believe creationism and the other ad hoc pseudoscience PJR splurts forth... That's begging the question.
...are harmful mind viruses, as infectious and hideously painful to their hosts as any other horrible disease you can think of. Given that I assume you are not talking about literal physical viruses, could you please explain what you mean by that other than just that you think I am wrong (in which case why not just say that?)?
If just one person reads this page to learn about the dishonest strategies employed by creationists here, mission accomplished. What dishonest strategies? You've not demonstrated any.
You are sick with a disease that only rationalism can cure. Rational thinking is something that I see relatively little of from the anti-creationists.
...i.e whether you'll respond better to abuse than robotic ad nauseum repetition of points you doggedly resist understanding... How about logic and evidence, which seems to be short supply from your side?
Think of me as a doctor and you as the patient, albeit under battlefield conditions. You've yet to demonstrate any illness that needs to be cured.
Philip J. Rayment 01:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that teh Asp has not responded to your post so I thought I would help out. As I understand it what is being said is that your mind is infected with a virus in the form of a religion. I am surprised that you are not familiar with the concept. A virus, as you probably know, is essentially merely a string of information for making viruses. However, it needs to infect a cell in order to reproduce. Once it does so the cell then churns out more viruses. In a very similar way a computer virus is just a string of information for making computer viruses. But again, it needs to infect a computer to reproduce. Conceptually computer viruses are almost indistinguishable from "traditional" viruses. Likewise religion can be regarded as a virus because it is, in essence, a string of information for creating more religion. It infects the brains of otherwise healthy individuals and they then go out and actually actively try to infect others. In some cases infected individuals have been known to go to great lengths to spread the infection, even starting "missions" in far flung places and infecting indigenous populations far from the source of the original infection. More recently infected individuals have been able to spread the infection over the internet. This is where teh Asp comes in. He has identified this site as a potential cause of infection and is willing to help. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 02:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
So where's the evidence that it's harmful? And why is this applicable to theistic religions and not atheistic ones? Clearly atheists are also on a mission to infect with their ideas. Philip J. Rayment 03:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure there a few vocal atheists but I don't think the mission is "conversion" in the sense of standing on a street corner handing out leaflets or wearing a sandwich board screaming about how everyone is going to hell. If you follow me. Ace McWicked 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not an attempt to "convert"? Philip J. Rayment 10:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The mission of the campaign is (taken from the website)-
This has been an overwhelmingly positive campaign. It’s lighthearted and peaceful, and is meant to reassure rather than preach. After all, an advert on a bus isn’t going to convert anyone, and the vast majority of religious commentators have recognised it as a simple statement of atheist and humanist beliefs. The advertisements were designed as a response, an affirmation for people that it’s OK not to be religious; that if you are not religious, there is absolutely no reason to worry about that, and that one can lead a happy, enjoyable and rewarding life without religion.
Ace McWicked 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The point is that, whilst there might be atheists out there who do want to convert others to atheism, that desire is not driven by atheism itself. In other words, atheism itself does not include any direction to believers to go and convert others. This is in stark contrast to religious beliefs which teach the virtues of converting the heathen and teaching them to "see the light". Without the imperative to convert, atheism is not really a virus because it carries no self-replication instructions. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 21:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and don't disagree with the specific claims, and yet atheists seem to want to impose their ideas on others so much. There's the insistence that only evolution be taught in schools, the regimes which have forcibly closed churches, and the attempts to keep Christian ideas out of politics, for example. So even though no "instructions" can be identified, the desire seems to be there anyway. Philip J. Rayment 05:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Philip, sometimes you seem to be such an innocent. The two matters that you raise are very simply answered as follows: The teaching of evolution in schools is motivated, not by anyone's atheism, but by the desire to teach good science. Full stop. [I pause here to note that I know exactly what you think about this Philip, but you are just plain wrong]. The desire of communist and other totalitarian regimes to forcibly close churches is motivated by a desire to stamp out any perceived rivals for the hearts and minds of the people. That still leaves various individual atheists who appear to be determined to preach atheism. I suspect they are motivated by a love of their fellow man and a desire not to see them go through life in a delusional state (as Dawkins might put it). --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 08:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I pause here to note that I know exactly what you think about this Philip, but you are just plain wrong Given that you didn't say what you think I'm thinking, I've only got your word for that!
The teaching of evolution in schools is motivated, not by anyone's atheism, but by the desire to teach good science. Yet we've had a leading humanist say:

Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching? … Not only public school education is an ally of Humanism: science [by which he meant evolution] itself is its mother.[6]

The parenthetical insertion was by CMI, but I'd say that it's correct, given that non-evolutionary science is no threat to Christianity.
The desire of communist and other totalitarian regimes to forcibly close churches is motivated by a desire to stamp out any perceived rivals for the hearts and minds of the people. Yes. Isn't that the point I was making?
That still leaves various individual atheists who appear to be determined to preach atheism. I suspect they are motivated by a love of their fellow man and a desire not to see them go through life in a delusional state... Perhaps, although this begs the question of why they have love for their fellow man, their rivals for resources. But the same applies to Christians. Yes, they are instructed to do this, but they are motivated by their love for their fellow man and a desire not to see them go through eternity in a sorry state.
Philip J. Rayment 14:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Your quote is really just a reflection of the view that reality has a mainstream science bias (as opposed to a religious bias). The comment in the quote contained in the parentheses is incorrect on my reading. There is no reason to limit it to evolution. I read the speaker as referring to science in general, which he regarded as being in conflict with religion.
Your comment in relation to totalitarian regimes betrays a conceptual confusion between those regimes and atheism. Communist governments may generally be atheist but atheism does not require (or even suggest) communism (or any other form of government).
I'm not here to argue with you. I joined this thread to explain the virus concept to you. Apart from the matters I have raised in this post, you appear to have grasped it. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Your quote is really just a reflection of the view that reality has a mainstream science bias... That sounds like arguing that I'm being neutral because I'm right.
I don't think the comment in the parenthesis changes anything in this context. The point was that the desire to spread their brand of atheism was their motivation.
Communism is not just "generally" atheistic, but inherently so. These atheists wanted to impose their atheism on Christians.
Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
...but inherently so. Two words: Liberation theology. o ListenerXTalkerX 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, although this begs the question of why they have love for their fellow man, their rivals for resources. Perhaps this shows that athiests understand that survival chances overall are better if members form and maintain a society that supports weaker members. Hamster 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Two words: Liberation theology. Please explain yourself better in your posts and don't expect the reader to have to figure out what you are getting at. Are you trying to say that liberation theology and communism are the same thing?
Perhaps this shows that athiests understand that survival chances overall are better if members form and maintain a society that supports weaker members. I can't see the connection with that and love, with the desire to not see them in a delusional state.
Philip J. Rayment 23:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Liberation theology is an attempt to re-interpret Christianity along Marxist lines, and is not atheistic, thus demonstrating that there is nothing "inherently atheistic" about Marxism. o ListenerXTalkerX 23:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Marxism edit break

Thanks for explaining yourself. But your claim is incorrect. Marxism is a form of atheism. Yes, liberation theology probably does try and copy Marxism in some respects, but not all, and specifically not on the point of it being atheism. Although having said that, liberation theology is, as I understand it, a corruption of Christianity, and this would be why. Philip J. Rayment 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That liberation theology is a corruption of Christianity is not disputed; Cardinal Ratzinger said the same thing.
That "Marxism is a form of atheism" is flat-out wrong. The three pillars of orthodox Marxism are: (1) class struggle as the lens through which human history is evaluated, (2) opposition to capitalism, (3) advocacy of a workers' revolution. None are incompatible with theism, even though most classical Marxists were at least anti-clerical. o ListenerXTalkerX 01:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
See an earlier discussion on Marxism in User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 5#Evolution-related articles and the loyal opposition. Philip J. Rayment 12:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The only evidence presented there seems to be the quote from Lenin. Lenin is only an authority on Marxism-Leninism, which is only one of a great many strains of Marxism, and which owes much to other sources besides Marx. But even Marxism-Leninism is not "a form of atheism," any more than the original "Christian democracy" was a form of Christianity. o ListenerXTalkerX 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of your reply makes an apparently-valid point, but overlooks the point I made then that Lenin was citing Marx himself (and Engels) on this point. The second sentence is partly an argument by assertion, effectively claiming that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were wrong(!), and partly an argument by analogy. If the analogy is valid, then perhaps you've got a point, but in that case I would simply restate my comment (that "Marxism is a form of atheism") more carefully.
But contrary to your earlier claim, Marxism is based not (just?) on those three pillars, but on dialectical materialism, which is a denial of the supernatural, and is therefore atheistic. Bertrand Russell said:

The greatest danger in our day comes from new religions, communism and Nazism. To call these religions may perhaps be objectionable both to their friends and to their enemies, but in fact they have all the characteristics of religions. They advocate a way of life on the basis of irrational dogmas; they have a sacred history, a Messiah, and a priesthood. I do not see what more could be demanded to qualify a doctrine as a religion.

David Noebel wrote:

"We Communists are atheists," declared Chou En-lai at the Bandung Conference in April, 1955. This Chinese communist leader captured the fundamental theological ingredient of Marxism/Leninism in one word: atheism. Today, Marxist/Leninists prefer two words: scientific atheism.

From the university days of Karl Marx to the present, official spokesmen for Marxism have been consistent about the content of their theology—God, a Supreme Being, a Creator, a Ruler, does not, can not, and must not exist.

Philip J. Rayment 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I am strongly anti-communist and would very much like for Marxism-Leninism to be an accurate reading of Marx, but as it turns out that is hotly disputed. It is of course allowed on all hands that Lenin added much to Marxism-Leninism himself; this was needed, since Marx left many loose ends in his writings. An example is "dialectical materialism;" neither Marx nor Engels ever even used the term, and the philosophy owes much to Lenin. The first pillar of Marxism I mentioned above was later claimed as the application of dialectical materialism to history ("historical materialism"), although Marx does not appear to have seen it that way; the "materialism" was the opposition to the idea that people's existence is subordinate to their thoughts, rather than the other way around.
If you will state that what Russell says in his paragraph is true, then we can consider that. Zhou Enlai was a Maoist (claimed as orthodox Marxism-Leninism), so he does not speak for all Marxists. o ListenerXTalkerX 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of.....

this? Ace McWicked 08:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It engages in mockery and vilification, the resort of someone with no good argument, and uses arguments that are false. For example, in talking about calibrating carbon-14 dating, it says that "This is NOT circular reasoning since the trees we count the rings on we don't date with Carbon-14. Certain species like Bristle Cone Pines only produce 1 ring a year." However, carbon-14 dating is used to assist dendrochronology[7], and there is evidence of multiple rings per year in Bristlecone Pines[8].
I fail to see circular reasoning in your example Philip. Circular reasoning would be to count tree rings , then calibrate the C14 test, and then to date the same sample via C14 dating to then count the tree rings. If you calibrate by tree rings in one sample, and then test a different sample from the same area, the C14 calibrated date will be correct within its margin of error.
The rainfall of the flood would purge the atmosphere of C14 and provide a large C14 reservoir in the oceans. Land based material post flood would show a lack of C14 (test old) and sea life would show a higher than expected alue(test young). Those values would have a correspondance as the C14 in the atmosphere was replaced. That is not shown in actual testing. Hamster 16:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
What I don't understand PJR is your inability to move past the gentle mockery and address the fact that it shows why the rates of decay cannot have been as quick as creationists attest it was in the past. And why you can't address the fact that many different types of dating are used and they agree with each other. The only conclusion I can draw is that nothing, and I mean nothing, can allow you to contradict you religious programming. Ace McWicked 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see circular reasoning in your example Philip. C14 dating is used to "create" sets of rings (by combining rings from different samples) to be counted. C14 dating can be calibrated against counted rings for trees that are still alive, but the problem is in calibrating dates older than living trees, and it is older dates that need the sets of rings which are created with the assistance of C14 dating, so these older samples constitute circular reasoning.
I don't follow your argument about the flood and C14. I agree that the flood would have an effect on the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, but I don't follow how that is tested for.
What I don't understand PJR is your inability to move past the gentle mockery ... You don't understand my inability to do something that I did??? I didn't answer every claim, and no, I didn't answer the particular one that you now raise, but I did "move past the ... mockery" and answer a claim.
... address the fact that it shows why the rates of decay cannot have been as quick as creationists attest it was in the past. All it claims in that particular regard (from memory) is that there is a heat problem with rapid decay. I believe that there is a heat problem, but I can't help wondering if it was overstated, and it didn't seem to take the flood into account.
And why you can't address the fact that many different types of dating are used and they agree with each other. Because they don't always agree. See radioactive dating#accuracy for examples. Why can't you acknowledge them? "The only conclusion I can draw is that nothing, and I mean nothing, can allow you to contradict your naturalistic programming".
Philip J. Rayment 15:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't you happen to have statistics on how often they agree and how often they don't? not a member! 15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No. Do you? Philip J. Rayment 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
older dates that need the sets of rings which are created with the assistance of C14 dating, so these older samples constitute circular reasoning. er, well, not really. C14 dating can give an estimate of the age at one point on an incomplete ring section and permit it to be placed in the cirrect relationship to a complete ring section.The C14 date doesnt even need to be a date , just a match up of two samples to the same value. The sections are then matched by the pattern of the rings which must match to be correct. The rings can then be counted from the core out , into the incomplete section and an age determined. Its a one way path, not a circle. At least if done properly. Ages done in this manner are generally given a larger error bar as well
The heat problem in accelerated decay is of a magnitude to melt the planets mantle rock and most of the core. There are problems in estimating the heat removed from the system by boiling off the oceans and atmosphere to space. One way of accelerating decay causes all atoms to dissolve to their subatomic particles, so you have the right decay rate, but a large expanding cloud of plasma instead of a planet. Hamster 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The only conclusion I can draw is that nothing, and I mean nothing, can allow you to contradict your naturalistic programming. This is what I was waiting for you to say because it isn't true. If science were to show the earth is significantly younger than 4.5 billion years I would move on. If science were to show that evolution was false I could move on from that too. If science could show there was a god I could move on also. However, science has not shown these things. You cannot move beyond your book PJR, I can move where the evidence leads you are stuck on a book. The only source of evidence for your god is the bible. Design still would not prove your god. The earth being 6000 years old would not prove your god. All you have is the bible which you are stuck with. I have the world. Before start screaming "Logical fallicies! Ad Hom! I Win!" why don't you tell me where else is the evidence for the god of the bible aside from the bible. As I said, I can contradict my beliefs. Ace McWicked 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the original link, Ace, but since you've gone off topic I'll jump in with my $.02. You're saying that, even if specific deeds of God (e.g. well-designed creation 6,000 years ago) were proven, there still wouldn't be evidence for every aspect of God. Well, I could ask you the same thing: where's the evidence for my existence? Even if you prove that a certain IP address connected to aSK at certain times and that my name is in university and employer records at the appropriate places, you still haven't proven my existence any more than the evidence you mentioned proves the existence of Philip's and my God. --EvanW 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a high inductive probability that a person is behind your posts as millions of other wiki entries have been made by people. Assumably you've observed your own posts, and maybe someone else's. On the other hand, no one has observed God posting to a wiki (that I know of). I can't imagine what evidence you have for or against a supernatural being posting to a wiki. I can think of an experiment that indicates a computer generating wiki entries, thus falsifying a person's involvement, but what would falsfiy a supernatural being's post? Sterile 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
One of us is misunderstanding Ace's last post. I was thinking he was saying, "even if we've proven that God created the world, we still haven't proven that He's the God of the Bible." So, I responded, even if you've proven that someone with my name went to university and posted to aSK, you still haven't proven it's me - we never expect the sort of proof Ace demands. --EvanW 20:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You can't prove anything in science, although you can disprove something. (Math may be the only way you can prove things, and even then, it depends on postulates.) I might be able to analyze your patterns of computer use and your schedule and your commonly used IP addresses, and, if I were really stalker-esque, use a webcam to see when you were on. Even without the webcam, I could probably at least have some idea when you were on-line, which is still evidence that it is you. I don't see the value in speculating which god to which you refer until you provide evidence that there is a god involved. Just a waste of time really, for us weak atheists. Sterile 00:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
EvanW misses the point. Simplify: PJR thinks nothing can shake my faith in naturalism, I say the I am open to everything and follow the evidence. PJR can never do this because he must follow his one book. His one book is the only place his god exsists and nothing can shake that from him. Ace McWicked 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's a simple question for Philip: How would your worldview change if you were confronted with proof certain that the world was 4.5 billion years old? --Horace 21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding C14 and tree rings, you say, Hamster, that Its a one way path, not a circle. But that's only because you left out the last step! The sequence is this: C14 dating is used to align the rings. The rings are then counted to determine ages of each of the rings. So far, that's essentially what you said. But the derived age is then used to calibrate C14 dating! That's the point, and that's what makes it circular.
k try again , NO its not. The c14 dating allows the rings to be aligned with an extant core. If the core lines up at the point indicated by the C14 date then the C14 date was correct. Once the rings are aligned , using a process of ring pattern matching, the rings are the dating mechanism and the pattern match, not the C14 date verifies the alignment. Then the ring count can be used to count out to another specific age , and a C14 sample taken. Its like taking a sample with a ruler. Heres 6" , check, line up the yardstick segment with the 1' ruler. check. Now measure off 30 inches, check, and calibrate your instrument to the larger measurement. At no time does each measurement verify the other. Dunno if I can be clearer in text. Hamster 04:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are saying, but still can't see that it matches reality. The mainstream claim (not disputed by creationists) is that C14 dating is calibrated by comparing it to the ages of pieces of wood whose ages have been determined by counting rings. That is, the age is determined by counting the rings, then C14 dating is calibrated against that. Your explanation does not seem to include that. My point is that C14 dating is used to help create those sets of rings in the first place. Your explanation covers that step, albeit not in quite the way I described.
If the core lines up at the point indicated by the C14 date then the C14 date was correct. Alignment is a bit of an art, not an exact process. As I understand it, there can be several possible alignments, and C14 dating is used to determine which is the correct alignment. So the alignment is based on the C14 date; it doesn't confirm it.
Philip J. Rayment 13:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
(this is esentially a bit more info if anyone is interested) the tree ring dating is accurate to within 6 months at best(two rings per year typical). C14 dating is not that accurate, the figure I have for best accuracy is +-40 years. Ring matching relies to an extent a varying climate to provide a distictive pattern of growth over long periods. Once the tree segments are matched up and counting conducted from the core then samples can be taken and used to calibrate a C14 dating process. I agree that if you date a ring segment using C14, dont match it from a segment showing a growth core then you are creating an error of the C14 error bar to begin with and any other C14 samples begin with that error and add there own to it. I am not aware that this is ever done in practice. The ring sections have to be the same species and from the same area to really be useful. Hamster 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This is what I was waiting for you to say because it isn't true. If science were to show the earth is significantly younger than 4.5 billion years I would move on. Only if you were convinced, and the evidence so far is that you would not likely be convinced.
However, science has not shown these things. In your opinion. In my opinion, it has to a fair extent.
You cannot move beyond your book PJR, I can move where the evidence leads you are stuck on a book. You assume too much. I consider the "book" to be reliable (eye-witness) evidence. So I believe what I believe because of the evidence. If the evidence turns out to be different, then I will change my mind, just like you claim you would.
The only source of evidence for your god is the bible. Yes, the Bible is the only source of some of the specific details about God.
Design still would not prove your god. Why did you just switch from "evidence" to "prove"?
...why don't you tell me where else is the evidence for the god of the bible aside from the bible. I think that question has been framed to be unanswerable by definition (i.e. not by my inability to supply evidence). That is, you are not asking about evidence for a god, but for the God of the Bible. To put that another way, you are asking for evidence for the particular characteristics of God that are known only from the Bible. But if they are known only from the Bible, then obviously there cannot be any evidence from outside the Bible! As such, it is a loaded question, and it is unfair to ask it.
EvanW misses the point. If he has, then it's because you've said something differen to what you meant to say, because what he said is consistent with what I just wrote above, and I wrote that before I read his reply.
PJR can never do this because he must follow his one book. Why do you even think that? Your only evidence for that is that I have not been convinced by your arguments against what I believe. Well, I have exactly the same evidence about you: you haven't been convinced by my arguments against what you believe.
Here's a simple question for Philip: How would your worldview change if you were confronted with proof certain that the world was 4.5 billion years old? I would conclude that Genesis is wrong, then realise that the Bible is not inerrant, and start to question everything about Christianity.
However, there is a difference between creationists and evolutionists. In determining whether something had a supernatural or natural cause—let's take the origin of carnivory as an example—creationists can consider both options. Perhaps God supernaturally changed some creatures to enable them to eat meat following the Fall. Or perhaps the ability to eat meat is purely a natural process within the adaptability of (some?) creatures. But a materialist cannot consider the supernatural option, only the natural option. The creationists, therefore, have already demonstrated that they are open to considering both views (and have concluded that the supernatural is a better explanation in some cases). The materialists have already demonstrated that they are not open to considering the supernatural, and must have a natural explanation even if the evidence points the other way. "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"[9] So really, which one of us is more open to changing their minds in the face of contrary evidence?
Philip J. Rayment 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, we'll be all open-minded. What's your evidence for supernatural involvement? A young earth? Sterile 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Design would be a key one. A young Earth is also evidence, but I'd put that further down the list. Philip J. Rayment 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Er, I was asking what your evidence of a young earth is. I was not implying that a young earth is evidence for God. And, uh, what is your evidence for design? Sterile 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You actually asked what the evidence was "for supernatural involvement". I took your reference to a young Earth be be a possible answer to that question.
There are numerous pieces of evidence for Earth being much younger than claimed by mainstream scientists, although little to no evidence (other than historical records such as the Bible) to put it as precisely as about 6,000 years. See Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. (And given that someone has already misrepresented that article, I feel the need to point out that it is mainly a list, with links or references to other articles; it is not meant to be a complete argument in itself.)
I'm not about to start giving a comprehensive answer to your design question here and now, but the evidence for design is essentially that there are features in nature which either cannot be explained by nature itself (i.e. from what we know, nature could not produce it) or that a designer is a better explanation, and that these features match characteristics of things that are designed, such as has containing (meaningful) information.
Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I was vague, I'll admit. (Tone is hard on a wiki, as I've pointed out to Bradley before, albeit not here.) To what "features in nature" do you refer and where has it been shown that they "cannot be explained by nature itself"? (I'll avoid meaningful information for the moment....) And which of the 101 points do you want to discuss? Sterile 02:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't have any particular features in mind, but things like the origin of life, the 'just-right' position of Earth, the moon, etc., the formation of the Solar system itself, and many other things. I don't really want to discuss any of them; I'm so behind in responding to posts on other pages that I don't want to create more to respond to. Philip J. Rayment 13:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
What an impressive list (...not)! not a member! 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm trying to be open-minded, and you can't be bothered. I see a problem here. Sterile 15:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit break - for clarification

PJR missed my point which wasn't helped by Evan fumbling on in and making a complete hash up of it all. I'll try again - We were talking about radiometric dating. I went to argue that PJR would never agree because his Bible won't let him. I think asked if there were any evidence outside the Bible for Gods exsitence. The Christian god that is. I believe if it were not for the Bible then there would be no such god. So, Philip, is there any evidence, any other points of reference, outside the Bible for your god. It is a simple enough question. No need to tq the entire post, only this one question matters. Ace McWicked 18:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I reached the same conclusion as EvanW independently of him.
No, it's not a simple enough question. From the point of view of Christianity, there is only one God (Yahweh), so any evidence for God is for Yahweh, as the two are synonymous. But you seem to be asking if there's any (extra-biblical) evidence for characteristics of God that are unique to the Christian (read:biblical) understanding of Him. That's a legitimate question, but in order to answer that, one needs to identify what those characteristics are. And to do that, one needs to identify what characteristics other (claimed) gods have, to determine which characteristics are unique. To use a hypothetical examples, suppose I thought that a characteristic of God that was unique to the Bible was that He is eternal. And further suppose that I produce evidence of an eternal God. But then if you said to me, "But the Muslim god is also claimed to be eternal, so that's not unique to Christianity", I would have failed to answer the question. To take this a step further, some of the evidence for God's existence is for "a" god, not necessarily Yahweh. Critics often point this out (and correctly so), but they are not saying that the evidence could fit another identifiable god (e.g. Muslim, Hindu, etc.), but instead that it could fit an unknown god with unknown characteristics. Logically, this is correct, even if not helpful. So any evidence I produce for a characteristic of Yahweh could be argued to not necessarily be unique to Yahweh, as there could be some other, unknown, God with those characteristics.
So really, you need to identify which characteristics of Yahweh you are interested in finding evidence for.
Having said all that, though, there is extra-biblical evidence for Yahweh, in the form of the results which have flowed from belief in Him. However, this evidence is of the form that requires one to look at the big picture rather than the details. Could a religion not based on the true God have led to modern democracy, science, industrialisation, prosperity, etc.? Looking at any one of those in isolation may not mean much, but when you consider that all of these things and more have flowed from one religion (Christianity), I would consider that good evidence. But it's not empirical evidence, and can easily be dismissed by people who don't want to believe it. Or see The Impossible Faith.
Philip J. Rayment 02:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
My question is nothing to with characteristics of god but extra biblical evidence. What extra-biblical evidence is there of your god? Ace McWicked 03:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
See my previous answer where I point out that the question is ambiguous. Philip J. Rayment 10:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry Philip but I fail to see how the question is ambiguous. Because it isn't. Is there any extra-biblical evidence or point of reference for Yahweh by name? Ace McWicked 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is some extra-biblical stuff on Yaweh as one if the Canaanite Pantheon (El - Asherah and the children)Hamster 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry Philip but I fail to see how the question is ambiguous. Despite my extensive explanation? How so?
Is there any extra-biblical evidence or point of reference for Yahweh by name? See, now you have identified a particular characteristic: His name. I'm not aware of what Hamster speaks, so I'll say no, I'm not aware of any extra-biblical references to God being named Yahweh (and therefore to Yahweh by name). Having said that, however, I suspect that there is evidence of people believing in Yahweh (specifically) in the form of names (of people) that refer to it. Let me Google a moment... Hmmm. The name "Joshua", a version of "Yeshua", means "Yahweh saves". But I couldn't quickly find if the name "Joshua" was known from extra-biblical sources. I know "Michael" is (and the "el" of "Michael" is a reference to God, but not as Yahweh), but I'm not sure about "Joshua".
Philip J. Rayment 05:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Philip, you a taking a semantic angle now. My fault though, I wasn't clear and I didn't think I would need to explain myself however while typing the above I wondered if I should take into account the fact that you were an Australian. Us NZer's know that you guys are little slow. Heh.
Anyway I used the term "by name" not because I was wondering if gods, Yahweh's, actual name had been mentioned. You keep thinking I am asking about certain characteristics of god, which I explained I wasn't yet you jumped on my question as if I were still asking about characteristcs - such as a name. I use the term broadly, asking if your god, the christian god, is evidenced anywhere but the bible. That is all I am asking Philip. This shouldn't be hard. Ace McWicked 01:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
He'll weasel out of this one too. The point is that many of his arguments for the existence of his god are circular because they refer to the bible, which assumes his god's existence. So the question is what extra-biblical evidence is there for your god that does not derive from or refer to the bible? If it helps, pretend there's no bible at all, no OT, no NT. Just say your god never got around to divinely inspiring the OT and NT authors. What then? Teh Terrible Asp 01:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ace, you've responded to my response about Yahweh, but not to my first line, "Despite my extensive explanation? How so?". That is, I tried to cover both angles, and you've responded by rejecting the second but ignoring the first.
Asp, as I've mentioned, there is other evidence for "god", but it can easily be argued that this is not the "Christian" God, but some other god (perhaps for no other reason that it's not in the Bible!). That is my point that Ace fails to grasp, that this makes his question ambiguous.
Philip J. Rayment 09:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
So is there or is there not any evidence of the Christian god which is not refered to in the Bible? Ace McWicked 09:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

what extra-biblical evidence is there for your god that does not derive from or refer to the bible? Teh Terrible Asp 15:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply repeating the question does not help clarify it. Even putting essentially the same questing in slightly different words is not doing it either.
I'm not going to bother responding here any more unless there's something new to respond to, and repeating the question without clarifying it doesn't count. I have explained the problem with the question, and that explanation has not been adequately addressed.
Philip J. Rayment 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Philip, you have in no way identified an issue with my question. I can't see what your problem is? I am merely asking if the god of the bible is referenced anywhere else that is not derived from the Bible? That is simple and your objections to the questions are vague do not seem to withstand scrutiny. What is your problem? Why are you unable to answer this? It is a perfectly simple, basic question. Ace McWicked 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Posing you with a conundrum instead...

Considering you refuse to answer the question allow me to posit you with my position. I contend that your god, Philip, only exists where it pertains to the Bible. Design, a young earth, none of it can establish the presence of your god without the Bible. God exists because the Bible tells you so, the Bible is innerrant because God has said so. Circular you'll find. Ace McWicked 08:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent me. I didn't "refuse" to answer the question. I asked for clarification.
The existence of God (whether Yahweh or not) can be deduced from other than biblical sources. We do not believe that the Bible is inerrant because God has said so, but because of the nature of God it must be. You've not demonstrated circularity, and you won't be able to. What you'll find instead if you consider it carefully enough are axioms. See http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning.
Philip J. Rayment 13:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! You've admitted that creation science isn't science, as science is inductive and something based on axioms is deductive. (That creation.com article is one of the most muddled pieces on logic I've seen.) I'm glad we're cleared that up. Sterile 16:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Axioms" sure sounds logicy, but that article is nonsense. It purports to refute: "You believe the Bible to be God’s Word because it says so. This is arguing in a circle." It starts with "Therefore Christians should not be faulted for having axioms as well, which are the propositions of Scripture (a proposition is a fact about a thing, e.g. God is love)." It then goes on to say things like "It is also not circular to use Jesus’ clear statements to prove the Bible." It's pure flimflammery. Are you special creationists really this credulous? For your love of your god, go take a logic course. Teh Terrible Asp 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
wouldnt you expect to find Egyptian records about Moses and the events of killing all the firstborn.? It would have been a big event , as well as the drowning of a lot of the army. They recorded what people served for lunch so it seems an odd omission. Any other society that Gods chosen people came in contact with should have written something down. A Shepard noticing Sodom being firebombed, something with an attribution to God. There is some trace in the canaanite religion (Ugarritic - probably spelled wrong) but it suggests that Yaweh killed off his brothers to take control over the whole world instead of just Israel. He was war god of that pantheon and had a mother and sisters. They seem to have been dumped as the culture became more clearly patriarchal. Nothing substansive though Hamster 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The existence of God (whether Yahweh or not) can be deduced from other than biblical sources. And, those sources are? Edgerunner76 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The existence of God (whether Yahweh or not) can be deduced from other than biblical sources. And, those sources are?
We do not believe that the Bible is inerrant because God has said so, but because of the nature of God it must be. And where else, aside the Bible, does it state what the nature of Yahweh (the Christian god) must be? Ace McWicked 06:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Protestants are a little short on such alternative sources, but other Christian groups are not so much; see wp:Formal principle for an overview. o ListenerXTalkerX 06:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! You've admitted that creation science isn't science... I've done no such thing.
That creation.com article is one of the most muddled pieces on logic I've seen. An evidence-free claim.
"Axioms" sure sounds logicy, but that article is nonsense. ... It's pure flimflammery. Another evidence-free claim.
For your love of your god, go take a logic course. You mean like this?
wouldnt you expect to find Egyptian records about Moses and the events of killing all the firstborn.? Not necessarily. Not without there being good reason to expect them.
It would have been a big event , as well as the drowning of a lot of the army. True. But ancient peoples tended to record victories more than defeats. Further, one reconstruction of events has Egypt being invaded very soon after, and the invaders did not care to record the old regime's interactions with the fleeing Israelites.
Any other society that Gods chosen people came in contact with should have written something down. Some did.
A Shepard noticing Sodom being firebombed, something with an attribution to God. I thought that the conventional wisdom (probably correct in this case) was that such people would not have been literate.
And, those sources are? See Evidence for God's existence for a few.
And where else, aside the Bible, does it state what the nature of Yahweh (the Christian god) must be? Nowhere I can think of offhand.
Philip J. Rayment 09:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Are axioms the basis of a deductive logic system? Is the scientific method inherently inductive? Yes, and yes. If creationism is based on axioms, then it is deductive. If it is deductive, it is not inductive. If it is not inductive, it is not the scientific method. Ergo, creationism is not based on the scientific method. QED (Ironically deductive!) Sterile 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
PJR states - We do not believe that the Bible is inerrant because God has said so, but because of the nature of God it must be. So I ask - And where else, aside the Bible, does it state what the nature of Yahweh (the Christian god) must be? The answer is get is - nowhere.. That is a fully circular argument. The Bible is inerrant because of the nature of God, the nature of God is spelled out in the Bible. Round and round we go. Ace McWicked 19:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
wouldnt you expect to find Egyptian records about Moses and the events of killing all the firstborn.? Not necessarily. Not without there being good reason to expect them. are you saying the majical deaths of all firstborne was not noteworthy An angel of God going door to door killing and not smart enough to tell friend from foe and nobody jots it down ? Hamster 19:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Creationism itself is deductive, but it uses inductive reasoning when discussing science.
That is a fully circular argument. The Bible is inerrant because of the nature of God, the nature of God is spelled out in the Bible. Round and round we go. Incorrect. Circular reasoning is an attempt to prove something (logically) on the basis of reasoning which is circular. I'm not doing that. I'm saying that if the Bible is correct about the nature of God, then the Bible will be inerrant. I might also say that if the Bible is inerrant, then we know for certain the nature of God. But in neither case am I trying to prove the other. Rather, they are axioms that we accept as true.
...are you saying the majical deaths of all firstborne... What "majical" deaths? There were no magical deaths.
Philip J. Rayment 02:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying, then, is that you aren't arguing circularly, but instead using either an argument from authority or a special plead ("because of the nature of God it must be": what do you mean by that? how do you know the nature of God if it's not deduced from the Bible? What evidence independent of the Bible do you have?) How can creationists use inductive reasoning if they, like you, cannot come up with any evidence for a week-long creation 6000 years ago and a global flood 4000 years a go with an ark with all the earth's life on it? Inductive reasoning would require evidence. The only evidence you've purported is that of your design argument, which in no way links a biological structure to any designer. It just "looks like" the eye was designed because it's "complex" and your as-of-yet-undefined-in-biology "meaningful information" is just another form of this, still unquantified, still ignoring natural selection and varation mechanisms. Neither amounts to anything. So I fail to see the inductive part of creationism. Sterile 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not special pleading. An omnipotent, honest, omniscient God who revealed information to us would be expected to get it 100% correct.
how do you know the nature of God if it's not deduced from the Bible? I didn't claim to.
How can creationists use inductive reasoning if they, like you, cannot come up with any evidence for a week-long creation 6000 years ago and a global flood 4000 years a go... They can come up with evidence, as I've said numerous times before and given examples of. I think you are confusing this with answers to different questions.
The only evidence you've purported is that of your design argument... Not true. Another example I've used is the fulfilled prediction of vast sedimentary layers expected from a global flood.
It just "looks like" the eye was designed because it's "complex"... There's more to it than that, such as what Dembski refers to as "specified complexity", which is not merely something being "complex".
Philip J. Rayment 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Explain further. Your talk of "predictions" doesn't tell me much about the evidence itself. (It's like someone holding up a chemistry book and telling you that he/she gave you evidence of chemistry, when all you've seen is the cover.) And maybe you can explain more about what Dembski means by specified complexity, as most everyone who tries finds it rather vague and useless in the end. Sterile 03:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
See Biblical creation#Postdictions for the sedimentary layers. However, this is a very general claim, so doesn't have much detail.
I'm not an expert on Dembski's specified complexity, but in a nutshell things like writing and DNA are complex but not random, whereas a pile of sand is complex but random. He calls the former "specified complexity".
Philip J. Rayment 12:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand what Dembski thinks he means by specified complexity. If you'd like me to dig up all the criticism of that point of view, I can do so. In a nutshell: Besides the nonspecific definition, Dembski has never applied SC to actual, biological systems, in part because he can't. There's no way to do so. It doesn't work in the case of co-adapataion (or, what I would call co-evolution). Evolution is not a search as is indicated by the models Dembski uses. And that's just the non-mathematical criticisms. I'm still frustrated by the lack of detail about the sedimentation, but will look further when I have time. Sterile 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Add: "As a result of the great flood, there should be extensive layers of sedimentary rocks containing the buried remains of once-living creatures." If that's what you're referring to, it's not a good prediction. Whenever something dies, it leaves remains. Why is this evidence of a flood? Isn't it just evidence that living things die and leave remains? After all, there is an order to the sediments and fossils in the sediment, whereas in a flood model, one might expect everything to be together, or, if the water were flowing in a direction, that larger objects would be below smaller objects, as in a stream. Why is there an order according to the creationist model? (You can also use evolutionary and geological concepts to find predict sources of oil, where the right conditions and organisms were together under high pressure for eons to form oil. Now that's a prediction!)
Mind you, I could say it's evidence, but it's fairly weak evidence; I would need much more and hypothesis-specific evidence for it to be a good indication your claim is valid.
Add 2:"An omnipotent, honest, omniscient God who revealed information to us would be expected to get it 100% correct." Is that an deduction from the Bible or an induction from somewhere else? What is the evidence of that, if it isn't special pleading? Sterile 00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If that's what you're referring to, it's not a good prediction. Agreed. See Origins science where it explains this very point of yours, that some predictions are better than others. This particular one is intended as an example of the fact that predictions can be made; it's not intended to be an example of the very best predictions, which would take more to explain.
Whenever something dies, it leaves remains. In the fossil record? No it doesn't. Fossilisation is very rare; it takes very special circumstances.
Why is this evidence of a flood? It is evidence that is consistent with the Flood. That doesn't mean that it is inconsistent with alternative explanations, but that's the point as much as anything: Most of the evidence is consistent with both creation and evolution, depending on how you interpret the evidence. So just as you correctly question whether it is evidence favouring the flood, others can correctly question whether it is evidence favouring evolution.
After all, there is an order to the sediments and fossils in the sediment... You mean the order referred to here:

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation-evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood Geology.

Why is there an order according to the creationist model? You mean other than solely a hydraulic sorting order? Haven't we discussed this before? Because thing would get buried in the order of where they live: sea-bottom-dwelling creatures first, then other sea creatures, then creatures living near the coasts or on low-lying land, etc. Also, some creatures would be better able to flee the flood until later, and end up being drowned but not buried. Birds in particular.
You can also use evolutionary and geological concepts to find predict sources of oil... I'm not convinced. Certainly you can use geological information such as the type of rock and the shape of the impervious layers (such an an upturned bowl shape), but that sort of information is compatible with both creation and evolution.
I would need much more and hypothesis-specific evidence for it to be a good indication your claim is valid. Fair enough. How about the fact that some deposits are are semi-continent wide? That speaks of very large scale processes, unlike anything we see happening todays. See for example http://creation.com/three-sisters-evidence-for-noahs-flood. Another example is one (or more?) of the layers in the Grand Canyon, which not only covers an enormous area, but has a knife-edge flat contact line between it and the next layer, indicating that there was no time for erosion between layers, consistent with rapid (flood) deposition.
Is that an deduction from the Bible or an induction from somewhere else? That God has those characteristics is something we get mainly from the Bible. That He would get the Bible 100% correct is what we deduce. Philip J. Rayment 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Philip J. Rayment 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm short for time, but the obvious question to ask is, when did the sedimentary rock that the Grand Canyon was made of come to be? Either that sedimentary rock is post-Flood as you imply above and the canyon wasn't formed during the flood, or it's pre-Flood and the fossils that are relatively common there aren't so rare so as to fit with the creationist modlel. Explain that conundrum!

What is your independent evidence that the Bible is "correct"? (I'm not sure that I'd use that word, as it depends to what you refer if something can be correct....) And what's your evidence that the Bible comes from God? Sterile 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your conundrum is due to you somehow excluding the possibility that the sedimentary rock of the Grand Canyon was laid during the flood.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible being "correct". There is copious amounts of evidence that it is correct in many of its historical details. See Bible. Nobody is claiming independent conformation of every single detail, if that is what you are asking.
Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations

It appears that you have not noticed the nominations made here. Speaking for myself (and I hope I am not jumping the gun here) I look forward to my promotion with eager anticipation. --Horace 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't yet caught up with the latest comments, but I had already pointed out the problem. Philip J. Rayment 08:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's move the nominations discussion here please. Notifications of page changes come into my work account and pop up on my desktop, laptop,and iphone. It's too much today. Teh Terrible Asp 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The nominations discussion from Teh Terrible Asp's talkpage

Bradley's strategy of pulling sniveling OscarJ's rank on me without offering a substantive defense of him is [deleted]. You dislike CP as much as I do, Bradley. I won't say more except that I'm afraid CP is the new Godwin.
In any event, if PJR thinks what I did was wrong, he should simply commission a good policy rather than sanctioning a claim that I've somehow exceeded an authority that was never well-defined in the first place. Real simple. I'll even help write it. I'm good at that [deleted].
PS - PJR, I wish to be considered for promotion to the Policy Committee. To whom should I submit my application? Teh Terrible Asp 09:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
My privilege as a "member" is to block for "vandalism." Actually, as Bradley mentioned, clear vandalism.
Bradley is correct in what he says above, and your excuse that what an Umpire removes on the grounds of being unacceptable language amounts to vandalism is clearly contrived. I'm not saying you have to agree with his judgment, and you are entitled to object, but you've no grounds for calling it vandalism.
The word is not one that I use. However, as explained in ask:Civility breach, what one considers acceptable another may not. Although I agree with OscarJ that it is not an appropriate word to use, I do classify it as borderline and have not objected to it myself. Indeed I've seen other Christians whom I respect use it. So this is a word where I will not impose my views, even though my views are in line with OscarJ's. But he is entitled to consider it objectionable until and unless someone complains and the matter is formally considered.
If you had blocked him after Bradley's warning above, I would have removed your membership status. But as you have not blocked OscarJ since (whether from taking notice of Bradley's warning or other reason I don't know), I'm leaving it intact.
Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how the word can be considered appropriate, it's a slang term used for excrement. If Teh Terrible Asp is so concerned about vandalism, why didn't he block himself for this. --OscarJ 09:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Go away Oscar. It's hard to type while holding my nose with you standing around. Philip, you realize you've taken the position that it's not vandalism because an umpire did it? You've also given a mush mouthed answer to whether "crap" is profane. I would have continued blocking OscarJ if he kept on turning the wheel war. I don't know where little Bradley's warning comes in all that. In any event, as you ought to know, I don't care about being a member. I just want to avoid captchas. Make a user group for all the people like me that you don't want blocking your precious OscarJ and I'll happily join it. Until then, I still wish to be considered for Policy Committee. Teh Terrible Asp 15:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to be uncivil without using offensive language, and that is what you are doing here. You are on thin ice. Be civil or be someplace else. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
...you've taken the position that it's not vandalism because an umpire did it? I have not. I've taken the position that because an Umpire did it, and given that there is another plausible explanation (i.e. removing objectionable language), there is no basis for claiming that it is clear vandalism.
...I still wish to be considered for Policy Committee. You have to be a senior member to be eligible for that.
Philip J. Rayment 01:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you should make him a senior member and then consider him for the policy committee. --Horace 03:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
A Senior Member has to have "a demonstrated commitment to the goals of A Storehouse of Knowledge". He clearly does not have that. Philip J. Rayment 03:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well, that is inconvenient, isn't it? --Horace 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I also wish to be considered for the policy committee. In addition, I would like to be considered for the content review committee. I have many ideas to contribute. --Horace 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I nominate Horace, Sterile, SallyM, Jaxe, and Teh Terrible Asp for senior member. I also think aSK would be wise to reevaluate OscarJ. In each of my experiences with him he's proven to be just a nasty little person with bad judgment that nobody here likes or wants to be around except maybe PJR. Teh Terrible Asp 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that you have to be nominated by a senior member...--TimS 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Has that happened yet or has PJR invoked his privilege to promote whoever he wants that's "known to management?" Doesn't matter who nominates who when the process is a farce. My point is that I presume to speak for my fellowlaborers and make out interest in being senior members known. We will then work on getting on the policy committee. Teh Terrible Asp 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Who is Augustine? He (she?) is a senior member! (The current guidelines are untenable since there aren't 10 senior members to vote. Sterile 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello? Philip? Are you there? --Horace 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, "A Senior Member has to have 'a demonstrated commitment to the goals of A Storehouse of Knowledge'". You also need to be nominated by a senior member, as TimS said, and only senior members can vote. The requirement for ten votes would of course be relaxed until we have enough to make that viable, but the other conditions would still apply. Why would I set up a system that allows people opposed to the site's goals of having a biblical worldview encyclopædia to gain control and change it into something else? Philip J. Rayment 08:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand. Whilst some of the users listed may be more antagonistic to the site goals than the others, a lot of good content has also been added that others wouldn't be here. It would also boost the number of active contributors, which has been falling dramatically. As for oscarJ, I haven't yet had much contact with him, so I cannot comment on that situation. I've got no horse in this Biblical v Atheist POV contest, I just think it'll be better for the project to be active than stagnant. --The Egyptian 09:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the others, but I am not opposed to the site having a biblical worldview. I just want it to be honest in the way that it does so. Seems to me that I would be an ideal senior member and committee man. Surely you don't just want a group of yes-men surrounding you? --Horace 10:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
William Provine said, "One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." Sure, perhaps you are "not opposed" (which is not the same thing as "'a demonstrated commitment to the goals of") the site's biblical worldview, but your idea of "honest" seems to be pro-evolutionary, which suggests that your version of a "biblical worldview" is indistinguishable from liberal Christianity, which puts man's ideas, including those of scientists, above the Bible. As for "yes men", I have already consulted some of those supposed "yes men" on some matters, and they have changed my mind. I was going, for example, to reinstate the blocks etc. that were lost during the crash, but I was persuaded not to by those "yes men". And that was not an isolated example. Right from the beginning I've made myself a commitment to not just do what I want, but to accept "wise counsel" (Proverbs 11:14, Ephesians 5:21). However, that will be from those who share my worldview, not from those opposed to it, or even indifferent to it. Philip J. Rayment 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Oxymoron. not a member! 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
why emphasise the biblical worldview (which does not seem to match mainstream creationist - the Kin dont agree with you), when your senior members say "cant use an english bible verse, yiu have to use the hebrew cause the meaning is different" and "even though the bible says a bat and an insect are birds, dont put them in the bird artcle, we use modern taxonomy for that".(paraphrased comments) So its a biblical worldview EXCEPT where the bible (translation) is wrong or old fashioned .Who is the sites greek and hebrew scholar ? Please clarify ? Hamster 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (forgot the signy bit - sorry - is me sometimes helpful Hamster
You say “paraphrase” but really you misrepresent. BradleyF (LowKey) 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit button

I don't know why this is even an issue, does anyone here seriously doubt the result of any of these nominations based on the requirements? Do you really want to be nominated and voted down for not supporting the goals of the project? Do you just want it in order to make a point that we won't allow people of certain worldviews to be senior members? That is already spelled out in the requirements. What is it that you want? --TimS 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there some kind of a rule that editors can't become senior members if they don't agree with the site's worldview? At least according to this page anyone is eligible to become a senior members even if they disagree with the Biblical worldview. --OscarJ 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Oscar, see this section. It is my understanding that one can not become a senior member without the Biblical worldview. WesleyS 02:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
well Tim, I cant speak for the others , but for myself , I am a creationist. I dont recognise Phillips worldview because he is not supporting a strict reading of the Bible , and tries to argue for a creation science that has been largly refuted , and he admits himself that he doesnt understand the technical aspects but will chose to believe the people at CMI. That is accepting "expert opinion" from disputed sources which my bible warns against. Biblical evidence takes precedance over any other source , except at this site. I know the others named have been quite active in producing wanted pages, half a dozen at least in the last couple of days. Its a waste of time though because material with supporting references has been deleted by senior members without discussion and in some cases the source was the Bible. Facts have been replaced with opinion and always if its a creationist the bad points get removed , cant say anything bad about Philips buddies, but if its a scientist, any unsubstatiated crap can be put in . Hamster 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
@Philip: My idea of honest is to represent both evolution and creation accurately. Full stop. If that means I do not have a demonstrated commitment to the goals of the site then, frankly, you can keep your site. My understanding, however, is that my idea of honest is in keeping with the goals of the site. Am I wrong?
@Tim: I seriously believe that one or even all of us could be senior members. I think that we are all genuine editors who have something to contribute. I also believe that, whilst we may not all be creationists, that does not prevent us from supporting the site's goals. Indeed, speaking for myself, I would be delighted to show CP how people who don't necessarily have the same worldview can nonetheless work together to create something worthwhile.
@Oscar: You little rascal, you.
And now, without further ado, I would like to launch my campaign slogan: HORACE - Let's get him on the inside of the tent, pissing out (rather than on the outside, pissing in). --Horace 20:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I seriously believe that one or even all of us could be senior members. I think that we are all genuine editors who have something to contribute. I also believe that, whilst we may not all be creationists, that does not prevent us from supporting the site's goals. Indeed, speaking for myself, I would be delighted to show CP how people who don't necessarily have the same worldview can nonetheless work together to create something worthwhile. I'd love to believe that is true, but edits like this don't seem to agree with what you are saying.
I'd be happy to support you for senior member if you agreed to support the site's goals. (even if you don't agree with them.) --TimS 04:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the thought, but its too long for a bumper sticker. IPO not OPI doesnt work either, how about "If in doubt aSK Horace ! :)" Hamster 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Support Hamster's latest slogan! :) --EvanW 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to thank the committee for the nomination. Sterile 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxymoron. I don't like these too-brief responses that don't explain what they are talking about.

As always. To make it clear: "wise counsel" and "from those who share my worldview" - that's a logical impossibility. not a member! 08:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. Philip J. Rayment 12:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Not the first time you answer "nonsense". I hope it will be included into the quote generator. not a member! 14:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

...the Kin dont agree with you... How? Where?

why emphasise the biblical worldview ... when your senior members say "cant use an english bible verse, yiu have to use the hebrew cause the meaning is different" I don't know what incident or comment you are referring to there, but neither do I see your problem. Using the original language doesn't contradict having a biblical worldview.

...and "even though the bible says a bat and an insect are birds, dont put them in the bird artcle, we use modern taxonomy for that" I don't see the choice of taxonomy as being a part of what is meant by "biblical worldview". God expects us to believe in Him and to believe what He told us. He doesn't expect us to speak in Hebrew (the language the Old Testament used) nor to use the taxonomy the Old Testament used.

Who is the sites greek and hebrew scholar ? I don't know, but I don't think it matters, particularly. The English translations are generally as good as translations get, but they are not perfect, and as words in different languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence, you usually get a better understanding by going back to the original languages (assuming you understand them). But that's more to do with precise details, not the biblical worldview itself.

At least according to this page anyone is eligible to become a senior members even if they disagree with the Biblical worldview. You're right! We have a discrepancy. I'll have to look into that and see what is the best way to resolve it. However, even that page agrees that you have to support the goals to be on the policy committee.

[Philip] is not supporting a strict reading of the Bible... "Strict" is not a good word in this context, but essentially I do support a "strict" reading.

...creation science ... has been largly refuted... So you claim, but creationists disagree. So you are begging the question.

...he admits himself that he doesnt understand the technical aspects but will chose to believe the people at CMI. I don't understand the technical aspects of every argument, but then who does?

That is accepting "expert opinion" from disputed sources which my bible warns against. Out of curiosity, where does your bible do that? But more to the point, the other "expert opinions" are also disputed, so what else can be done? Short of completely understanding every argument yourself, something that is obviously impracticable.

Biblical evidence takes precedance over any other source , except at this site. What are you talking about?

My idea of honest is to represent both evolution and creation accurately. I agree. But we would disagree about what is an accurate representation, wouldn't we?

Philip J. Rayment 00:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think we'd be sweet. Can I take it that I now have your support? (It was the slogan that convinced you in the end, wasn't it?) --Horace 01:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you really think that we would agree about what is an accurate representation? We've not agreed on too much so far. Even if you genuinely believe that, I don't, so no, you do not have my support. Philip J. Rayment 06:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you clarify this last comment please ? are you saying Horace is lying or that because he is not a creationist he must be an untrustworthy person ? That you dont recognise the Kin bothers me. anyway, God expects us to believe in Him and to believe what He told us. This is your statement. God tells us in the Bible that a bat is a bird. Yet you dont accept that for an article on this website, so the Bible is not reliable as a primary source of truth ? Is the Bible the word of God thus inerrant , or were bits of it written by man or did God get his classifications wrong.Hamster 07:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hamster, read the comment before the last comment. It is not about not being a creationist; it is about already demonstrating disagreement over a key issue. Also, the word is not "bird" as EvanW pointed out, and as I pointed out in the discussion I linked for you. The word is 'owph, a winged flyer, and that fits both bats and birds, an the Bible is absolutely correct an reliable about that (as it is about everything else in it). God said that a bat is a winged flyer. Recognising different linguistic characterics and different taxonomies in no way declares any of them unreliable. BradleyF (LowKey) 09:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Who's going to vote for me? For me?!? Sterile 15:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I would vote for you but I am not a member or anythingHamster 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I would vote for you too, but without reading the rules, I suspect that my vote wouldn't count.--Bob M 18:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, like those above, I am not a member! 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
So Philip, we are back to the Bible in English translation is unreliable as an indication of Gods word, and we must use the Original greek or hebrew versions to make any progress. Thanks , that clarifies it nicely Hamster 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Let's wait that the definitive Bible comes out, and our problems will be solved. not a member! 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
So Philip, we are back to the Bible in English translation is unreliable as an indication of Gods word... Given that that's the opposite of what I said, where do you get that from? Philip J. Rayment 02:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The word is 'owph, a winged flyer, and that fits both bats and birds, an the Bible is absolutely correct an reliable about that (as it is about everything else in it). God said that a bat is a winged flyer. This was Bradley but you seemed to be in agreement with him. So hebrew owph is correct so english Bird is wrong. Therefore any english translation must be unreliable. How can we possibly tell what else is wrong if translators have been getting a simple word like owph wrong for hundreds of years. Glad thats sorted out now. Hamster 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the English translations are not "wrong", but as with any translation of anything, there is (as I said) not a one-to-one correspondence between words in different languages, so quite often the choice of English words (in a translation in English) is an approximation (i.e. not an error). (And although I describe the English word as an "approximation", translators expend considerable effort in making the translation as close as possible.) Also, words can have different shades of meaning and change their meaning. The definition of "planet" has been formally changed in recent times, for example. I'm not sure that I do agree with Bradley, although I didn't read his argument closely, so I'm not disagreeing either. The fact that ancient people put bats in the same grouping as feathered fliers but modern science doesn't is simply a matter of classification or definition. The translators choice of the nearest suitable word does not make English translations wrong. The Bible contains accurate history, but it is not a science textbook describing things in modern scientific terms. Philip J. Rayment 10:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hamster, what makes you think that "bird" has been used for hundreds of years in the English translations? The King James uses "fowl" which at the time meant "flyer" . "Fowl" itself changed so steadily over time that it became no longer appropriate, so later translators chose "bird" as the nearest English analog; although even then my modern English versions have "birds" notated and offer either "flyers" or "winged flyers" as a substitute. In fact, that the word is an approximation is not even a problem, because it is followed by a specific list to make it clear. Yes; some translators of some English translatins have made occasional errors in textual translation, but this does not make "the English Bible" unreliable as such, because it is common practice that where there is any doubt or reasonable alternative, this is at least noted and usually explained. An analogy: my father has had many American cars over the years. These have all been converted to right-hand drive (because we drive on the correct side of the road) The conversion does not make the cars controls identical to a car manufactured as a right-hand drive, as some small things like location of the combination switch are left "reversed". This does not make the car unreliable. It merely requires Ozzie drivers to know that this car was originally meant for a different system, and has been converted. BradleyF (LowKey) 12:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
the Bible quote system this site uses shows BIRD. 4 other searches I did show BIRD, no qualifications. searching the precise verse got me 6 additional references to BIRD. Only one showed (flying creature?) which means a disputed or questionable translation. The bible I use at home , which is not english translates that verse as "creature of the air" and is interestingly the same root word as Angel and demon. (a winged being which flies through the air) If a english translation is incorrect, and 'bird' is not the same as 'flying creature' then that book is unreliable, since it has shown that it cant be used in all cases as correct. Its what unreliable means. Your car analogy is flawed. It would be more correct to say the light switch labels in a korean car were translated and the labeled headlight switch turns on the overhead passenger lights , thats definately unreliable. Hamster 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
to take a different tack. Suppose you had a bat problem , and called an exerminator, he is ukranian, and you had an aviary full of Sulpher crested cockatoos. You sign a contract where he uses the word birds. It is of course the same thing in english because he is thinking in Ukranian. Yet when you return home, his workman, who is English has read the contract and exterminated all the birds. The bats are still in your attic but all your parrots are deceased. The english translation of winged flyer as bird in this contract is incorrect. It leads to problems in comprehension. There seems to be no justification for bird being used instead of winged flyer. You cant really say a translation is reliable if it leads to misunderstandings and no translator that I know of insists on a word to word corespondance when translating. Hamster 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hamster 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another another edit button

@Philip: So you'll stick to the yes-men?

@Sterile: I'll vote for you even if I'm not eligible.

@Philip: You may strike me down, but another will rise up in my place. And another, and another after that. The people will not be denied!

Allons enfants de la Patrie, Le jour de gloire est arrivé ! Contre nous de la tyrannie L'étendard sanglant est levé, Entendez-vous dans les campagnes Mugir ces féroces soldats ? Ils viennent jusque dans nos bras Égorger nos fils, nos compagnes ! Aux armes, citoyens, Formez vos bataillons, Marchons, marchons ! Qu'un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons !

--Horace (Let's get him IPO) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hamster commence à mars en place tout en fredonnant un chant martial et agitant le céleri. Hark ils viennent.
So you'll stick to the yes-men? What yes-men? I've already rejected this. What's the point of asking questions if you'll ignore what I say? Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
But Philip, your grievance was that you thought that we might not agree. You appear to be attempting to have it both ways. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 02:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If you were the leader of a political party, would you want people advising you who were from your own party or from an opposing party? And would people from your own party—no matter how willing they were to tell you that you were wrong—be "yes-men" simply because they are from your own party? Philip J. Rayment 03:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you the leader of a political party? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 04:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
And anyway, if disagreement isn't a problem then what is? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not the leader of a political party. The problem is a different worldview, a different way of seeing how things should be done. Philip J. Rayment 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It would seem to me that having a science viewpoint in your advisors would be an excellent situation. He would be in a firsthand position to say what things are going to be challanged and suggest alternative ways of saying them that reduce the points of conflict. Since this is after all a wiki, and anyone is free to edit, being a member or not doesnt affect what anyone could do, and you can always revert. Presidetial advisors are not chosen for political correctness but for their knowledge in specific area. Hamster 17:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Horace IPO
So... disagreement isn't the problem, its a different worldview. Not sure I'm following. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
People can have the same worldview, but disagree on specific issues. For example, I am a Christian (big surprise right) and I have a biblical worldview. I am more likely to trust someone as a councilor if they share my worldview. We may have differences of opinion on some (even many) subjects, but I will respect that person's opinion more because I know where they are coming from, and their arguments and mine will be built on a similar basis, so it will be easier to come to an agreement when we disagree. --TimS 02:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Does any of this have to do with running a wiki? Sterile 03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
sort answer, which you are smart enough to know already , is NOT A BIT. feeling unwellish going back to sleep Hamster

Yes, a science viewpoint would be useful. But the policy committee will decide policy, not specific content, and that has more to do with goals and worldviews. The {{member}} template has provision for showing areas of expertise, specifically so that we can learn which members have expertise in which areas and use that expertise as applicable, but again that is not for policy.

TimS' comments have everything to do with running a Wiki. Not with the technical side (maintaining the arrangements with the hosting service, keeping the software up to date, etc.), but with the direction of the site and how it should be run.

Philip J. Rayment 06:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things: I also applied to be on the content committee (which does involve questions of specific content as I understand it). Second, I understand the direction of the site and am prepared to act accordingly. Finally, I still don't understand why, if disagreeing with me isn't the problem, how it matters that I have a different worldview. Still sounds like you want a bunch of yes-men. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 08:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
My question still stands. If, as you say, Philip, the policy committe is deciding policy and not content, why does it matter what a senior member thinks about evolution or creationism? If you don't block for ideological reasons, if you block for foul language, if you need a way for people to vote to delete articles, what does that have to do with the view of people on this wiki? Unless you want to block for ideological reasons or delete articles that contain information about evolution, there shouldn't be a problem. Surely someone against evolution would want well written articles about the opposing point of view, no? Sterile 14:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand why, if disagreeing with me isn't the problem, how it matters that I have a different worldview. Still sounds like you want a bunch of yes-men. I don't know how I can explain it more clearly. Apart from an irrelevant question, you don't seem to have considered my analogy with a political party.
If ... the policy committe is deciding policy and not content, why does it matter what a senior member thinks about evolution or creationism? Because a change in policy could affect how content is affected. When I said that it doesn't decide content, I meant the specific content of specific articles when that is disputed.
If you don't block for ideological reasons, if you block for foul language, if you need a way for people to vote to delete articles, what does that have to do with the view of people on this wiki? For one thing, the critics here seem to have a very loose definition of what is foul language.
Surely someone against evolution would want well written articles about the opposing point of view, no? Well written, yes. But, to take an example, would the policy be changed by critics to be more in line with Wikipedia's, where truth is second to finding someone to cite?
Philip J. Rayment 14:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
so your concern is that someone without your worldview might prefer scientists who publish in the peer-reviewed science journals rather than the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation and that would lead to citations of leading edge science research which might be by godless athiests and why would anyone want that. Snark aside, presumably policy matters would be a committee vote, so just ensure that you keep a majority of your world view on the committee. (in politics its known as stacking the committee) Hamster 15:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Philip, you addressed only one of the three points I made. And you didn't even address that, other than to refer to an analogy that I cannot see as being relevant. You are not heading a political party. Personally, I don't regard political parties as exemplars of excellence in any case. What I gather from your posts so far is that you are content to disagree with other senior members only up to a point. Only within the parameters of the same worldview. That's just another way of saying that you want people who already agree with you. No matter what you say about accepting differences in view, it is quite apparent that you do not want people who will challenge you in any significant way. Fair enough. It's your wiki. I just ask that you be honest about it. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hamster, is having only people of your own party deciding party policy known in politics as "stacking the committee"?
Horace, the analogy is relevant if for no other reason that it applies to many other areas as well. Is Greenpeace going to have non-environmentalists deciding their policy? Or is the local cricket club going to have someone from a rival cricket club on their organising committee? Or is a company going to have someone from a rival company on their board? The point is that you are going to have someone committed to your goals deciding policy. It is part of the worldview of this site that:
  • many disagreements are based in full or in part on worldviews, not (just) on objective empirical evidence (which does not deny that other disagreements can be decided objectively on empirical evidence), and that
  • evolution falls into this category.
Can you say that you are committed to both of those views?
Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
a political party in power is meant to represent fairly ALL the people of any view. Unless your view is "those who voted for me get the honey, [implied offensive language deleted by Umpire] the rest of them. Let them rot in filth until they realize the error of their ways and vote for me". Its incidently the way God works with his followers, so you have a long term example to follow. Perhaps you could just put a disclaimer on the front of the site "YECS welcome - heres a definition , all others get lost" it would be a bit closer to reality. Hamster 15:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
1. A "political party in power" is known as the government, and I was talking about the party. 2. Even a government only includes in cabinet (I'm talking about Oz, I don't know how it works in the U.S.) people from the party in power. 3. You've ignored the other examples I gave.
As for the disclaimer, that's effectively already there in a sense by pointing out that this site has a biblical worldview. However, we don't want all others to get lost. You overlook that there's a lot of topics on which we have no disagreement, but are focussed on the ones on which we do disagree, and put almost all your efforts into them.
Philip J. Rayment 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
yes Philip, I understand the distinction. The party analogy only works if this site is party headquarters where party members may visit. If its for everyone to use then its ruling body is a government. The cabinet in Australia does not make the laws that govern its citizens, thats up to the Lower and upper houses of parliment which are meant to represent all citizens , unless things have really slipped. In the USA the cabinet may contain members of both parties who serve at the discretion of the president.
its pretty much impossible to do any science articles beyong grade school level because of the restriction on stating the scientific information that contradicts creationism or the 6000 year age of the earth. Carlsbad caverns , radiation treatment for cancer , positron emission scanning, etc dont exist and even an article on Hamsters must remain incomplete because they show genetic variations that are not in the parent stock. I and the others have been filling in your wanted pages list, but they wind up a bit stubby. Hamster 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Philip, I can say the following about your two propositions: I am not sure that I understand the distinction that you are attempting to draw between disagreements based on worldviews as opposed to objective empirical evidence. I do not see how they can be compared. Worldviews arise out of a consideration of the evidence (one would hope). I think you are creating a false dichotomy. All disagreements arise from interpretation of evidence (unless you are referring to situations where one party is unaware of or misunderstands the nature of some or all of the evidence). A worldview is an interpretation of the evidence (although, to be frank, I don't really like the use of the term "worldview" in this context - such things as evolution are only a part of a person's worldview). Accordingly, I understand that your creationist worldview is different to my evolutionary worldview only in that we interpret the evidence differently. As you are probably aware, I regard your interpretation of the evidence as perverse. However, I accept what I understand is your position on the matter, that is, you say that you accept the evidence (indeed you say that you rely on the evidence), you just draw a different conclusion to me. I am not sure if that is a satisfactory answer. If not, you may have to spell out your question a little more carefully for me. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 00:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hamster, perhaps the party analogy was a little flawed, but you are still ignoring the other analogies. The cricket club is involved in games which are open to everyone. Greenpeace are (ostensibly) trying to make the environment better for everyone. Even the political party, although not open to everyone, are proposing policies that will affect everyone. But they are doing so within particular bounds based on their respective views. Cabinet does not formally make the laws, but it decides what laws will be proposed. I suspected that the U.S. cabinet may be different, but what you've said is that its members are chosen by the leader, not by a vote of all participants! Perhaps we should apply that here! :-)
I strongly disagree with your claims about science articles, although this gets back to a proper understanding of what biblical creation is on about. It is to do with origins science, not other science. You are quite free (within the bounds of what's reasonable for an encyclopædia article and the particular limitations we have for level of understandability and article length) to include any relevant scientific observations, but not conclusions that are based on an evolutionary worldview. There is no reason that we can't have articles on the three examples you mentioned, as long as you don't introduce beliefs about the past that contradict the worldview of this site. Part of the problem is that evolutionists frequently fail to see the difference between the facts and their explanations of the facts, and this seems to be something that is so ingrained that they have difficulty recognising it. I don't have an answer for that, other than them accepting feedback on when they have confused the two. I know some of you have been working on other articles, and I'm sorry if I fail to recognise how much of that is occurring with some individuals, although with others I'm sure that they contribute very little other than objections.
Horace: worldviews are undoubtedly influence by consideration of the evidence, but they cannot be totally based on it. For example, the view that the only truths we can accept are those demonstrated by science cannot itself be demonstrated by science. At root, worldviews must be based on assumptions. Christians have the assumption that God exists. Atheists have the assumption that He doesn't exist. Neither is directly scientifically testable. Others have the assumption that He may or may not exist, but that He can be ignored insofar as explaining things are concerned. That assumption is also not scientifically testable. Yet those very assumptions do affect how we interpret the evidence. That is, a worldview is not an interpretation of the evidence, but the basis on which we interpret the evidence.
Does that make it clearer?
Philip J. Rayment 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, now when am I going to be promoted? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 01:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
When I'm convinced that you really are committed to the goals of this site. Philip J. Rayment 13:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
well Philip its what you say, but not what you do. I could outline the decay line of U235/238 which runs for some 20 steps over about 4 billion years. I doubt that would stay more than a minute until you pulled up CMI and accellerated decay and proved that something poofed all of it into existance and accelerated the decay to the point the Earth would look like a christmas tree ornament glowing in space from the heat and radiation. The decay rates are fact, the sequence is fact, Creation Science of accelerated decay is wishful thinking at best The big bang theory takes about 6 billion years to form planetary systems unless some majic takes place, 6000 years os not even close. Hamster 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not one more.

Am I committed to the goals of this site yet? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 22:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Am I committed to the goals of this site yet? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Am I committed to the goals of this site yet? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 22:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you would know the answer to that better than anyone else. --TimS 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this one of those stories that ends: "Look into your heart Horace and you will see that you were committed to the goals of the site all along"? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 00:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think you are (or will ever be) committed to the goals of the site. I was commenting on the fact that you were asking someone else what you were committed to. --TimS 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that I am not committed and, having regard to your original comment, I guess I would know best. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 01:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
So you are committed to creating a biblical worldview encyclopedia? --Unsigned comment by TimS (talk)
Indeed. I would like this site to be the exemplar for other such projects. The one they look at and say, "Now that is an accurate and reliable encyclopaedia with a biblical worldview". There are plenty of propoganda sites out there. That is not what this site should aim at. This site should aim at accuracy and reliability. I already assist in that process, not only by providing content but also by standing against deception and inaccurate reporting. And I do so in a manner which is compatible with the goals of the site. The fact that I do this should be rewarded. It is a service that this site badly needs. I do not intend to be overly critical of other editors. Everyone has a tendency to see the world through their own particular prism. Sometimes, however, that can lead to some editors seeking to exclude or misrepresent the views of others. What this site needs is a senior member who is not part of the YEC group-think. Someone who is determined to ensure fair reporting of facts. That person is me. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 01:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If that is your goal, then I would suggest trying to avoid edits that are meant to be inflammatory. Editing the Pi article to say that Pi=3 doesn't help anyone. I would not be opposed on principle to the idea of someone being a senior member who is not a YEC, (or even a Christian). But I am opposed to making someone a senior member who sometimes seems to be trying to make trouble. If you think that this project is ever going to reject YEC you are wrong. If you think this project is ever going to rule out supernatural involvement in the natural world, you are wrong again. The whole point of this project is a biblical worldview, and that includes YEC. Trying to argue that YECs aren't scientists also isn't going to help. When I say I believe that the earth is ~6000 years old, that number comes from the Bible, and therefore isn't scientific. However there is science being done that does support that possibility, and no the science isn't based on the Bible. It is based on observation etc. just like the science you like. Just because a majority of scientists support one view does not mean that view is correct and that any opposition is not science. Being a YEC does not preclude a person from being a scientist. I am in favor of people who disagree working together on a project. I tried to fight that fight on CP for a long time. However, people need to understand what the project is. Yes, YEC is going to be supported here. Dissenting views will also be given, but the overall outlook of the project as a whole, and any article on it's own is going to be YEC. Can you sign on to work toward those circumstances? --TimS 02:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me make myself absolutely clear. I do not want this site to reject YEC. I do not want this site to rule out supernatural involvement in the natural world. I like a bit of diversity in the world. Anyway, it's not my site. Such wishes would be in vain. What I want is a site that portray's not only YEC views accurately but also portrays evolutionary views accurately. I understand that evolutionary views are not accepted by management. All I say is that if the site wants to criticise, then at least describe those views accurately. And yes, I confess that sometimes I have had some fun with edits like the Pi edit. That's just a part of my nature. Sue me. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 02:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you want to demonstrate a commitment to aSK, a good step would be to make your "fun" edits less inflammatory, in fact, trying to avoid edits to mainspace articles when the edit is not intended to improve the article would be best. Another good step would be to not engage in edit warring, especially against senior members (the ones who you'd like to vote for you when/if you get nominated). Even if you are right, and your edit should stay in, edit warring over it isn't going to help. If you get reverted once, there is a pretty solid chance that if you revert it back, the other person will do it right back to you. Engaging in the edit war isn't going to get you anywhere, and doesn't reflect well on you ability to work together well as part of a project you disagree with. Take it to the talk page, and if you are right, then your edit will get in there eventually. What I want is a site that portray's not only YEC views accurately but also portrays evolutionary views accurately. I understand that evolutionary views are not accepted by management. All I say is that if the site wants to criticise, then at least describe those views accurately. When you say that you want evolutionary views portrayed accurately, do you mean that you want the site to be accurate with what it says that evolutionists believe? or do you mean that you want the site to portray it as what you believe it to be (established science that isn't in dispute except by a few fringe nutjobs)? We are all for accurately representing what evolutionists believe. We will not portray evolution as established indisputable science. --TimS 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
What I want is a site that portray's not only YEC views accurately but also portrays evolutionary views accurately. ... All I say is that if the site wants to criticise, then at least describe those views accurately. But that is also our goal. The problem is that you seem to have a different view on what that means in practice.
And yes, I confess that sometimes I have had some fun with edits like the Pi edit. And this edit too?
Philip J. Rayment 02:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
So we are agreed my goals are identical to the site's goals and that the only disagreements are on the implementation level. And yes, that edit was tongue in cheek also. I assume that I will now be promoted post-haste. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 05:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@Tim: I hear what you say about edit warring. I am taken a little by surprise because the king of the edit war on this site is, without a doubt, OscarJ. Far from preventing his promotion, his edit warring appeared to lead to promotion. Are you saying that I am emulating the wrong senior member? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 06:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I don't know much about Oscar's edit warring, so I'm not qualified to comment on that count, but I don't condone edit warring in most cases. There can't be an edit war without (at least) 2 people involved. What I'm saying is be the better man. Show that you can be civil and not engage in a pointless fighting, and people will respect you more. Also, were you intending to answer my question about what you meant by an accurate portrayal of evolutionary theory? --TimS 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what Tim, I undertake to be the better man as soon as I am promoted (more than I can say for dear Oscar). And, in relation to your loaded evolution question, I think I have already answered but let me make it clear: I am not asking or expecting that articles on this site refer to creation scientists as fringe nut jobs. Happy? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 09:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You aren't going to get promoted on a promise. You have to prove yourself through actions first. --TimS 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Your naivety is touching. I am never going to be promoted at all. I have already "proved myself" by my edits, but this site is not interested in accuracy or reliability. It is far more interested in propaganda. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The current decay rates are fact, the sequence is fact, the claims of accelerated decay have scientific research to back them. Perhaps it doesn't prove them, but it shows that there's something that doesn't fit and which needs explaining, contrary to your implicit claim that there's no doubt about it all. Magic is not the only alternative to the Big Bang, fiat creation by an infinitely-powerful creator is another possible explanation. Then there's the proposals from Russel Humphreys and John Hartnett that time passed at different rates in different parts of the universe, possibly allowing for some of the time spans you mention. And explanations of planetary formation have so many problems that it's doubtful that any have any validity. Philip J. Rayment 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your argument style

Hi Philip,
Thought I'd pass on a few tips for you

  • Quote mining people's comments and misusing logical fallacies against each point does not make you look like an intelligent skeptical genius, it makes you look like a moron.
  • Someone calling you a moron / idiot / zebra poacher / josh is not an ad hominem, it is an insult, opinion or fact. Get used to it.
  • Linking to articles on creationist websites which are the scientific equivalent of a rather horrific eggy fart which just won't go despite you opening the window does not back up your argument, it undermines it massively.
  • Bleating on and on for several paragraphs without answering a simple question in the hope that the reader will think "tl;dr" doesn't work. A lot of people will read it and are capable of seeing through the BS.

Hope that helps. I sincerely hope you will become better at flogging a dead horse after these tips (OH NOES!! BEGGING THE QUESTION??!!!11). CrundySpeak! 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote mining people's comments and misusing logical fallacies against each point does not make you look like an intelligent skeptical genius, it makes you look like a moron. Accusing someone of doing things wrong without providing any evidence that they have (such as in the way of examples) does not make you look like you are offering constructive criticism.
Someone calling you a moron / idiot / zebra poacher / josh is not an ad hominem, it is an insult, opinion or fact. Get used to it. Its abusive ad hominem if it's substituting for proper argument.
Linking to articles on creationist websites which are the scientific equivalent of a rather horrific eggy [smell] which just won't go despite you opening the window does not back up your argument, it undermines it massively. Attacking the source simply because you don't agree with them is bigotry. It's the resort of someone who has no argument.
Bleating on and on for several paragraphs without answering a simple question in the hope that the reader will think "tl;dr" doesn't work. Caricaturing my responses in that way without demonstrating that there's any truth to your caricature doesn't help.
Hope that helps. Not in the slightest, because you've offered no substance to your criticisms.
Philip J. Rayment 23:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If I may try to rephrase some of Crundy's points in a slightly more constructive manner:
  • Extensive fisking of people's talk-page posts (1) can annoy them by making them chew through a wall of text to get at the small part of it containing the reply they were expecting, and (2) tends to veer the conversation off-topic by making dialectical tangents out of mere casual remarks.
  • You cannot expect claims from creationist sources to be accepted by evolution supporters without severe questioning on every point of contention, so citing such sources on talk-pages is often counterproductive. o ListenerXTalkerX 08:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
That seems to me to be far more than a "rephrase"!
I will plead guilty to sometimes making my replies too extensive, but much of the time I feel that it's important to answer each point because other points build on them, or perhaps I'll be assumed to be in agreement with those particular points if I don't reject them. Often I also wish to make clear that that what I'm replying to is not just a disagreement over one or two points, but over much more basic issues, such as the worldviews we base our opinions on, or over the very way we think. Another cause is due to the gratuitous comments put into what are (sometimes) otherwise reasonable questions or comments. If you critics would cut the derogatory comments and just stick to the rational argument it would help a lot.
I've just as much right to expect claims from creationist sources to be accepted by evolutionists as you have for claims from evolutionist sources to be accepted by creationists. More actually, as the creationist sources almost always quote evolutionists in support of their claims, unlike the evolutionist sources who quote other evolutionists. Further, I generally quote them for one of the following reasons: (1) Because they explain it better than me, (2) because they link to multiple evolutionist sources, so it makes sense for me to provide one link to them rather than multiple links myself along with context for each, (3) because I'm citing them as an authority on what creationists believe (and surely they are the best source for that?). Apart from that third point, I rarely if ever link to them as an authority, because I know that evolutionists won't accept that. I despair that the evolutionists seem to have so much difficulty recognising this.
Philip J. Rayment 13:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Er, when have you ever cited an evolutionary biological source, or allowed for its presence in favor of a creation.com article? Ever? Sterile 16:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I am only saying that if you just ignored the insults, it might expedite the argument. That is what I try to do.
CMI and other creationist sources also seem to be cited here as an authority on what evolution supporters say; see the evolution article alone for several examples (references 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, etc.) o ListenerXTalkerX 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
LX, it's possible that hurling insults at PJR is a more effective way of shaming him than rubbing his nose in his flexible morals. One certainly cannot communicate with him in any meaningful sense. Teh Terrible Asp 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, come now; insults of that sort never accomplished anything useful. o ListenerXTalkerX 19:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You should be a senior member too. Teh Terrible Asp 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Er, when have you ever cited an evolutionary biological source... Here for example.
I am only saying that if you just ignored the insults, it might expedite the argument. Sounds like blaming the victim. Thanks for your comment above replying to the Asp, though. If not for your reply, I would have deleted his comment.
Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like blaming the victim. Again, I am just stating facts rather than pitching blame. If you cannot in good conscience ignore the insults, you should not. o ListenerXTalkerX 19:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I accept that you're not saying that I'm in the wrong. What I don't want to do is tacitly encourage the insults by ignoring them. Instead of responding, I'm just going to delete them in future. At least for ones where the entire post has no merit. Philip J. Rayment 02:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves

Jeeves is entitled to his view that CMI "scientists" are not real scientists. He is entitled to express that view on a talk page. It is a view that I share with him. Expressing such a view in an article is a different matter because it is not a view that is shared by other users. But for you to repeatedly remove a legitimate talk page comment and then block the editor is wrong. --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 21:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is he entitled to express that view on a talk page? Are you saying that any view about anyone or anything is allowed to be expressed, no matter what? Or is there some standard you adopt that allows some things and not others? If so, please share it with us, and your reasoning if that's not self-evident. Further, he didn't put it in terms of expressing a view. He stated it as though it was a fact. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Rhetorical question. Why should evolution supporters assent to the expression of creationist views when they consider such views to be presented in a logically fallacious manner, devoid of meaningful content, and slandering the scientific community? o ListenerXTalkerX 06:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "assent to the expression of". Does that mean "agree with", "agree that they have a right to express their views", or what? Philip J. Rayment 09:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
To explain by example, by deleting people's edits from talk-pages, you are failing to assent to the expression of the views contained in those edits. o ListenerXTalkerX 17:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Why should evolution supporters assent to the expression of creationist views... I never said they should. My concern is not with them disputing the views (and I'm not deleting any such posts), but with simply throwing mud, often in an uncivil manner. If an evolutionist says "I don't agree with this because..." or even "I don't agree with this.", or "Why do you think ..." or "This is wrong because (rational argument provided)", they are all okay. But when they say things like "creationists are idiots" or "You're being dishonest", or other such uncivil comments, that is what I am deleting. I find this mudslinging being characterised as fair expression to be quite disturbing. Philip J. Rayment 02:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)...view that CMI "scientists" are not real scientists...is a view that I share Pardon the ellipses, but as the full quote is just above, this serves. Herein lies the bulk of the problem with your commitment to the goals of this site as well as with your idea of accuracy and reliability. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What has that got to do with my commitment to the goals of the site? What has it got to do with my ideas of accuracy and reliability? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 02:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to clear the backlog of unsupported assertions before moving on to new ones. In the interests of doing so, can you please supply me your list of "many Bible scholars" for talk:Tower of Babel ASAP so we can settle that matter and clear a space on the dance card for this post? Ta. BradleyF (LowKey) 05:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


...you wouold need to turn into Philip since he is the one being addressed... I suppose that's why you started your previous post, "O suppose Bradley..."?
Okay then, I'll take it up. Perhaps you could list some specifics: specific names and specific qualifications of those you don't consider to be "real scientists". But hang on a moment, you said that there were ten of the 17 who don't appear to be qualified to comment meaningfully on evolution, etc. (including those you are unsure about, I gather). Doesn't that mean that there were seven who are so qualified? And doesn't that mean that they are real scientists? (If you want to define a medical doctor as not a "real scientist", that might be okay, but then nobody claimed that he was anything other than a medical doctor.) So haven't you already implicitly refuted your own claim?
Philip J. Rayment 06:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
...its now banned state wide by the schools and library board. I hear Australia banned teaching creation as science too... South Australia and New South Wales have introduced such censorship, and on false premises. Philip J. Rayment 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@ Brad, my apologies, I was confused about what I was replying to. I dont see too well these days. abject Hamster

Withdrawal of candidacy

I do not wish to associate closely with the management of this site. Accordingly I withdraw my candidacy for senior member. [unflattering remarks removed by Umpire] --Horace 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling again removed. You may genuinely believe that I am deceitful, but you don't have the right to put that in the form of an accusation or as an assumed fact without backing it up. If you want to argue that "PJR is deceitful because....", then I can dispute the reasons. But you were not making that argument; you were presuming dishonesty to justify your comment. Philip J. Rayment 02:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

bye bye Philip,

bye phil, you can keep the approx 60 articles I authored here, [... trolling and uncivil remarks removed by Umpire] I am warning talk.origins and creationweb that this site is untrustworthy. Have a nice time doing puffing billy articles . Hamster 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Formal warning

I have blocked you for 1 second to formally record this warning for calling Stephen J. Gould a liar in this post. Personal attacks and insults are not acceptable, and any more will result in a block. Neveruse513 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As a member you only have the right to block for vandalism. Blocking someone for "civility breach" is an abuse of your block rights. --OscarJ 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. As an Umpire, please review the case and let Phil off the hook. Neveruse513 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Even apart from your lack of authority in this matter, you are incorrect in your facts. First, it is permitted to call someone a liar if clear evidence (that is, that satisfies an Umpire) of lying is shown. Second, I did not call him a liar. You have read "liar" into my post and warned me for your reading of my post. And the only justification that you could show for reading "liar" into it is the evidence I provided! Philip J. Rayment 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, there you have it folks! You thought that you understood the English language. You thought a "liar" was a person who told an intentional falsehood. However, here at A Storehouse of Knowledge a "liar" is not a liar until and unless management agree that they are a liar. Got that? And that applies to talk pages, not just articles. You shouldn't be alarmed though, you are still free to think that someone is a liar. Obviously, unless you are telepathic, merely thinking it will not actually convey that information to others. But hey, who on this site really needs to communicate their thoughts to other people? Nice one Phil. --Horace 05:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox