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 7

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

Man up

Things are getting pretty dire around here. Legitimate talk page criticism is being deleted by management on a regular basis these days. Crundy was right (although naturally his comment was deleted), this place is becoming CP. Are you guys so thin skinned that you cannot receive and respond to criticism? It is a poor effort for a group of grown men (and Oscar). Man up and stop hiding behind the memory hole. --Horace 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No legitimate talk page criticism is being deleted. That is, no criticism that is more than insult.
Are you guys so thin skinned that you cannot receive and respond to criticism? We have responded to plenty of criticism, and I'm doing so here, so that innuendo is false.
Philip J. Rayment 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No legitimate talk page criticism is being deleted. Is that really your view of the edit by SOMEONE that was deleted and the user permabanned ? Hamster 02:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Someone is a confirmed sock, and also did a bit of vandalism (later deleted). --TimS 07:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been no legitimate talk page criticism deleted that I am aware of. I know that user:Someone was banned (then unbanned) on the grounds of being a sockpuppet, but I haven't looked at what they posted. I will when I get a chance, given that you've raised it here. Philip J. Rayment 02:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. No legitimate talk page criticism has been deleted. And you decide what is legitimate. And anything you remove is not legitimate by definition. Well, that's fine then. Why didn't you say so... --Horace 06:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Lets hold judgement for now Horace, that is NOT what Philip just said. He has said he will look at it (someones comment)now that its been brought to his attention. That sounds fair. If he responds again then we know where the line is drawn. If there are others in dispute then I have no doubt that Philip will look at them if you post a diff link for them, it is after all his wiki. Hamster 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Hamster. User:Someone made two edits. One is here, and the other was to create the page "Parody" as a redirect to OscarJ's user page. The first was merely mocking; there was no constructive criticism involved. So that example does not disprove my claim of no legitimate talk page criticism being deleted.
And you decide what is legitimate. No, duly authorised Umpires decide. Someone (not the user!) has to decide, don't they? You've offered no rational argument that any comments deleted were legitimate; merely assertions and mockery.
Philip J. Rayment 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
see Horace , NOW we understand Philips position. Which is probably fair given his biases. I personally found Someones comment to be appropriate to the circumstances but perhaps a trifle terse. You do need to add linguistics to the list of stuff creationists need to ignore though. The Indian language roots alone and the vedas , Ramayana and the area of Rajasthan put 6000 years +_ 1000 out of question. Hamster 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
More twisted nonsense. Disagreeing is not ignoring. When you have to invent criticisms, you've lost. Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

De ja vu

My wife was watching tv the other night & I heard this line, “You’re wrong, and not only do you stick to your guns; you’re belligerent about it. And you insult me to my face. Congratulations! You’re American!” I don't know the context, but something about it seemed familiar nonetheless! BradleyF (LowKey) 02:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

While that line is clever and I understand its point, I as an American am greatly saddened these days about what we have done to our image. Sigh...JRoscoe 08:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You are a mutant. How is it doublethink to read the Bible the way it was intended to be read? How do you know you are reading it right? Ace McWicked 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We are all degenerate mutants. Your point?
How do you know you are reading it right? How do you know that you read my comments right? See also Creation week.
Philip J. Rayment 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You are reading the bible right because the bible is right. The bible is right because the nature of god is inerrant. The nature of God is inerrant because it says so in the bible. You are spinning in circles. Ace McWicked 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
How do you know that you read my comments right? I'm reminded of a Mr. Colin Patterson... Ace McWicked understands exactly what you meant and you are in no position to tell him otherwise! SallyM 19:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Unless you can in fact read Ace's and Philip's minds, you are in no position to make such amazing assertions. BradleyF (LowKey) 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
So: you can read God's mind? Theresa Wilson 01:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, but I don't make claims like that. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
But you know what the Bible (His book?) means. So you obviously think you can. Theresa Wilson 02:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You are reading the bible right because the bible is right. The bible is right because the nature of god is inerrant. The nature of God is inerrant because it says so in the bible. You are spinning in circles. The first sentence of that makes no sense.
Ace McWicked understands exactly what you meant... The question was not whether he does, but how he does. I see that nobody here has bothered answering that question, yet I'm expected to answer essentially that question!
Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The Bible is inerrant hence it is right, hence you are reading it right. The bible is right because the nature of god is inerrant. The nature of God is inerrant because it says so in the bible. Ace McWicked 05:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Although I like to think that the second part of your first sentence is correct, it doesn't logically follow from the first part. Philip J. Rayment 08:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Lets try this - The bible is right because the nature of god is inerrant. The nature of God is inerrant because it says so in the bible. You believe the bible to be inerrant because the nature of God is inerrant therefore your understanding of the bible is correct. Ace McWicked 08:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The bible is right because the nature of god is inerrant. The nature of God is inerrant because it says so in the bible. At best, very poorly worded. Inerrancy is an attribute of the Bible rather than God. The Bible is inerrant because of the nature of God, who is omniscient, omnipotent, and truthful. That is, a God with those attributes who revealed Himself to us would, necessarily, have provided an inerrant revelation. The Bible does describe God as having those attributes, but then it's hard to imagine God any other way. A "god" who was not omnipotent and omniscient would not be described as "God" (which is a concept distinct from, for example the Greek "gods").
You believe the bible to be inerrant because [of] the nature of God ... therefore your understanding of the bible is correct. That last part still doesn't logically follow from the first part.
Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And how do you know the attributes of your god? Where did you learn of them?
PS: It's not logical. Logic does not dictate that a god must be omniscient, omnipotent or truthful. --The Egyptian 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I originally learnt them from the Bible. I'm not saying that "a god" must have those characteristics; it depends on your definition of "God". When translators translate the Bible into a new language, they look for a term in that language not just for "a god", but for the God, or the supreme God, the Creator. Thus the use of the term "Theos" in Greek (see below), "God" in English, "Shang Ti" (the Lord of Heaven) in Chinese, "Hananim" (the Great One) in Korean, and so on. The Creator, the One who exists outside creation and is therefore eternal and who is capable of creating everything, almost by definition must have these characteristics, else He would not be able to be the Supreme One, the Creator, the Unknown God of the ancient Greeks (Acts 17:23), whom they realised must exist, at their various gods did not fit the bill. Don Richardson writes:

The philosophers must have known, however, that Xenophanes, Plato and Aristotle—three great philosophers—used Theos as a personal name for one Supreme God in their writings. ...
Two centuries after Plato's and Aristotle's time, translators of the Septuagint—the first Greek version of the Old Testament—grappled with a major problem: Could a suitable equivalent for the Hebrew name for God, Elohim, be found in the Greek language? They rejected the name Zeus. Even though Zeus was called "king of the gods", pagan theologians had chosen to make Zeus the offspring of two other gods, Cronus and Rhea. An offspring of other beings cannot equal Elohim, who is uncreated. Finally the translators recognized the above three philosophers' fortuitous use of Theos as a personal Greek name for the Almighty.

Christians consider the Bible to be the most reliable, accurate, and detailed, source of information about this Supreme Being, but this Being is known or deduced in many cultures; He is not unique to the Bible, nor should He be, as He is the Creator of all men, not just the Jews. So I'm suggesting that logic does dictate that God must have those characteristics, simply because if He doesn't, He is not, by definition, God/Theos/Shang Ti/Hananim/Viracocha (the Incan Lord, the omnipotent Creator of all things)!
Philip J. Rayment 14:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

With your former friends trolling RW I thought I would visit you

How have you been Philip? I spent the morning exercising myself and my requirement to vote. Believe it or not I voted for the Libs this time. Well not exactly, I put them higher than my Labor candidate in the lower house, I think I voted for the Greens first. I still chocked a little whilst I did it though. But I would honestly rather have the Liberals for a term than four more years of this Government. I am going to take a shower now, I feel dirty for entertaining these thoughts. As the only Liberal voter I am aware of I thought I would share that with you. p 01:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What make you think I'm a Liberal voter? Granted, like you, I'd put them higher than Labor. And unlike you, I'd put either higher than the Greens. But depending on my choices in a given election, I'd not put the Liberals first. Philip J. Rayment 13:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You basically end up voting for which ever put first out of Labor or Liberals any way, unless you live in Tasmania that is. p 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No Libs in Queensland anymore, not that they were particularly dominant in the state conservative coalition. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment, Pi. But I vote for whichever candidate is closest to my views. Philip J. Rayment 02:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Preference redistribution. p 03:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for a not-particularly-helpful comment. Are you saying that I will vote for whoever preferences Liberal rather than Labor? That's incorrect. I decide my own preferences as far as possible*, and will put candidates in order according to how close each candidate are to my views. (*–Even to the extent of numbering every square on the senate paper if I don't agree with the party preferences.) Philip J. Rayment 03:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I usually vote below the line too, I didn't this time because I found a ticket I was happy enough with, I guess my vote ended up with the Greens still. But there is no two ways about it in the house, you are voting Labor or Liberal in the end, unless by chance you have a popular independent. I effectively voted Liberal this time. p 04:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you folks in Oz have a biblical worldview, YEC, evolution-denying, science-hating party you can vote for? Or at least some nutjobs running on the fringe of sanity? Just curious, I was lucky in '06, we had a sane candidate for our House seat. It's always nice to find politicians one can stand behind 100%. ħuman Number 19 04:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
They are called Family First. I'll write an article on them back at our home when I get the time. p 04:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you folks in Oz have a biblical worldview, YEC, evolution-denying, science-hating party you can vote for? That's a contradiction in terms. YECs love science.
They are called Family First. Family First is not explicitly biblical worldview, let alone YEC. A better candidate for biblical worldview and YEC is the Christian Democratic Party.
Philip J. Rayment 05:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What Fred Niles' Nuts? Talk about your political non-entity, I don't think they even run my state. YECs love science. Not the way everyone else defines science. p 05:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
They don't always run in other states, but sometimes do. Niles is long-standing and well-respected (him, if not his views; by fellow parliamentarians) in N.S.W.
That YECs don't constrict the definition of science the way others do doesn't mean that they hate science. That's simply invention for the sake of slander.
Philip J. Rayment 05:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean don't constrict the definition of science? That is like saying adding an extra rule to chess that you can only move pawns does restrict the game some how. p 05:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, only allowing pawns to be moved would unreasonably constrict the game! Just like adding a rule that science cannot consider some explanations even though they might be correct. Philip J. Rayment 05:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I will list the axioms of normal science:
  1. The scientific method works.
The axioms of creation "science":
  1. The scientific method works.
  2. The events in the Bible are literally true.
If S is the set of all possible scientific theories you have restricted yourself to the subset of theories that follow from the literal truth of the Bible, rather than all possible theories. The events in the Bible being literally true is not outside S. Do you see my chess analogy now? p 05:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Try again:
Normal science:
  1. The scientific method works
  2. Explanations must fit the evidence
  3. Explanations must be naturalistic, even if this overrides No. 2[1][2]
True science:
  1. The scientific method works
  2. Explanations must fit the evidence (including, but not limited to, Divinely-revealed history)
How's that chess analogy again?
Philip J. Rayment 11:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Explanations must be naturalistic that is not a requirement for science, it needs to be reliably predictable. So only if your super natural entity is acting in a predictable way, then it is scientifically measurable. including, but not limited to, Divinely-revealed history Bingo, you are taking the Bible as a Prima facie. Why don't you just say "we start with the bible and extrapolate". Instead of pretending they do science, call it what it is - biblical studies. p 22:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
that is not a requirement for science... Then why don't I see you arguing that point with all the other critics here who do argue that very point?
So only if your super natural entity is acting in a predictable way, then it is scientifically measurable. And that is one reason why Christianity founded modern science, because of that predictability.
Bingo, you are taking the Bible as a Prima facie. Why don't you just say "we start with the bible and extrapolate". I could, but I'm trying to stress the point that this does not negate it being science.
Instead of pretending they do science, call it what it is - biblical studies. It's not pretending. The Bible is taken as a framework, then science is done within that framework. That is, science fills in the details that the Bible doesn't have, that studying the Bible alone doesn't provide.
Philip J. Rayment 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll play along.
Then why don't I see you arguing that point with all the other critics here who do argue that very point? I don't hang around here that much and I find large walls of text off putting so I don't read most comments made on this site. If I see it, I'll discuss it.
And that is one reason why Christianity founded modern science, because of that predictability. Exactly, they wanted to demonstrate the truth of the Bible without assuming the truth of the Bible. They wanted an entirely independent means of corroborating the Bible, that is why science was originally known as natural philosophy. Now three to four hundred years later science says things that are contrary to the Bible. What does that tell you about the Bible?
I could, but I'm trying to stress the point that this does not negate it being science. It does. If your study of the physical world influences your view of the Biblical truth, you are a scientist because you are questioning and examining things. If your study of the Bible influences your view of the physical world, you are a theologian, because they are philosophizing on what they expected dependent on the Bible. See why science was called natural philosophy?
It's not pretending. The Bible is taken as a framework, then science is done within that framework. That is, science fills in the details that the Bible doesn't have, that studying the Bible alone doesn't provide. Again nothing wrong with this logically, but you have limited yourself to all the scientific theories that are true dependent on the Bible being true. (Same as all the games of chess where only the pawns move). This is the logic of the theologians, not of the natural philosophers. As for the truth of the Bible, go back and see point 2.
p 23:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If I see it, I'll discuss it. It's surprising, given the number of times it's been raised, that you haven't seen it. But okay.
Exactly, they wanted to demonstrate the truth of the Bible without assuming the truth of the Bible. That's not what happened. Did you read the link?
...that is why science was originally known as natural philosophy. That is not self-evident, and (with a quick look) I can't find anything supporting it. (Note that I'm not disputing that it was called that; merely that it was so called because of the reason you give.)
It does. If your study of the physical world influences your view of the Biblical truth, you are a scientist because you are questioning and examining things. You can question and example things without it influencing your view of biblical truth.
If your study of the Bible influences your view of the physical world, you are a theologian, because they are philosophizing on what they expected dependent on the Bible. If you are studying the physical world using the scientific method, you are a scientist, regardless of what guidance the Bible provides, and that dosn't make you a theologian.
See why science was called natural philosophy? No. It was called that, I believe, because it was the study of nature, not because it was naturalistic.
Again nothing wrong with this logically, but you have limited yourself to all the scientific theories that are true dependent on the Bible being true. Have you? I didn't say that. That you use the Bible as a framework doesn't mean that you have to rule out explanations that don't fit the framework, even assuming that such are found. What is wrong with doing science within a biblical framework, but being open to that framework being invalidated? Contrast this to the naturalistic view that is closed to the naturalistic framework being invalidated? Despite your comment that science does not require naturalistic explanations, that is exactly how many define science. So you agree that ruling out supernatural explanations a priori is anti-science, do you?
Philip J. Rayment 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay we will define science as the study of nature and we will use the scientific method set out by Bacon. That pretty much all science is. Does it rule out supernatural explination? Not if we can test them in a predicatable way. Pray experiments are a good example of that.
However my point is that working in a biblical framework is a stronger axiomatically, that is you have limited yourself to the phase space of scientific theories that use the Bible as an a priori.
Mainstream science uses just the scientific method, whilst scientific creationism uses the scientific method and the Biblical framework. This is a problem, as you have made an additional assumption and one that is testable with the weaker of the two axioms. Logically you have cut yourself off into a framework that can be shown to be wrong (and has been). This is not a matter of "your theory is wrong under my theory" nonsense you made up. This is using simply the weaker logical axiom and hence therefore creating a more robust framework.
You (and your mates at CMI) don't do science Philip, it is simply natural theology. If you want to pretend it is that is fine. Send me an email and I give you my old lab coat to wear when you are playing scientist. It has a few ferrous oxide stains in it that I could never get out, but it is good besides that. p 05:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Although I pretty much agree with your opening comments, prayer experiments are not a good example, as you cannot do a blind (let alone double-blind) test insofar as the main subject (God) is concerned. So if God answers prayer depending on the motives of the pray-er, and the motives are to take part in a test, then this could affect the outcome. Note, however, that we are talking about origins science, where we are not putting God Himself to the test (as with prayer tests), but determining if past events had a supernatural cause.
Working within a biblical framework is weaker axiomatically than working within a naturalistic framework, which, despite your repeated denial or omission of this point, is very much a part of how mainstream science is practiced. It's weaker, because biblical creationists have the options of invoking a supernatural cause (if the evidence points that way) or a natural cause, whereas naturalistic science has ruled out one of those options a priori.
The biblical framework has not been shown to be wrong in any indisputable sense.
This is not a matter of "your theory is wrong under my theory" nonsense you made up. What do you mean, that I "made up"? That is very much how anti-creationists often argue, and I haven't made anything up.
You (and your mates at CMI) don't do science Philip, ... You're right that I don't; I'm not a scientist. But the creationary scientists do do science.
If you want to pretend it is that is fine. You're the one pretending, given that you've made an accusation without showing that it has any substance.
Philip J. Rayment 08:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you ever accept anything that is contrary to the bible? p 09:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If there was sufficient reason to believe it to be correct, yes. I do have faith, though, that this will never be the case. Philip J. Rayment 13:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
But if you are going to work only from with in a biblical framework, how can you ever accept as true anything outside that framework? p 12:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I work within a biblical framework because I believe that the biblical framework is correct. However, there is no reason in principle why I can't be convinced that the biblical framework is not correct. Philip J. Rayment 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yet you have faith this will never happen? π 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Philip J. Rayment 01:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
And you don't see a problem with this logic? π 02:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
What logic? I've just stated some facts about what I think; I haven't presented a logical argument. Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines on encyclopedic content?

I was wondering whether a guideline exists on what types of articles aSK is or isn't interested in. For example, I can't imagine how to turn the page on "truthful" into an encyclopedia article - at best I'd redirect it to truth, if we had an article on that. As a more ambiguous example, I don't see what makes Matshona Dhliwayo and his book notable enough for an article - but I assume the author will disagree with me. Any hints? Yoritomo 18:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are asking two different question. The first is what types of articles we should have, and in that I would say that pretty-well any topic is okay, just as is the case for any other general encyclopædia. The second is about how notable they should be, and this is always a tough one. I've written some thoughts on this here, although whether you find them particularly helpful is another matter. Philip J. Rayment 02:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful!

Philip, I had always sympathized with your plight at CP. I had dabbled with diting (some constructive, and some admittedly non-constructive) off and on for about two years. I'm currently blocked from my login there for a lengthy amount of time (not that that phazes me lol). However, from the bottom of my heart I say I always valued your presence there, and now I am THRILLED to see you started your own project! I also read your essay. It is good stuff. I admit I differ with you on certain fundementals but in general your worldview and your convictions are spot on. You were too good for CP and it's amazing to see you with your own project. JRoscoe 08:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words! Philip J. Rayment 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Horace's block rights

Horace consistently misuses his block rights. Looking at this he rarely if at all uses them appropriately. I seriously question whether he should continue hold block rights. BradleyF (LowKey) 04:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. He no longer has membership status. Philip J. Rayment 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You have mail

Did you get the email that I sent a few days ago (26th)? --Unsigned comment by LowKey (talk)

Of course he did, he is politely ignoring you. He doesn't want to answer you because, even though you are friends, he finds you a little clingy. π 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if that was it, but had to check (it's that clingy business). :) BradleyF (LowKey) 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 :) Your wiki needs smileys. 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've thought about that before, actually. I investigated possibilities, but don't recall now why I didn't go ahead with it. Philip J. Rayment 13:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a few e-mails that I need to respond to, including at least one from you. I've been rather busy lately, and putting off replying. Philip J. Rayment 05:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please talk

Please take your denial of the existence of textual studies showing that Genesis is a figurative framework to the talk page. SallyM 14:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't denied that there are any. I've said that you've not shown that there are any. Anyway, I'll see you on the talk page. Philip J. Rayment 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Member

Hi there Mr Rayment, how do I attain member status? Thanks JWiseman 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's explained here. In short, unless you can prove to a Senior Member who you are, you need to "demonstrat[e] your genuineness with your edits." --EvanW 14:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

JWiseman becoming a member

  1. Aye Teh Terrible Asp 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, it's traditional to do it on his user talk page... --EvanW 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And to use the template built for it. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that JWiseman made his interest in becoming a member known on the site owner's talk page and these 2 senior members made more edits being unproductive than it would have taken to do whatever it is you think should have been done in the first place. Very welcoming to your new Christian editor. Teh Terrible Asp 03:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You may point out whatever you imagine, but that won’t make it true. EvanW did do whatever should have been done in the first place, by helpfully pointing the editor to the needed information. The unproductive part came after, and results from your improper attempt to conduct the process in your own unique fashion. BradleyF (LowKey) 04:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Get bent. I did nothing improper and I wasn't conducting anything. You're the one who reverted the edit as trolling, which of course it absolutely wasn't, and have now posted twice without fixing whatever both you and EvanW think was wrong. There's no protocol for who can initiate voting. The only thing I could find was that the template should go on the user's talk page, which neither of you have yet to put up. One would think Maybe YOU would want to run your website by helping this guy get membership. Teh Terrible Asp 05:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Your removal was for "trolling" but what you removed was the response. It stood to reason that what was being responded to was trolling. I was following your lead. I don't know what you imagine that EvanW or I think was wrong. Someone asked about membership and was pointed to the information they needed. Nothing to fix. You apparently commenced voting here (the wrong place) and EvanW pointed out the right place (which for some reason you thought was trolling). You didn't use the template, and I pointed out that you should. You managed to verify both of those requirements independantly, so I assume you read the linked section, but you seem to have stopped reading before getting to the part that does say who can initiate voting - members. You are correct that EvanW and I have not nominated JWiseman yet. I cannot speak for EvanW but I would be very unlikely to nominate an otherwise unknown editor for membership within their first week. BradleyF (LowKey) 06:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
What was I confused about Bradley? I love the world you live in. Teh Terrible Asp 06:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
You have referred more than once to a lack of some corrective action from EvanW and me. JWiseman needed none. You apparently needed some (a pointer to the correct process) and we both provided some (pointers to the correct process). You treated the first pointer as trolling, and the sum as unproductive (if you don't take our advice it is not we who have been unproductive) and unwelcoming (EvanW welcomed JWiseman 19 minutes after account creation, EvanW showed JWiseman where to find membership information). Nothing in this section has been addressing JWiseman. You seemed to initiate a vote here, without using the prescribed template, even though EvanW linked to the process in the previous section (which gives details of where to nominate/vote and explains the use of the template). You said there is no protocol when in fact the protocol was at the other end of the link. You criticise both of us for not nominating JWiseman when EvanW has already pointed out what it would take and you could have nominated JWiseman anyway. You seemed confused about pretty much the whole box and dice. --Unsigned comment by LowKey (talk)
It's difficult to discern your intent here or whether you're a liar, reckless, living in an alternate reality, a poor reader, or what. As a start while I decide whether to retaliate against you for your open incivility to me I'm curious whether you're kidding or not. You're kidding, right? Yanking my chain to get a rise out of me? Teh Terrible Asp 16:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
My intent was to answer your question. What was going on and what you seem to think was going on were 'very far removed, hence the "confusion" comment. You will have to point out the "open incivility" because I don't see it. As to the rest of you post, I have difficulty making sense of it. You demonstrated a poor of incomplete reading of the process for membership, then suggest poor reading on my part when I spell it out. You suggest that I am trying to get a rise out of you, when I have either been suggesting you use the process of which you seemed unaware or responding to your posts. I hesitate to suggest this, but your hostility seems to be colouring your perception here of late. I think you are looking at aSK through jaundice-coloured glasses, as it were. You seem to have lost your cool here over a couple of senior members pointing out the correct way to go about a process. BradleyF (LowKey) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why so serious?

Why are you getting upset about this? Your extra link in reply has made the article better referenced and more "encyclopedic". If you feel you should be able to just bat around statements without backing them up then perhaps you should start a blog instead. CrundySpeak! 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If a reference was your only concern, you could have Googled and found one yourself. It wasn't personal, but so often I see evolutionists criticising me for my supposed ignorance, when quite often they are themselves quite ignorant of various facts that don't fit their beliefs. Philip J. Rayment 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't take it personally. I just love the fact template[Citation Needed]. It's the best template in MediaWiki[Citation Needed], so much so that it has spawned its own meme. CrundySpeak! 15:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey look what I found. Thought you might like it :) CrundySpeak! 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Wikipedia has done away with it, hasn't it? I didn't want it here either, as the name implies that you are questioning the truth of the claim, whilst the text is asking for a reference. I created the {{fact?}} template to question the truth, and intended to create a Reference please template (I hadn't decided on a name) to ask for a reference. But someone else created the {{fact}} template and there was opposition to me changing that on the grounds of widespread familiarity with that template. Philip J. Rayment 15:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do like it! I would concede that "magic" is not the right word, but otherwise it's pretty correct. Philip J. Rayment 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the fact template is just meant as a marker to point out that a statement has been made without a reference. Doesn't it have some kind of build in report which lists all the paragraphs in the wiki which have been flagged with it? CrundySpeak! 15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that the {{fact}} template is often used by people who are questioning whether something is actually true, hence the name of the template. The template does put the article in the Articles needing references category (but only articles; i.e. only mainspace pages). Philip J. Rayment 15:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Virus

Oh by the way, I read through that creationist paper about viruses being good that you posted a while back, which I thought was nonsense because although viruses do "share" genetic information with their host, it is always at the expense rather than the benefit of the host (e.g. HIV provides genes to transcribe mRNA for new protiens such as reverse transcriptase and DNA integrase, but the host can't use them anyway). But then I randomly thought of a single situation (not mentioned in the paper) in which a virus is beneficial to the host: Yeast Killer Factor which is a virus that a particular type of yeast is a carrier of and yet is immune to, but is extremely toxic to all other strains of yeast. Therefore yeasts with this killer factor are able to colonise mediums by destroying the competition. Hope that helps one of your articles somewhere. CrundySpeak! 15:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

...it is always at the expense rather than the benefit of the host... And yet the article (if it was this one; I don't recall) lists examples of where it benefits the hosts. Philip J. Rayment 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't find any. Can you point them out for me? I did flick through again. CrundySpeak! 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thought for a moment you were talking about computer viruses... The article talks a lot about virii as vectors for carrying beneficial genes between bacteria, virii as treatment vectors for infections, and even virii as maintaners of the oceanic ecosystem. Thanks for the link, Philip - it's intriguing! --EvanW 15:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On the Separation of Church and State

I seem to recall you favor, or favored, some sort of Christian Sharia. The Slacktivist has a little essay on the subject. Mostly aimed at us Murkins, but I think you might find it illuminating as well. --Gulik 22:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian Muslim law? There appears to be something of a contradiction there.
No, the essay is not illuminating at all, except to show how shallow his thinking is. There are at least three positions a government could take:
  1. The government is part of a particular religious group, as the British Government is part of the Church of England (the monarch is the head of the Church, and the Prime Minister effectively chooses who the head theologian will be, although that's about as far as it goes these days).
  2. At the other extreme, the government has nothing to do whatsoever with religion at all. This position is actually impossible unless one defines certain worldviews as not being "religious"; e.g. being for God is "religious", but being against God is not. Clearly this position involves taking sides. And no, it is not possible in practice to be neutral.
  3. The government acknowledges and supports religion (at least in principle; not necessarily financially or etc.), but is not part of any particular religious group. This is to some extent where America sits, given that it's Declaration of Independence and its coins both accept the existence of God.
Despite position 3 being the closest to America's position, and despite the Slactivist author referring to a situation that fits No. 3, his entire argument is against position No. 1!
Philip J. Rayment 00:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Arks

I noticed that you have reported the recent finding of an ark on Mount Ararat (it is worth noting the bible says mountains of Ararat so it does not specifically have to be that one). If it proves to be false (given that there are more arks than pieces of the true cross, likely), but another ark is found on Mount Parnassus, would you convert to Greek Paganism? p 12:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC) PS please, as a point of consideration, just answer my (rather straight forward) question instead of dissecting all the rest into little bits of green text.

No. Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not? p 13:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
First, not finding the ark on Ararat means very little. Second, the only reason of any substance in your post is if an ark was found on Parnassus. But you don't say how this would support Greek pagansim. Does Greek paganism say that an ark landed on Parnassus? Does it describe the ark in reasonable detail such that we could see if an ark found on Parnassus matched the description? Does that description disagree with the biblical description so that we have to choose between the two, rather than saying that they are talking about the same thing?
I don't expect anyone to change their views on the basis of one bit of contrary evidence (although hopefully for many this particular bit of evidence will be enough to 'tip the scale'). However, that does to some extent depend on how strong the evidence is. The bit of wood found by Navarre in the 1950s (even if carbon-dated to the right period) is not strong evidence. Fuzzy photographs are not strong evidence. The numerous claimed sightings and descriptions cannot be easily dismissed, in my opinion, given a fair bit of consistency between them, but they don't constitute hard evidence. But close-up pictures showing rooms, doors, and etc. are much harder to dismiss or explain away, and presumably, if this latest claim is true, the site is now known and can be revisited for further study. This will then constitute very hard and very specific evidence which will send atheists into denial if not actually convince them.
I recently heard someone on the radio talk about how the creationists would be shown to be wrong once intelligent alien life is detected. What I found interesting is that they appeared to be gloating as if it was a foregone conclusion that such would be found. (The "logic" seemed to be: intelligent alien life will be found. Therefore, creationists are shown to be wrong.) I think the ark is the atheists' intelligent alien, except that it is looking to me like the ark has been found. But I did say "looking like"; it's definitely not a certainty yet.
Philip J. Rayment 14:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Even if the Ancient Greeks were right about this ark (and to my knowledge, no one is saying they were), it wouldn't necessarily follow that Zeus and Hephaestus and Demeter and co were all real, would it?--CPalmer 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That would depend on how integral they were to the account. Philip J. Rayment 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but more significantly, the search for Noah's Ark is an attempt to verify claims made in the Bible, presumably on the assumption that other parts of the Bible, or at least of Genesis, would then be verified by association. Since there's no Greek pagan equivalent of the Bible, a discovery of their Ark wouldn't have the same far-reaching implications. (It would still be mighty impressive, though.)--CPalmer 14:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That's reasonable, but to an atheist, you've just offered them a way out (although they would have thought of it anyway): it might prove the ark, but not the rest of the Bible and therefore not God. Of course, if they found dino coprolites on it, that would make it harder for them! Philip J. Rayment 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
On the topic of dinos, I like how "fuzzy photographs are not strong evidence" but dino etchings are great evidence. Please explain. Sterile 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Did the Hong Kong group find another ark, or is this an update on their 2004 expedition ? I could not find a direct press release, only the quoted one from I think CMI Hamster 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It's also interesting that they used carbon dating to determine the piece of wood's age since we (or, well, you creationist types) know it's so error prone! Sterile 23:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Sterile, there's nothing to explain. Many of you critics seem to see things in black and white: either it's absolute proof or it's not even evidence. If you can show me where I described dinosaur etchings as "great" evidence, then I will explain. Rather, I described them as evidence, not "great" evidence.
Hamster, this is apparently an "update" on their earlier find. For their source (including the press conference in Chinese, I gather, but I haven't watched it), see http://noahsarksearch.net, which I was told about just a few hours ago.
Sterile, the only mention I made of carbon dating was of Navarre's find in the 1950s, and I don't know who did the carbon dating. In any case, carbon dating is probably fairly reliable for dates for which it's able to be calibrated with dates known from history, which means the last few thousand years. It's beyond that range that it's suspect.
By way of update, the CMI announcement has today been updated to say that there is some suggestion that the discoverers are themselves victims of a fraud.
Philip J. Rayment 03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that a) the ark is made of wood and b) it is less than 10,000 years old and c) is from the Middle East (where I think the record is quite good, although I am far from certain) we could date the ark using dendrochronology. p 04:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that a) the ark is made from trees which grew before the flood and b) existing trees postdate the flood, where would one expect to find matching tree rings to do the dating? Actually, you could be right: Both carbon dating and dendrochronology could be used to rule out (or rule in) that the wood is too young, but that's about as far as you could go. Philip J. Rayment 06:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to say how Media Evangelism Ltd. dated the ark as their results are unpublished at this point, but media accounts say they used carbon dating. What is the limit for which carbon dating can be used? Sterile 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Add: A Cornell archaeologist provides his skepticism, which is summarized in an MSNBC article:
Even if you assume the explorers found what they say they found, linking the discovery to Noah's Ark requires lots of leaps of faith: Is the carbon dating accurate? Scientists would like to know who did the dating, especially considering that previous tests reportedly came up with more recent dates. Is it more plausible that the structure is from a miraculous ark, or from an ancient shelter on the mountainside? Is there any evidence of a catastrophic flood that rose to near the top of Ararat 4,800 years ago?

[3]

I think you know that carbon dating of wood isn't reliable any more than a few thousand years into the past because there are no other examples of pre-flood wood to compare to for calibration. Duh. Teh Terrible Asp 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the carbon dating, see http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/archives/492. Interesting to note a secular archaeologist questioning the accuracy of the carbon dating; aren't we expected to believe that the method is accurate? But then he's showing his igorance of the abundant evidence for the flood, as well as of the creationist flood model. Philip J. Rayment 07:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, the problem is that there is absolutely no information about how the dating was done. Carbon dating by proclamation isn't exactly science! Sterile 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Most news reports of secular finds don't include information of how the dating was done either. Philip J. Rayment 12:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Most news reports of secular finds also have scholarly publishings in peer-reviewed journals to back them up. SallyM 13:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, many do after some time. Many don't at the time of the initial news report. Philip J. Rayment 13:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice assertion... SallyM 13:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought it was a pretty accurate one. Are you saying that every time an archaeological discovery is made, the news media sit around waiting for everything to be scientifically verified before they report it? Of course they don't - they'd get scooped, for one thing, so they go with the archaeologists' informed opinion. Philip is quite right that people here are applying more exacting standards to this Ark discovery than they would to other finds, presumably because they find this one more extraordinary (which it is, actually, and I don't dispute that).
Really, Sally, you've been spending too much time editing wikis if you expect people to provide exhaustive citations for every single thing they say in casual conversation - nobobdy does, because that's not how discussions work. If you dispute something, please say why. Otherwise it looks like maddening obfuscation.--CPalmer 14:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, CPalmer; well said. Philip J. Rayment 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
CPalmer, your assumption of accuracy about that assertion is based on personal credulity, not a logic. You think it's accurate because you want it to be accurate. I'm not saying that every time an archaeological discovery is made, the news media sits around waiting for everything to be scientifically verified before they report it, you are saying that they don't but refuse to justify it. Probably, as far as I know, there is no such case of a report on carbon dating about a "secular find" (lol) released by the news media not based on peer-reviewed scholarly writing. If you have examples, put up or shut up. Anti-evolutionists and their ilk here are applying double standards to this ark discovery. ZOMG - They found wood on Mr. Ararat! It's the Ark! You've got to be kidding yourselves. Such an extraordinary claim, such a paucity of evidence. If you make a claim, please say why. Otherwise it looks like maddening intellectual dishonesty. SallyM 15:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, even the hyped Ida was studied extensively before publication... DiEb 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sally, it's becoming clear to me why you and Philip seem to get on so badly - your styles of discussion seem designed to antagonise each other, meshing together as perfectly as two halves of a yin-yang disc. It is unreasonable of you to demand - so aggressively! - citations for every little thing that somebody says; this is a discussion, not a wikipedia article. This cartoon is very clever, but if it was applied in real life no discussion would ever get anywhere.
I suppose I could trawl through news reports to try and back up my common-sense statement, but I think instead I will do what most intelligent people would do and simply stop talking to you. Please don't now spend a fortnight accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty" - unless "intellectual dishonesty" is a synonym for "having better uses of one's time than to nit-pick over a tiny, unimportant point on a medium-sized wiki site".--CPalmer 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
What a complete and utter failure to address my points. I suppose you could trawl through news reports to evidence your assertions, but what fun would that be! Oh, poor you... SallyM 15:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You're not making points, though, are you? You're simply strewing obstacles onto the highway of discussion by saying that everything anyone else says is wrong until they can prove it right, to your satisfaction. That's fine if your hobby is internet point-scoring, but if you're after a productive interaction that might actually reach a conclusion then it doesn't get anyone anywhere.--CPalmer 15:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
That's neither putting up nor shutting up. Please pick one and stick with it. If you wish to drop this and work elsewhere on the encyclopedia, I both understand and endorse that decision. You making assertions and refusing to provide evidence for them does no one any good. SallyM 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Sally, "making assertions and refusing [ie not bothering] to provide evidence for them" is the bread and butter of most human interaction. Or are you one of these insufferable people who whips out an iPhone every thirty seconds when others are trying to have a normal conversation with you? I have no desire to obey your weird, solipsistic rules, or to put up with this constant barrage of unwarranted aggression, so I will indeed turn my attention elsewhere. Fortunately, this discussion is alomost entirely inconsequential, especially now that you have successfully mired it in meta-discussion and low-level argy bargy, so I can only stand to gain by leaving it.--CPalmer 16:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see anti-evolutionists defending the practice of making assertions and refusing to justify them. Every meaningless response you type drives the in the nail of conclusion that you are intellectually dishonest and plagued by double standards for the sake of justifying your beliefs. Please return to making your contributions to this encyclopedia and stay out of debates. You're not cut out for it. You just don't have the rigor or stamina. SallyM 16:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually Sally, I am perfectly capable of contributing to a discussion if others reciprocate my reasonable approach. What you call 'rigor' is nothing more than the written equivalent of constantly interrupting people while they are speaking. I can't imagine how any discussion can ever reach a worthwhile conclusion if you insist on taking that approach. Please let me know if it ever happens.--CPalmer 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Good luck on your other efforts. Please stop dragging this on. I'm interested only in seeing sources for your un-evidenced claims fabricated in an attempt to justify anti-evolutionist falsehoods. SallyM 16:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It takes two to drag it on! My original point was nothing to do with the ark or being anti-evolutionist - it was that responding to a post with just "nice assertion!" is rude, unduly aggressive and unlikely to lead anywhere useful. The third part of this has been amply proven by this very discussion. So if you really are interested in what people have to say, and not just point-scoring, you need to re-think your approach. In my opinion.--CPalmer 08:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what will happen when this newest discovery of the Ark is disclosed as a hoax? DiEb 15:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much I don't think. Probably some smugness from internet atheists and some mild disappointment from the more conclusion-happy believers.--CPalmer 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC) ...you are saying that they don't but refuse to justify it. He can't refuse until you ask him. You haven't asked him yet.
Anti-evolutionists and their ilk here are applying double standards to this ark discovery. ZOMG - They found wood on Mr. Ararat! It's the Ark! SallyM, I challenge you to show where anyone here has said that it "is" the ark. Unlike, say, Piltdown Man, which was touted as genuine for about 40 years, most if not all creationists mentioning this ark find have shown caution in making their claims, and have said that further investigation is needed.
If you make a claim, please say why. Otherwise it looks like maddening intellectual dishonesty. Try looking in a mirror. You just made the claim that creationists here are asserting that "It's the Ark". So put up or apologise for making a false accusation. Otherwise, to quote you, it looks like intellectual dishonesty on your part.
So, what will happen when this newest discovery of the Ark is disclosed as a hoax? If it is disclosed as a hoax (and it might well be), then that will be freely acknowledged. Unlike so many mistakes by evolutionists which are quietly buried.[4][5].
Philip J. Rayment 15:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
He can't refuse until you ask him. You haven't asked him yet. Unfortunately, he's already refused to provide evidence for his assertions. Would you care to justify them? Please? Pretty, pretty please?
I challenge you to show where anyone here has said that it "is" the ark. You misread my quote. "here" referred to "this situation", i.e. this "discovery". Nonetheless, you said it seems it was "Found!". I admit that "seems" was an excellent escape hatch. You also and cited a group of which you said "announced that they had found the ark", so anti-evolutionists were claiming that it "is" the ark. SallyM 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, oftentimes the media does wait for additional confirmation. Element 117 was announced preliminarily internally to their organization, and then the actual report came out when the paper was published in Phys. Letters. Many health stories in the news aren't based on "late breaking" results in the lab, they are after the paper is published. It really depends. I haven't seen anything in the news about how it was done. Sterile
Oh, and about "I challenge you to show where anyone here has said that it "is" the ark:"
"It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it," said Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker and member of the 15-strong team from Noah's Ark Ministries International.

[6]

Lots of caution in that claim! Sterile 19:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Add: (Has c-decay been retracted in any of the creationist research journals?)

Unfortunately, he's already refused to provide evidence for his assertions. He hadn't when you accused him. Can you admit that?
Would you care to justify them? Please? No. You described CPalmer's comments as "based on personal credulity, not a (sic) logic", but in fact his comment was based on logic (that journalists will get scooped if they wait for a reviewed paper), which you've not refuted.
You misread my quote. "here" referred to "this situation", i.e. this "discovery". I'm not convinced. You actually said "Anti-evolutionists and their ilk here are applying double standards to this ark discovery." So you meant "Anti-evolutionists and their ilk [in] this situation (this discovery) are applying double standards to this ark discovery." Why refer to the discovery twice in the sentence? No, that "here" reads as "here on this site". If you did mean it the way you now say, then it was poorly worded. Anyway, I won't pursue that point, as I can't prove you are wrong about what you intended. However, even taking it the way you intended it, you made a generalisation; a claim that creationists generally are claiming that it is the ark. Yet the fact is that apart from the discoverers themselves, nobody on this site nor the CMI article nor the Conservapedia front page have spoken of it as though it is the ark. That is, nobody that I've seen other than those who have first-hand knowledge. The fact that the only example that either you or Sterile could offer was the discoverers themselves supports what I'm saying. As for them, I accept Sterile's point that Yeung Wing-cheung's comment is not showing much caution, but the real issue here is whether those without first-hand knowledge are showing caution or are swallowing this too readily. I would say that you should only be looking at creationists other than the claimants, but even if you include them, your generalisation was wrong.
I admit that "seems" was an excellent escape hatch. So showing caution—qualifying the claim—is now twisted to be something bad? That's the sign of someone who's not assuming good faith.
Actually, oftentimes the media does wait for additional confirmation. Which doesn't refute that often they don't.
Element 117... The ones that would be announced sooner rather than later are the ones that most people would be interested in; ones that capture the public imagination. A new element does not fall into that category.
Many health stories in the news aren't based on "late breaking" results in the lab, they are after the paper is published. Yes, this would be especially true where the people writing the papers don't want to be beaten to the punch by other scientists, so they keep quiet until they can claim priority. We are talking about an archaeological discovery in this case.
Has c-decay been retracted in any of the creationist research journals? I don't understand the question. The only things that can be retracted are claims, yet you've mentioned a physical process, not a claim.
Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Do you trust the carbon dating or not? You seem to imply above that if a "secular scientist" questions the carbon dating, then all carbon dating is wrong, but you also seem to imply that the dating is OK in this case, but you've also said that dating can be wrong. I guess I'd like to know the parameters: which dating results do you think we can trust and which not--and why?. As for the "when things are announced" non-argument we're having, I think we all agree that it depends. I'm not sure why I'm being tq'ed for that as it was fairly objective information, but you seem eager to criticize lately.
As for c-decay, creationists don't believe it any more, but I've never seen a formal retraction in a scholarly creationist journal. It may exist, but I've never seen it. As for Piltman, who cares? Science corrected its own mistake. That's the beauty of science: it has its correction machinery by the process of the scientific method. I'd be more worried if mistakes weren't found, or if new evidence weren't incorporated into the scientific knowledge of the world. Or that evidence was cherry picked (and some ignored) to fit a view.
I think it's most unfortunate and a poor decision that the discoverers of this wood (and structure) have attributed it to the ark. I'm not sure where I've said that other creationists are as enthusiastic, although you've certainly implied that I have. I'm guess I'm tired of your characterizations. Sterile 03:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
He hadn't when you accused him. Can you admit that? It's likely he never intended to source his claims. He just wanted to make them. No admission necessary.
No. Of course not. lol.
in fact his comment was based on logic (that journalists will get scooped if they wait for a reviewed paper), which you've not refuted. Journalists jumping the gun in scientific discovery before scientific scrutiny would be out of a job. That's why they don't do it. Are you happy? One unsourced, ad hoc hypothesis refuted with another.
Which doesn't refute that often they don't. It doesn't need to be refuted because it's an unsourced claim. No one is taking the claim seriously but you because there's no reason to think it's true.
I'm not convinced. I'm not surprised. You know what I meant better than I do (reminds me of the time you knew what Gould really meant about transitional fossils despite his clarification), and no one in their right mind would assume you're acting in good faith.
So showing caution—qualifying the claim—is now twisted to be something bad? That's the sign of someone who's not assuming good faith. It was an escape hatch because you were knowingly proferring information of dubious validity, because you're employing a double standard, heralding anything that might possibly evidence your position even before the information can be verified. SallyM 13:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Do you trust the carbon dating or not? It's probably fairly accurate, on the whole, for dates young enough for the method to have been calibrated with known ages, i.e. known from non-radiometric methods, such as known historically.
You seem to imply above that if a "secular scientist" questions the carbon dating, then all carbon dating is wrong,... Not at all. I'm saying that this shows that secular scientists don't trust radiometric dating when it suits them to not trust it, and therefore that when radiometric dates are cited as hard evidence, we need to keep in mind that they are not the absolute, error-free, evidence that they are often portrayed as.
I guess I'd like to know the parameters: which dating results do you think we can trust and which not--and why? Is it clear from my comments above?
As for the "when things are announced" non-argument we're having, I think we all agree that it depends. I'm not sure why I'm being tq'ed for that as it was fairly objective information... Because it was provided in response to the claim that journalists do publish before scientists publish. The only point of that seems to be to oppose that claim.
...but you seem eager to criticize lately. Pot, meet kettle.
As for c-decay, creationists don't believe it any more... Don't believe what exactly? That carbon-14 decays? Of course they do. That C14 dating is sometimes right? Of course they still believe that.
...but I've never seen a formal retraction in a scholarly creationist journal. There's nothing I know of to retract.
As for Piltman, who cares? Science corrected its own mistake. That's the beauty of science: it has its correction machinery by the process of the scientific method. Two points here: First, why apply that only to evolutionary "science" and not creationary science? That is, why not accept that creationary science will correct the mistaken ark claim (assuming it is mistaken)? Why treat evolutionary science as self-correcting, but creationary claims as unscientific? Second, I made the point above that in the case of Piltdown Man it took about 40 years (if I remember correctly)—what use is it to claim that science will correct itself eventually when in the meantime, it's wrong?—and then only because the fossil no longer fitted the changing theory. That is, it wasn't the objective, truth-seeking, aspect of science that corrected it, but a changed paradigm that the fossil no longer fitted that prompted the "correction". Both the acceptance of the fraud and the discovery of the fraud were due to ideology, not the "correction machinery ... of the scientific method".
I think it's most unfortunate and a poor decision that the discoverers of this wood (and structure) have attributed it to the ark. Because there are better explanations, or because the ark is ruled out by your ideology? Assuming it's not the fraud that it's starting to look like, I'd say that the ark is the most likely explanation for finding a man-made wooden structure so high on Ararat, where, as far as we know, there's never been human habitation.
I'm not sure where I've said that other creationists are as enthusiastic, although you've certainly implied that I have. I didn't say you said that. SallyM made the generalisation, and both you and she supported it by referring to the discoverers. If you provide an example to support a generalisation, then that means that you are supporting that generalisation—that other creationists are as "enthusiastic".
I'm guess I'm tired of your characterizations. And I'm tired of a lot of anti-creationist nonsense and bigotry.
It's likely he never intended to source his claims. He just wanted to make them. No admission necessary. So you can't admit when you are wrong.
jumping the gun in scientific discovery before scientific scrutiny would be out of a job. That's why they don't do it. Are you happy? One unsourced, ad hoc hypothesis refuted with another. Not refuted. That is, not with a reasonable argument. Why on earth would a journalist be sacked for that? The goal of a journalist is to get the story out, not to wait.
It doesn't need to be refuted because it's an unsourced claim. It needs to be refuted if you are going to claim that it's wrong.
No one is taking the claim seriously but you because there's no reason to think it's true. Yes there is—CPalmer gave a reason.
I'm not surprised. You know what I meant better than I do ... Is that an admission? Or an attempt to make me look bad despite making a concession?
...no one in their right mind would assume you're acting in good faith. You're heading for another block for making insults.
It was an escape hatch because you were knowingly proferring information of dubious validity, because you're employing a double standard,... So who now claims to know someone else's mind? The information came from what appeared to be a reliable source. That's not normally what you call "dubious validity". The fact that you don't consider it reliable has nothing to do with my standards.
...heralding anything that might possibly evidence your position even before the information can be verified. People do this all the time. It's normal. Evolutionists frequently do it. The problem is if it's done without qualification, as was clearly not the case here.
Philip J. Rayment 14:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Not refuted. That is, not with a reasonable argument. Why on earth would a journalist be sacked for that? The goal of a journalist is to get the story out, not to wait. Refuted. Why would a journalist be sacked for that? Because they're breaking false stories and there's a little thing called journalistic integrity which is highly valued within the community. I suspect you already knew this.
It needs to be refuted if you are going to claim that it's wrong. Again, it doesn't need to be refuted because you've provided no evidence that it's true. I'm not going to chase down every single one of your ad hoc assertions.
You're heading for another block for making insults. The truth is not an insult just because you happen to find it offensive. By refusing to take my explanations of my words and insist upon your own, you are clearly acting in bad faith. I reiterate: you are acting in bad faith. Perhaps it's you who needs a block?
Evolutionists frequently do it. And we're back to the unsourced assertion that started this. Provide evidence, retract the claim or just stop talking. Any one will do. SallyM 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
But you could easily report "X has been dug up, and some people think it might mean Y" without compromising journalistic integrity. Then when they do the tests you'd do another story saying "X has been found to mean Y" or else "X doesn't mean Y after all, it was just the remains of a barbecue" or whatever.--CPalmer 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Those are good points, but the challenge to provide an evidence that "[m]any [news reports on "secular finds"] don't [have basis in scholarly literature] at the time of the initial news report" stands. Mr. Rayment should have no problem coming up with such an example as he is sure there are many. I quote a wise man: "Why not supply the requested further information instead of simply repeating the claim ad nauseum...? The more you do this, the more it seems like you've got something to hide." SallyM 14:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I dont know if this one counts but I think "Cold fusion" was in the news media before it was in a peer reviewed journal. It does fall into the "and look how that turned out" category though :( Archeology does tend to attract popular media attention Hamster 15:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Also in science, the endless stories of "talc causes cancer" or "dwarfs are immune to cancer", and the like, are seized on by certain sections of the media long before the real facts are established. (Note: I'm not saying that this has any bearing at all on the validity of actual scientific investigation.)--CPalmer 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
First, thank you. I've only checked the first one so far, but scientific literature about talc as potentially causing cancer does in fact predate those tabloid articles. And why are you citing tabloid articles? SallyM 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes the talc article used a scientific study as its basis, but the claim it makes (that talc carries an "alarming" risk of cancer) went far beyond what the paper actually said. This shows that you are overestimating "journalistic integrity" - newspapers do in fact report on 'discoveries' that may later be proved wrong. In the case of the Mail, it's one of their favourite things to do.
I'm citing the popular press because I was talking about the popular press! What were you talking about?--CPalmer 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Not tabloids. If that's where you've been getting your news, I understand how you would take this position. I feel compelled to tell you that Elvis is dead, vampires are not the newest wave of illegal immigrants, and bigfoot's body is not being autopsied. SallyM 16:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that made me laugh. --TimSTalk 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
You dont doubt the story of Bat Boy do you ? finest journalism in revealing hidden truths suppressed by media of "the establishment" PICTURE Hamster 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I once saw one saying that a small mermaid was found on a deli sandwich. --TimSTalk 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again I try to advance the discussion and all I encounter is ridicule and goalpost moving. More fool me for bothering to talk to you. I can't even remember what this discussion was meant to be about any more, and I doubt you can either - it certainly wasn't the internal procedures of news reporting. So well done on getting a million miles away from the original point, whatever it was, with no way back.
And FYI, the Mail is not what you'd call a good paper, but it's a long way from your US tabloids.--CPalmer 09:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In your zeal to "score points" you seem to have forgotten where the goalpost was. What we're talking about is a case where secular scientists subvert the peer-review process and go directly to the news media with their unpublished, unscrutinized discovery (as anti-evolutionists did yet again with this ark discovery and their carbon dating from an unnamed Iranian lab). What you did was give me examples of tabloids sensationalizing published, peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, for which there is no evidence that the scientists had any involvement. SallyM 13:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Why do we even have to argue about this. We all agree that people should not jump to conclusions about this stuff. If someone does it they do it, and we all agree that they shouldn't. Do we really have to go find examples so that we can all sit around and say "that's bad?" Why don't we agree that people shouldn't, and leave it at that? --TimSTalk 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth disputing because he's made a logical argument (it's yet another "proponents of evolution do it too!" tu quoque) The only reason it's worth disputing is because it'd be nice to see Mr. Rayment make fewer unsourced assertions in an effort to swipe at what does not gel with his conception of the Biblical Worldview. Maybe next time he'll think twice. This dispute could save countless others. SallyM 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trying to get rid of an argument that doesn't help anything. Whether it is done in general or not does not really make much difference. What matters is whether it is done in each individual case, and those will be easy to figure out when we need to. This case of the supposed ark find, it seems that some people were jumping to conclusions, and publicizing those conclusions. I think everyone here would agree that doing that is not a good idea. Whether some evolutionists do the same or not does not matter to the subject at hand. Are there evolutionists who do it? probably, but it does us no good to go searching for them. Lets just agree that people shouldn't jump to conclusions, and leave it at that. I think the "see, evolutionists do it too" argument is a response to the "watch those people jump to conclusions, creationists are so unscientific" argument, which is a fallacy. Anyway I still think the subject is not worth fighting. --TimSTalk 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In your zeal to "score points" you seem to have forgotten where the goalpost was. What we're talking about is a case where secular scientists subvert the peer-review process and go directly to the news media with their unpublished, unscrutinized discovery ... Not really. Your first comment on this was Most news reports of secular finds also have scholarly publishings in peer-reviewed journals to back them up.. Nothing there about "secular scientists". There was something on Australian TV recently (which I didn't see all of) about some bloke making some discovery showing that the British weren't the first Europeans to settle in Australia. From what I gathered, his claims have been rejected by most academics, so there was presumably no peer-review process. I don't think the bloke was a scientist, but it was a news report (well, actually on a current-affairs show) of a secular find. The journalists—typically—didn't wait for any peer-review process. They simply reported the claims.
(as anti-evolutionists did yet again with this ark discovery and their carbon dating from an unnamed Iranian lab) You are drawing a comparison between secular scientists and the claimed ark discovery, yet nobody is claiming that scientists were involved with this ark discovery (except implicitly in the carbon dating, perhaps, but that's irrelevant).
What you did was give me examples of tabloids sensationalizing published, peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, for which there is no evidence that the scientists had any involvement. First, we were talking about "news reports"; nobody excluded tabloids until you found it useful to do so. Second, CPalmer did give you at least one example which I believe fits the criteria of scientists being involved with pre-empting peer review by going to the media; that of cold fusion.
Philip J. Rayment 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not really. Your first comment on this was Most news reports of secular finds also have scholarly publishings in peer-reviewed journals to back them up.. Nothing there about "secular scientists". You totally got me. I didn't use the exact phrase "secular scientists".
You are drawing a comparison between secular scientists and the claimed ark discovery, yet nobody is claiming that scientists were involved with this ark discovery (except implicitly in the carbon dating, perhaps, but that's irrelevant). Did we just agree that they aren't real scientists?
First, we were talking about "news reports"; nobody excluded tabloids until you found it useful to do so. Second, CPalmer did give you at least one example which I believe fits the criteria of scientists being involved with pre-empting peer review by going to the media; that of cold fusion. First, I pity you and CPalmer for getting your news on scientific discovery from from tabloids. Second, no source was provided, so both of you have completely failed to provide anything close to a workable example. SallyM 13:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You totally got me. I didn't use the exact phrase "secular scientists". Diversion. Neither did you introduce the concept.
Did we just agree that they aren't real scientists? Who? We were talking about the members of the Noah's Ark expedition. Has anyone claimed that that expedition included scientists?
First, I pity you and CPalmer for getting your news on scientific discovery from from tabloids. Diversion. We were talking about the claim that journalists publish before the scientists. Whether that is our source of news or not is irrelevant, for one thing, and was not claimed, for another.
Second, no source was provided, so both of you have completely failed to provide anything close to a workable example. You've yet to ask for a source. Are you still denying that all the examples given are valid? Because so far you've not directly addressed them all.
Philip J. Rayment 13:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


ed break

c-decay, the decay of the speed of light. It's in this encyclopedia, if I remember correctly! And from your comments above, you have not provided any parameters as to when carbon dating can be trusted or not, except maybe if it's presented by a secular scientists. How about date ranges? Techniques? Types of substances tested? Sample handling? Any of those? And in terms of science correcting itself. JJ Thompson presented the plum pudding model of the atom in the late 1890s and Schroedinger didn't give the correct version until 1926, with Bohr's planetary model in the middle. And the implications of quantum mechanics weren't fully understood for years to come, really into the 1960s. Is 30 years "offensive" for an incorrect model of atoms? Why do you place a certain value on the amount of time science takes to correct itself? You say in one sentence that creation scientists are open to changing their minds--OK--but then you are offended that secular scientists did the same. Why? Sterile 03:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. As I suspect you realise, I confused c-decay with radioactive decay of c14. My excuse is that we were talking about carbon dating, but it was my mistake nevertheless. However, my comment that you responded to was If it is disclosed as a hoax (and it might well be), then that will be freely acknowledged. Unlike so many mistakes by evolutionists which are quietly buried. I said nothing about journals. Your question, however, was specific to journals: Has c-decay been retracted in any of the creationist research journals? To answer that, I'm not sure; I don't read all the journals, and I'm not sure what sort of "retraction" you mean. I'm sure that there would be papers in journals that at least mention that it's no longer generally accepted, or argue against it (there were arguments against it even while there were still being arguments for it.), but do they qualify as "retractions"? Leaving journals aside (as they weren't originally mentioned), there is of course CMI's list of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, which c-decay has a mention in (and I know of no equivalent list by evolutionists, by the way).
And from your comments above, you have not provided any parameters as to when carbon dating can be trusted or not, except maybe if it's presented by a secular scientists. Not true. Carbon dating can be reasonably trusted for date ranges for which we have been able to calibrate the method, that is, by comparing its results to dates known from historical sources. This amounts to the last few thousand years (around, say, 4,000).
Techniques? Types of substances tested? Sample handling? Any of those? There are, of course, those things to consider also (which is why I referred to it being "reasonably" trusted). No system is foolproof, and one problem with dating methods is confirmation bias, where "acceptable" dates are accepted and "unacceptable" dates are rejected or at least questioned. Thus the dates ascribed to Mungo Man were questioned by other researchers who found the original dating "unacceptable" to their ideas. Also, dating laboratories sometimes (often?) ask people submitting samples to give them an idea of the expected date, which goes completely against the concept of double-blind testing.
My point about science correcting itself wasn't just the timescale per se, but the motivation, although timeliness is a factor. Piltdown Man wasn't corrected for decades because there was no motivation to question it for much of that time, and was corrected when the motivation arose. As for timeliness, I agree that no fixed time can be put on it. However, pointing out that "science will correct itself" is hardly an adequate response to concerns about bad science when it can take a long time to occur. If science corrected itself almost instantly (as does happen), then it being incorrect to start with hardly matters. But if science corrects itself eventually (as also happens), then it being incorrect to start with remains a problem.
Philip J. Rayment 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If it is disclosed as a hoax (and it might well be), then that will be freely acknowledged. Unlike so many mistakes by evolutionists which are quietly buried. Can you name a mistake by proponents of evolution that was quietly buried? Or are you speaking tautologically, that all the mistakes are too well covered up to be known about? SallyM 13:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
When Philip first made that claim, higher up this page, he gave two links to support it, so I don't think it's fair that you accuse him of making "unreferenced claims" here.--CPalmer 13:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "evolutionists" quietly bury mistakes, and with regards to Mr. Rayment's example of archaeoraptor, "evolutionist" Storrs Olson (who looks a lot like Duane Gish...coincidence?), one of the world's foremost avian paleontologists and ornithologist at the Smithsonian Institution, publishing an open letter about scientific disagreement with the conclusions of a National Geographic art editor is an excellent example of that. I humbly retract my claims... SallyM 14:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
radiometric dating labs prefer an estimate of age so they can correctly decide on dating methods. They also need information on where the sample was collected to deal properly with contamination issues. It becomes very expensive to do a true blind dating test. In some cases science changes its position as new evidence is found. That can take a long time and about 10 years is typical between high school science and state of the art. Archeoraptor was suspect from the start among paleantologists Hamster 16:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Scientists publish in journals. And retract false claims if they are disproven. The "debate" about evolution is IN the journals, where it belongs, just as it is in all disciplines. If you want to be part of the action, do some research. We don't need silly lists on websites to guide our thinking, either. 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC) --Unsigned comment by Sterile (talk)
radiometric dating labs prefer an estimate of age so they can correctly decide on dating methods.
  • I would have thought that this was decided by the person engaging the lab rather than the lab. I also thought that this would be decided more on the basis of the materials to be tested.
certainly its up to the client to decide , but if dating is all a lab does , they get quite expert at it, which a paleantologist might not be , depending on how often he has material dated. Hamster 06:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So why does this form for carbon dating (i.e. the method has already been decided) ask not only for an age estimate, but also minimum and maximum ages?
not sure of this one except perhaps to suggest ams rather than standard method. better accuracy or smaller sample with ams. Hamster 06:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
They also need information on where the sample was collected to deal properly with contamination issues. The linked form asks for that information, but also for ages. Why is the former not enough?
they are looking for contamination of the sample Hamster 06:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It becomes very expensive to do a true blind dating test. Perhaps, but how then to deal with the problem that double-blind test were designed to solve? Or why not at least have "single blind" tests, rather than loaded ones?
In some cases science changes its position as new evidence is found. That can take a long time and about 10 years is typical between high school science and state of the art. No dispute there. Also between the state of the art and anti-creationists catching up too, it sometimes seems.
Scientists publish in journals. And retract false claims if they are disproven. Actually, retractions usually seem to be when either fraud is involved, or a clear methodological error. Many other situations are more a case of scientist A proposing, scientists B, C, and D disagreeing, and the general consensus going with the latter, but A never retracts, as he is still a "true believer". An example is Hoyle, who was never convinced by the Big Bang, so he never retracted his Steady State view. C-decay would also fall into this category.
The "debate" about evolution is IN the journals, where it belongs, just as it is in all disciplines. And yet many anti-creationists, including on this very site, claim that there is no such debate!
We don't need silly lists on websites to guide our thinking, either. How about sensible lists of web-sites? In any case, I don't know what you are talking about here, but you seem to be ignoring most of the points I made.
Philip J. Rayment 04:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
certainly its up to the client to decide , but if dating is all a lab does , they get quite expert at it, which a paleantologist might not be , depending on how often he has material dated. That answers half my point, but not the other half.
not sure of this one except perhaps to suggest ams rather than standard method. better accuracy or smaller sample with ams. That might account for the age estimate, but why the minimum and maximum ages?
they are looking for contamination of the sample So are you claiming that the existence of contamination is determined on the basis of whether the age is the expected one or not? Surely you can see how that's getting things exactly back to front.
Philip J. Rayment 07:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am saying they ask two sets of questions one is an age estimate with a high and low value, the other is a location question , where and in what conditions was it found. The location questions seem targeted at contamination issues. The age question may be to do with sample size in that at extreme ages a larger sample will give a more accurate result but thats a guess. You could always ask the lab Hamster 15:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fox news item appears to say there was child porn in wikipedia entries, FBI investigating

Fox news item appears to say there was child porn in wikipedia entries, FBI investigating: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/wikipedia-child-porn-larry-sanger-fbi/ Do you still want to link to Wikipedia articles in your main space articles? Ruylopez 05:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent? WikiMedia isn't aware of an investigation. And the accusations by Fox (and the disgruntled L. Sanger) seem to be quite thin. DiEb 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I read in the LATimes once that there was porn in Conservapedia's articles. Sterile 10:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Where? Who added it? How long did it stay there? I can't find any mention via Googling "Conservapedia site:latimes.com"--EvanW 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's sort of an inside joke for old time CPers and RWians about this article. I apologize for the confusion. Sterile 00:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As of late, things have gotten messier concerning the Wikipedia/porn issue: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/14/exclusive-shake-wikipedia-porn-pressure/ Ruylopez 03:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bible versions

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but I was wondering if there is a specific version of the Bible that we prefer for quotes? I notice that the pop-up boxes on references use NIV, should we use that to be consistent throughout? --TimSTalk 03:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been raised before, but only on talk pages and we've never made any official policy. My personal preference is to favour the NIV (hence the BibleRef pop-ups), but I don't want to impose that on others. If consistency is all you are after, then the NIV seems the obvious choice.
What I'd not like to see is AV (KJV) quotes (except where specially applicable), as I don't see the point in using a translation that uses obsolete English words and phrases. The Bible is meant to be understood, and using the AV is (in a very small way) like using a French translation—difficult to understand if the reader is not fluent in French.
Philip J. Rayment 03:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the KJV. I would also add paraphrase versions (such as The Message) to the do-not-use list because they aren't very accurate, and are more influenced by the translator's personal theology. Also maybe the Amplified Bible, which I think reads very choppy and hard to follow. I don't know that consistency is really too important (maybe within each article), I just didn't want to use one version if we had a policy of using a different version. It might be good if we make a note on all references what translation is being used e.g. (John 3:16 NASB). --TimSTalk 03:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The Amplified Bible is presumably not designed for smooth reading, by its very nature. BibleRef reference automatically show the version in the popup, but I presume that you are talking about showing the version when quoting, rather than when citing the reference. That sounds fair enough. The NIV is often considered a paraphrase, and I've also read that all translations are really paraphrases; it's just that some paraphrase to a minimum extent whilst others do it a lot more. Philip J. Rayment 04:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was talking about when quoting. The NIV is not a paraphrase like The Message is. The NIV is translated using a "thought for thought" method because the translators "agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words." see here The NIV tries to be as accurate to the original text in its translation as possible. This is not true of some paraphrase versions like The Message. [1.pdf This] is a link I found that gives some side-by-side examples of The Message, I don't really know who put it together, but it has examples which is all I was really looking for. I personally use the NASB which is a strict word for word (ESV is another) translation, but I think that the NIV is also good. The Message I find extremely offensive. I also don't like the TNIV (which tries to be "gender neutral" because it goes out of its way to avoid being accurate. --TimSTalk 04:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I personally use ESV and Holman Christian Standard for my own general reading, and for quoting I generaly use ESV but am happy to use NIV. NIV's dynamic equivalence is ostensibly at the other end of the translation spectrum from ESV's formal equivalence yet the two are remarkably similar. Holman falls between with what they call "optimal equivalence" - which is I think what all three are really working with - and is also quite similar. The Message is not really a "translation" at all, but can be a reasonable commentary when used with an actual Bible :)
BTW For serious study I use e-sword and bpbible with multiple translations (as well as original Hebrw and Greek) and lexicons, with hardcopies of the ESV Study Bible and Holman's Apologetics Study Bible. It makes for a slow dig, but rewarding. LowKey 09:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
My brother told me that the TNIV is actually considered to be pretty good by experts who do respect the Bible, and it only uses gender-neutral language where it's justifiable. Philip J. Rayment 11:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article on the TNIV that gives some examples. --TimSTalk 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes use KJV, but that's just what I have available. (It's out of copyright, so I've got a copy downloaded to my computer.) As for the TNIV, I've heard that it frequently uses inclusive language when the original was specifically male. The worse problem, though, is that because English doesn't have a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun (you need to use either "he" or "she"), the TNIV frequently changes singular to plural! This ruins the whole point of some passages, such as Rev. 3:20! --EvanW 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is one of the problems. It also changes "son of man" in Hebrews 2:6 to "mere mortals" which is problematic because "son of man" refers to Jesus. --TimSTalk 15:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
For balance if nothing else, here is an article supporting the TNIV. It is well worth a read (although it's rather long). On the two particular verses that have been mentioned, this is what it has to say:

Moreover, in a text like Rev. 3:20 (and numerous other similar examples), the context makes it crystal clear that there is an individual application. The TNIV reads, “If anyone hears my voice and opens the door. . .” I find it hard to imagine how anyone could read this introductory clause and then think that the promise applied only to some group of believers corporately.


Heb. 2:6-7—People familiar with the NIV (or even KJV with appropriate “thous” and “arts”) are used to hearing, “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?” as a quotation from Psa. 8:4. The TNIV reads instead, “What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” The charge has thus been leveled that a Messianic Psalm has been distorted and the links between Hebrews and Jesus, the Son of Man, have been lost. But, in reality, Old Testament scholars are largely agreed that Psalm 8 in its original context was not Messianic, but was speaking of human frailty and the marvel of God's care for us puny, mortal creatures. When Jesus calls himself Son of Man, he is drawing on the imagery of Dan. 7:13-14, not Psa. 8. Psalm 8 is more akin to the repeated references throughout Ezekiel to the prophet as “son of man,” meaning “merely mortal.”
In fact, reading in a reference to Jesus before v. 9 of Hebrews 2 misses the author's main point. It was precisely to the first humans, Adam and Eve, that God assigned the task of putting “everything under their feet” (v. 8a; Psa. 8:6), that is exercising the dominion over creation that their unique image-bearing nature required (Gen. 1:26-28). But Adam and Eve sinned and humanity ever since has failed to steward the creation as God intended (Heb. 2:8b). Now, however, Jesus has come and proved to be the perfect human that Adam and Eve failed to be: “But we do see Jesus” (v. 9). The TNIV is actually clearer in its rendering of the logic of the author of Hebrews than more traditional translations.

Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I read the article and I found it interesting. I do think that most of the changes he points out that don't relate to gender are good. Interestingly, I compared the list of changes to the ESV and found that most of the changes agree with what the ESV has. Interesting that the changes not related to gender are getting more literal, and the ones that relate to gender are getting less literal. It shows what their priority was in the translation. I went through a number of his examples and while there were some that I didn't think were bad (where the original meaning was referring to both genders) there were also situations where that was not the case. There were several examples where I think that the passage was specifically referring to a man or men (even Jesus himself) where the translation was changed to be gender neutral. And there were also examples where the meaning is probably gender neutral where the gender neutral translation changed the meaning in another way (e.g. singular to plural.) As for the examples specifically given, I'll grant the possibility that the example in Hebrews might not be referring to Christ. However, if the possibility remains that it is referring to Christ, (I don't know what "largely agreed" means when he is talking about OT scholars.) then it is probably a bad Idea to gender neutralize it. As for the Revelation example, I don't think it's nearly as clear as he makes it out to be, and I think that the plural does change the meaning. It's all well and good to say that nobody will take it as plural when they read the first clause, but in practice it isn't so simple. I think the context of a meal lakes it very easy to think of a large group of people, along with the fact that the previous verse is plural leads to easily taking the verse as plural. Also, the examples that he chooses to explain are the ones he has better arguments for. He would have harder time giving a convincing argument for some of the other examples. --TimSTalk 04:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I read a pair of lists once of prominent Christians who are critical or supportive of TNIV. Generally (from memory) most of those in the "supportive" list were of a relatively liberal theology and/or vouchsafed a lesser role for the Bible in daily living, whereas those in the "critical" list were of a relatively strict Biblical theology and/or vouchsafed a greater role for the Bible in daily living. There were a couple of crossover's each way IIRC, but the trend was that those who were relatively more reliant on the Bible for their theology and way of life took issue with TNIV. A major reason for my "multiplex" approach is to minimise any errors of Biblical understanding (it's also why I have never subscribed to the notion of one person in the pulpit every week). I don't think that TNIV is necessarily any worse than NIV or GNB, but I wouldn't be using any of them in isolation. LowKey 02:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC) p.s. I actually used "vouchsafed" twice in one paragraph. Good grief. LowKey 02:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen any lists in particular, but my experience is similar to yours in that it is generally liberal (theologically) leaning people (and often those who have a lesser view of the authority of scripture) who support the TNIV, and generally those who are more conservative who are against it. Generally people who want to believe in a more gender neutral theology (there has to be a term for that. feminist theology? sounds like one of Andy's articles on conservapedia or something but anyway) are more accepting of it, and those who hold to more "traditional" (again not quite the right term) gender roles oppose it. I agree with the "Multiplex" approach, I use the NASB for most of my reading, but when I study I'll often pull out my KJV and/or ESV (and occasionally Young's Literal) to compare, and always look up the original greek. (I have a great iPhone bible study app, and hardcopy I have a couple different greek study aids). I agree with you about there not being one person in the pulpit every week. It seems that many (most) people take that system for granted these days. I'm going to disagree with you about the TNIV not necessarily being worse than the NIV. I think it is necessarily worse because the translation was intended to be made with a particular slant, and they went out of their way to end up with that slant. Maybe I feel this way because I personally lean strongly toward more "traditional" view on gender roles, but what I find most offensive is really the fact that they set out to make a "gender inclusive" translation rather than an accurate translation. I would (I think) be just as offended if someone set out to make a Bible that fit any particular theology or point of view. --TimSTalk 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not 'endorsing' TNIV in particular, but just because the NIV and GNB translators didn't make their whole POV explicit doesn't mean it wasn't influencing their work. I remember reading a thorough condemnation of some NIV translators (and their translation work) penned by a most vociferous proponent of King Jim 1611. Amongst the vitriol were some very good points about the translators' choices in their daily living leading them to "soften" some condemnations but not others. Result: a skewed translation. I guess I can go ahead and put you down for a "No" to NIVI  :) (me too, BTW) LowKey 05:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
haha yeah, no NIVI. I don't know if I've heard of the GNB, so I don't know anything about it. I'm sure that other translations are influenced by the POV of the translators. I think that the TNIV goes beyond that because its express purpose was a certain POV. (I almost said that it was similar to the CBP, but I don't think anything deserves to be compared to that.) Anyway, should we add an entry to the Manual of Style specifying certain translations to be avoided when possible? --TimSTalk 05:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(OD - long overdue) GNB = Good News Bible. If we start "waving off" translations, what basis do we use? A blacklist agreed to by senior members? Some set of criteria. I'm not agin the idea; I just see problems in execution. LowKey 06:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Good News Bible is aimed specifically at people who are new to Christianity.--CPalmer 08:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Although I'll happily argue against a KJV-Only person, I don't have any desire to turn this into a debate on translations. However, I think you've missed the point of the TNIV, Tim. You said that "they set out to make a 'gender inclusive' translation rather than an accurate translation". But did they really? Rather, I get the impression that they set out to make a translation that reflected modern language use regarding gender terms. Like it or not (and I don't), humanity-related terms are these days generally considered male terms (e.g. "chairman" is no longer considered acceptable for a woman). So the TNIV wasn't intended to be gender-neutral—it was intended to reflect modern use of gender-related language. That is, like most translations, it was intended to be written in English as it is used today. That this equates to being "gender-inclusive" is unfortunate, but not the goal. Philip J. Rayment 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Not having any information to judge the translators' motives, I'll agree it was probably "intended to reflect modern use." Unfortunately, modern use often favors gender-neutral language over specificity. Sometimes - such as for motivating unbelievers to read the Bible without being turned off - this can be a good thing. For my daily Bible study and for quotes in an encyclopedia, however, I have the opposite preference: I prefer specificity when the original language is specific over most other things. Yes, English does need a third-person singular gender-neutral pronoun. Unfortunately, it doesn't have one yet. Until we do, for my use, I prefer to preserve the "third-person singular" part over the "gender-neutral" part. The TNIV is probably good for some uses, but many Christians I know are, I think, at the point where another translation would be better.
Okay, I admit I'm getting into a debate anyway... "Of making many books there is no end." (Ecclesiastes 12:12 TNIV) --EvanW 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, modern use often favors gender-neutral language over specificity. Agreed. Unfortunately, that's something we have to live with. I did read once that the "thees" and "thous" of AV-era English were actually the plural forms of "you". So if that's true, we have already gone down this road of losing something by retranslating into more modern forms of English, and the TNIV is just continuing that trend. So what do we do instead? Stick with the AV? In a sense, you might as well stick with the original Hebrew and Greek, and expect everyone to learn those languages to read the Bible. In principle, how is that any different than expecting them to learn 16th-century English (except, of course, that one is a much harder task than the other)? Or, on the same line, how is it any different to expecting 21st-century people to learn that "he" might refer to both genders? I'm tempted to say that we should re-teach people about true "gender-neutral" language (e.g. that "man" can refer to "mankind", not just a male human); they would understand the Bible so much better. But unfortunately, this is not practicable, at least for the population at large. Which brings things back to your point that The TNIV is probably good for some uses..., but not for all purposes. However, I do wonder about your point that ...many Christians I know are, I think, at the point where another translation would be better. As the TNIV is not just a "gender-inclusive" version, but also (see my link above) a more accurate version than some, perhaps it should be used by Christians who are after accuracy and who understand any problems that the "gender-inclusive" language may bring with it? That is, Christians who are mature enough to realise that no version is totally accurate. Philip J. Rayment 00:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
1. In high-school English we used "he, she, they" for third person and "you, thou, thee" for second person. "They", although formally plural is also used as a singular. "You" is the plural and "thou" and "thee" are singular.
2. I hereby propose "er" as the modern third person singular pronoun. :) LowKey 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
"You" is the plural and "thou" and "thee" are singular. Ah, yes. I had it back to front. Philip J. Rayment 04:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Not that we oft spake thusly in my youth :) LowKey 06:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
...and that's another reason I like the KJV. :) The NAS also (at least in some editions) reads "you" for second person singular and "you*" (with an asterisk) for second person plural. If "they" is used in singular, I'd like some similar mark to know when it's singular and when it's plural. With that, I suppose, it'd probably be a good translation for people who (unlike myself) prefer more modern styles of speech. --EvanW 15:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit break - and a little off-topic

From my layman's understanding of linguistics, words tend to to lose precision over time, and I think this is what we are speaking of here. For example "shoddy" was originally a specific description of a type of non-woven cloth essentially made from recycled other cloth. It was of poorer quality than woven cloth, and than felt (which was made using 'new' and somewhat unifrom fibres) so a shoddy blanket was known to be poorer quality than a felt balnket or a woven blanket. Now "shoddy" just means a poor quality item, and "felt" means non-woven material whatever the source of the fibres. It is hard to find a modern translation that succinctly conveys the same precision of meaning of some ancient terms, simply because since then we have lost that precision from our language.

I do tend to use more archaic terms than those around me, because I prefer to use a precise term for a precise meaning. I have been called "picky" because of this, and I have found that pointing out that "pedantic" is subtly different to "picky" doesn't help (I use "pedantic" in its archaic, non-perjorative sense). LowKey 22:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a good sport charlie brown

That's all, keep it up. --EmersonWhite 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on Sam Harris talk

Opinion aboutthis? Sterile 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Atheists talk as though all (non-atheism) religions are equal, and now Harris is telling us that they aren't all equal after all—or at least that what they teach about morals is not always equal. Atheists deny that there are moral absolutes, but Harris is now arguing that there are moral absolutes, which, somehow, science can decide for us. Atheists tell us that religions, and their moral values, have no basis, but now Harris wonders "How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise?" (16:16) He asks, "How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count? How have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering?"(16:26) Atheists have done so by trying to undermine the exclusive claims of Christianity. What sounds "fairer" than arguing that Christianity has no special claim to authority in this area, as all religions/views have as much right to be heard? So now Harris rejects these atheistic arguments, but of course doesn't support Christianity's claims. Rather, he has a belief in scientism; the belief that science can answer all questions (despite his attempts to say that there are some things it can't answer). So somehow science can give us the TRUTH, although just how is not really clear. Philip J. Rayment 15:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It's been awhile since I read Harris's first book, but he was probably most critical of Islam, but moreso he was critical of faith and the tennants of religion that cannot be updated. (There's a lot to that that my one sentence doesn't give.) He is very critical of Islam. Sterile 02:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
When I say that Harris is "now" arguing, I'm not comparing Harris' current comments with his earlier comments; I'm comparing what he's saying with what atheists have typically said. As for updating religious tenets, the inability to do so is not a problem unless there is a need to do so, which not only has not been established, but is illogical. That is, there is no need to update the tenets of Christianity unless Christianity (and its claim to have its tenets derived from an eternal, omniscient, God) is itself false, and if it's false, then why "update" something that's false?
And by the way, only because of your earlier repeated criticisms of my spelling of "its/it's", I'll point out that the word is "tenets", not "tennants". Philip J. Rayment 12:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Read the book.Sterile 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Why? Philip J. Rayment 12:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Guth and Inflation Theory

I have noted that you are very keen on quoting/referring to Alan Guth/Inflation Theory (as in "The universe comes from nothing!") but do you understand what Inflation Theory is/means and what Guth proposed? Let me explain why I ask – I could give you a calculus equation and technically it would be correct on the face of it however while the equation might be correct that doesn’t mean that I am correct. Unless I actually understand what the calculation means and what it explains or proposes and what the author was intending to convey with the calculation then all I am doing is talking out of my rear end. So let me ask, you enjoy throwing out phrases like "The universe came from nothing – so and so said so!" but can you give me a definition of Inflation Theory, what it means and how it works? It’s one thing to say something, its total different to understand it. I look forward to your response. Ace McWicked 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I do understand what it is, although I'm not saying that my understanding is of all the details. However, I think the issue is that your understanding of one aspect of it differs from mine. I have already put my argument, which you have largely ignored, so I don't see why I should waste my time trying to provide a further explanation which you will no doubt disagree with anyway. Philip J. Rayment 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You are telling me you understand Inflation Theory? And you think I'll disagree with your explanation? If you understand what Inflation Theory is then I wont disagree. If I disagree its because you do not understand it and I'll be able to show where you are wrong because I have tons of information at home (in the form of "books"). However, I think the issue is that your understanding of one aspect of it differs from mine. Your understanding will either be correct and inline with the current model or it won't be. After my last block I did something you could do. I went to the library and I borrowed several up to date and well regarded books on cosmology so I have furthered my understanding on the subject. So please enlighten me on your understanding, perhaps I could even teach you something? Ace McWicked 15:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I am still waiting to hear what your understanding of Inflation Theory is. Ace McWicked 07:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If you understand what Inflation Theory is then I wont disagree. Even if you have a different understanding than me?
If I disagree its because you do not understand it ... Perhaps. Or because you don't (unlikely as that may be), or because I explain it differently, or...
I am still waiting to hear what your understanding of Inflation Theory is. And I'm still waiting for you to respond to my earlier comments which I've already pointed out that you ignored, but you ignored that also!
Philip J. Rayment 14:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have a different undertanding then it is wrong, Philip.
Or because you don't (unlikely as that may be), or because I explain it differently, or... No, it'll only be because you don't understand it. I can quote from directly modern cosmology books. Even write it verbatim though that is a little tedious.
And I'm still waiting for you to respond to my earlier comments which I've already pointed out that you ignored, but you ignored that also! I assume you earlier comments were the argument you claim to have already put forward? I don't remember you ever actually putting forward an argument, it was a over a month ago. But the thing is I need to take a step back from our previous debate about Inflation and figure out what your understanding of it is. Like if we were debating about what kind of horse that was but it turned out you were pointing at a sheep. So please stop side stepping and explain your understanding. Ace McWicked 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I am still waiting for your response. Ace McWicked 01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
? Ace McWicked 03:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are you avoiding this? You seem to comfortable quoting Guth and his views to support your contentions so now I am asking you explain what your understanding is of his work, namely - Inflation Theory. Ace McWicked 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You might want to take a step back, but I want you to address my previous comments before you open a new front. After you have adequately (in good faith) addressed those comments, then I will oblige you. Philip J. Rayment 03:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I assume you earlier comments were the argument you claim to have already put forward? I don't remember you ever actually putting forward an argument, it was a over a month ago. But the thing is I need to take a step back from our previous debate about Inflation and figure out what your understanding of it is. Like if we were debating about what kind of horse that was but it turned out you were pointing at a sheep. Philip, if you read the above you'd know that a) I don't know to what you are referring (diff-links would be helpful) and b) I don't know what level your understanding is so I don't know where to start. How do you understand the theory? Ace McWicked 03:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a completely legitimate request, I am trying to see what you understand so I can further the debate. Ace McWicked 03:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring to my post in Talk:Evidence for God's existence#Removal of Guth Quote dated 11:50, 31 March 2010.
Yes, your request would be reasonable in normal circumstances, but not when you've so far refused to address my earlier comments on the topic.
Philip J. Rayment 07:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, now we are getting somewhere. However in reading the section in question, and the fact that it has been over a month, I still feel we need to define our terms. Specifically, you need to tell me what Inflation Theory means to you and how you understand it. I cant address your comments until I am aware of what your understanding of Inflation Theory is. My request is completely legitimate under these circumstances. I am not avoiding your questions, I am merely trying to take a step back and gather more information from you so I can answer your questions appropriately. Ace McWicked 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Had any further thoughts Philip? I can't address your points unless I know you are not misunderstanding the theory you are trying to counter. Ace McWicked 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion we were having before I was blocked has been continued here. I have asked a reasonable request of you. I cannot answer your questions until I have a working definition from you. It is you, not me, who has "open(ed) a new front". Ace McWicked 09:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss dark energy with you on another page when the discussion is here. What is your understanding of Inflation Theory? Ace McWicked 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Este sinfin de peticiones no es muy macho, Ace.--CPalmer 11:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Still nothing? You say above that "I believe that I do understand what it is" in regards to Inflation Theory but you have failed to provide? Why is this? You, so able to use such theories in debating rhetoric, but unable to provide a coherent account of what it is you understand when asked for clarification. Ace McWicked 12:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see why you can't address my earlier comments. I have rejected that your request is completely legitimate in these circumstances. I have tried to compromise a little by promising to answer your request if you first respond to my earlier comments. I have been trying to think of a better compromise, but can't see one that I think will work, although I'm open to suggestions. Philip J. Rayment 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your argument consisted entirely of quotes from Guth talking about inflation theory. The debate isn't what Guth said but what he means. You need to tell me what you understand his Inflation Theory to mean. Ace McWicked 22:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My post does not consist entirely of quotes from Guth. Yes, a large part of it is quotes, but not "entirely", and the post has me explaining what I believe he means, using those quotes to support that. Philip J. Rayment 12:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Then why can't you summarise here what you think it means and how inflation works instead of making me trawl through fractured posts from 2 months ago? All I am doing is stepping back and asking you for clarification, a totally legitimate debating technique used to define terms and avoid confusion. Ace McWicked 20:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There's very little to summarise; the post was not "fractured" at all, and I can't see how this helps when you can (and presumably have) read that post. But in the spirit of compromise, here is what I said without the supporting quotes:
On the contrary, [Guth] does [believe the universe came from nothing]. There are several references to this in the Discovery article, such as...[supporting quotes omitted].
Yet we have the statement that "to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something". But what is that "something"? Especially in the light of all those references to "nothing"? There's very little explanation.
However, the article also says ...[supporting quotes removed]
The article then goes on to argue that the laws of physics must be capable of existing without the presence of matter. So it seems to me that the "something" that "nothing" is, is the laws of physics. He's arguing that the laws of physics make it possible for something to come from nothing. But the only part of that "something" that exists are the laws of physics. Apart from them, it seems, "nothing" is really nothing.
Philip J. Rayment 12:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To me your argument is based fully on the quotes from others without any deeper understanding of the topic. Like I said above I could give you a calculus equation and technically it would be correct on the face of it however while the equation might be correct that doesn’t mean that I am correct. Unless I actually understand what the calculation means and what it explains or proposes and what the author was intending to convey with the calculation then all I am doing is talking out of my rear end. All you are doing is repeating what someone else has said without giving any indication that you actually understand what it is they are proposing. You see, this is why I asked what your understanding of Inflation Theory is and you have been unable to provide anything aside from quotes which you have taken at face value. I don't mind giving you a lesson on what Inflation actually proposes (and will do so - however probably not today). Ace McWicked 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To me your argument is based fully on the quotes from others... So what should I have based it on? My imagination? My own first-hand research of the beginning of the universe? No, I would have thought that I should base my argument on the words of those making the argument!
All you are doing is repeating what someone else has said without giving any indication that you actually understand what it is they are proposing. Then you've failed to read/understand my comments, because that is precisely not what I was doing. Rather, I was reading between the lines to gain an understanding, because what I was concluding was not spelled out in a straightforward sentence that I could quote. That's why I had so many quotes; because I had to put the picture together from various comments.
...you have been unable to provide anything aside from quotes ... No, I also provided conclusions. I went to the (small) effort of repeating my comments without the quotes, yet it seems that you've ignored that and are just harping on the fact that I had quoted!
...which you have taken at face value. So I'm not supposed to take Guth's views at face value? What am I supposed to do instead? Twist his words? Assume he's lying?
Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this - So what should I have based it on? My imagination? My own first-hand research of the beginning of the universe? No, I would have thought that I should base my argument on the words of those making the argument! and Rather, I was reading between the lines to gain an understanding, because what I was concluding was not spelled out in a straightforward sentence that I could quote. That's why I had so many quotes; because I had to put the picture together from various comments. follwed by So I'm not supposed to take Guth's views at face value? What am I supposed to do instead? Twist his words? Assume he's lying?, heres what I would have done if I was going to form a picture and debate about something as academic as cosmology. I would read Guths article and think it was interesting. I would realise that further reading was needed to form a more accurate picture and I would go to the library and read many books and articles about the subject so I can undertsand the topic more fully. A topic such as this is broad and technical so I would cogigate, think and form a complex picture. What I wouldn't do is "read between the lines" of a single magazine article (or two) and attempt, showing my own ignorance, to debate the aspects of Inflation Theory, and the views of its progenitor without being sure that they way I was "reading between the lines" was how it was supposed to be read. Ace McWicked 10:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
So, in summary, you "accused" me of basing my arguments on Guth's views, of merely repeating what others have said, and of merely quoting, I point out how silly these "accusations" are, and you ignore all that and implicitly accuse me of (not) doing something else! And you accuse me of ignorance in the process! Your total failure to honestly address my reply and my earlier comments about Guth's views, instead disparaging them and ducking the issue, does not make for a valid argument. Philip J. Rayment 14:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
So, in summary, you "accused" me of basing my arguments on Guth's views, of merely repeating what others have said, and of merely quoting, I point out how silly these "accusations" are, and you ignore all that and implicitly accuse me of (not) doing something else! Re read my comment, I address why my "accusations" are not silly but drawing your attention to the small amount evidence you have presented to support your view. Basing your conclusions by "reading between the lines" does not make for a valid argument. Ace McWicked 01:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You have not addressed why your accusations were not silly. You instead produced a different accusation, regarding the amount of evidence. "Reading between the lines" was not wording that I was happy with, but was meant to convey that I was doing the opposite of what you were accusing me of—just providing quotes which I've taken at face value. You're ignoring that you were wrong in that (and other) accusations. Philip J. Rayment 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop bleating, you have consistently ducked and weaved and weaseled about providing any evidence to support your position or to substantiate that you understand Inflation Theory. When further prodded you give me So what should I have based it on? My imagination? My own first-hand research of the beginning of the universe? No, I would have thought that I should base my argument on the words of those making the argument! and Rather, I was reading between the lines to gain an understanding, because what I was concluding was not spelled out in a straightforward sentence that I could quote. That's why I had so many quotes; because I had to put the picture together from various comments. follwed by So I'm not supposed to take Guth's views at face value? What am I supposed to do instead? Twist his words? Assume he's lying? so yes, I have accused you of "of basing my arguments on Guth's views, of merely repeating what others have said, and of merely quoting" because you have provided nothing else in the way of a cogent argument. Ace McWicked 12:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop bleating, you have consistently ducked and weaved and weaseled about providing any evidence to support your position or to substantiate that you understand Inflation Theory. And you haven't ducked and weaved in avoiding answering the post I made back in March? Even after reposting it here at your request?
so yes, I have accused you of "of basing my arguments on Guth's views, of merely repeating what others have said, and of merely quoting" because you have provided nothing else in the way of a cogent argument. First, even if I had provided nothing else, those accusations are still false. Second, that you have not been convinced by my argument does not mean that I've not provided a good argument, and if it's so unconvincing, you should have no problem responding to it, but you avoid doing so.
Philip J. Rayment 12:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
And you haven't ducked and weaved in avoiding answering the post I made back in March? Even after reposting it here at your request? I was blocked for a month and I haven't ducked and weaved in the slightest - I have been most aggressive and straight forward to elicit you to explain yourself. Second, that you have not been convinced by my argument does not mean that I've not provided a good argument You haven't even made an argument or explained what you think Inflation Theory is, you really haven't. Is it your contention that Guth and Inflation Theory predicts a universe from a complete absence of anything? Ace McWicked 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
...I have been most aggressive and straight forward... Yet you have avoided answering that earlier post.
You haven't even made an argument or explained what you think Inflation Theory is, you really haven't. Is it your contention that Guth and Inflation Theory predicts a universe from a complete absence of anything? This makes it seem that you have not even read that earlier post of the requested summary of it in this discussion. Because in that post I made an argument and I explained what Guth appeared to be saying that the "nothing" is.
Philip J. Rayment 11:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In summary

So in summary you sum up your argument with The article then goes on to argue that the laws of physics must be capable of existing without the presence of matter. So it seems to me that the "something" that "nothing" is, is the laws of physics. He's arguing that the laws of physics make it possible for something to come from nothing. But the only part of that "something" that exists are the laws of physics. Apart from them, it seems, "nothing" is really nothing. which you have garnered though reading the magazine article in Discovery, and a couple of other sources, and deducing that this is what Inflation theory comes down to. Correct? Ace McWicked 21:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the above a fair representation of what you are arguing? Ace McWicked 03:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that was not meant as a description of inflation theory. That was what Guth appeared to be saying the "nothing" that the universe came from was. Philip J. Rayment 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
We were previously debating because i said it was a creationist strawman to state that "evolutionists" believe the universe came from nothing. I said no theory states this as something can't come from nothing to which you agreed and stated that's why the Big Bang was a "bunch of malarky". I challenged you to find a theory that stated the universe came from nothing. You picked Alan Guth, talking about his inflation theory, to support this view. So, in summary, your argument is that Alan Guth's inflation theory, as he states it, holds the universe came from nothing. Now, is that a fair representation? Ace McWicked 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it? Ace McWicked 23:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I said no theory states this as something can't come from nothing to which you agreed... Just to clarify, I agreed that "something can't come from nothing", not that "no theory states this".
You picked Alan Guth, talking about his inflation theory, to support this view. Guth was one of the several examples I provided, but otherwise, yes.
So, in summary, your argument is that Alan Guth's inflation theory, as he states it, holds the universe came from nothing. Now, is that a fair representation? No. Inflation, as I understand it, is a claim about what occurred just after the universe began. Guth proposed inflation. Guth says that the universe came from nothing. But I'm not saying that inflation is Guth's explanation about how it started.
I do think, though, that until you asked that question, I had not realised that you thought I was conflating the two. So that was a useful clarification.
Philip J. Rayment 01:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't argue what you don't understand Philip so allow me to retort. Ace McWicked 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying that I shouldn't do what anti-creationists usually do? Philip J. Rayment 02:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Childish response. Typical of someone who has no ground to stand on. Ace McWicked 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not childish to point out hypocrisy. Philip J. Rayment 08:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You are as guilty as those you accuse. Ace McWicked 08:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As I have now explained on your talk page, you are not comparing like for like. Philip J. Rayment 14:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No one cares whether or not you think it's "like for like". This whole website is testament to your hypocrisy, dishonesty and bigotry whether you think so or not. I'll check your response and see if there is anything worth responding to but I doubt it . Ace McWicked 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Argument by assertion. Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Argument from incredulity. Ace McWicked 10:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Argumentum ad infinitum.--CPalmer 10:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Argumentum ad nauseum. Ace McWicked 10:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Argument from incredulity. Argumentum by citing random fallacy. Philip J. Rayment 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Argument by psychological projection. Jaxe 07:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Teh Terrible Asp's block

We discussed it quite a bit, but I don't see a final resolution. What's the decision? LowKey 04:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get an answer, Philip seems blind to this page - as evidenced above. Ace McWicked 04:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not the page that I'm "blind" to. And I've now otherwise responded on Asp's user talk page. Philip J. Rayment 14:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox