User talk:ScienceApologist/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] views

hey man, i would really like to work together with you on this, but twisting and distorting creationist ideas out of recognition is not the way to go. please, josh, let's try and do this right. Ungtss 01:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i honestly don't know how you can live with yourself. you've become just like those religious dogmatics you hate -- censoring everything you're afraid of, instead of defeating it with facts. it makes me very, very sad to see you content with your ignorance. your attitude will be the downfall of your worldview. Ungtss 13:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Words of support

I fully support your effort and that of the rest to keep the wikipedia as factual as possible, especially regarding to the distinction of scientific methodology vs irrational thinking (Which is very legit as long as it doesn't cross the line to rational thinking areas). --LexCorp 05:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much appreciated. You might try helping us out in some of the more volatile areas of the creationist world. For example, creation biology. Flood geology is also in pretty bad shape. Creation beliefs needs work as does creation science. Joshuaschroeder 07:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
fortunately for you, some people don't yet know what you are. Ungtss 01:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but we know what Ungtss is: Someone whose sole purpose here is to slip disinformation and religious beliefs into articles here. DreamGuy 03:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
and then there's dreamguy ... another one stupid enough to think the interchangeable use of "religion" and "disinformation" is npov. but no worries. i've quit. i wish you all well in your cesspool of ignorance. Ungtss 22:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gee, Ungtss, nothing like posting a message that proves our points for us. But then better for you to leave than get kicked off. DreamGuy 01:38, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
anyone reading Talk:Myth right now will see Hyacinth writing, in reference to your unjustified deletion of my cited material: "I find it distressing that a contributor who has provided a source would now be required to provide three more regarding the first while being personally attacked by someone who has contributed no sources to the dispute." Hyacinth 01:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC). that's you, personally attacking without contributing any sources to the dispute. that's why i'm leaving. Ungtss 01:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, anyone reading Talk:Myth will see that Hyacinth was confused because of your false claims and now supports my side after it was discussed further. And he repeatedly warned you several times about viscious personal attacks that you had to edit out later whereas my supposed "personal attacks" were simply explaining your past history. (Hyacinth has a rather unique view that those are basically minor personal attacks because he originally didn't consider them relevant to other article discussions, a view unsupported by most other editors here). He has since apologized to me for those comments. It's funny though that you are desperately clinging to a supportive statement that has since been rescinded to try to justify yourself. (Sorry, Joshua, for continuing the discussion here, but since it's directly relevant to the topic you are discussing here about Ungtss' bad behavior I figured it was probably OK.) DreamGuy 03:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Let's be perfectly clear, dreamguy. after you deleted the cited text without comment, i added this to the talkpage. no personal attack, just a section titled "here we go again." you responded with this, in which you detail my "sheer incompetence," my "church's approved reading list," accuse me "spreading my nonsense," and note the importance of "damage control." hmm. who is involved in the personal attacks again? And this over a cited section from a book on myth and literature by an oxford/cambridge lit professor. Yes, that is when i began defending myself at your expense, and i apologize for that. but please don't pretend you're an innocent victim here. Ungtss 00:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

Hi, I'd like to be your advocate, but I need some directions of the problem (e.g. some diffs) before I can decide to help you or not. Answer me in my talk page (Warning: I'll be absent till Sunday 20th. If your problem is too urgent to wait till then, I'm not the right man). --Neigel von Teighen 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm in

This User:Ungtss is making too many personal attacks. I'll be your advocate in this matter. I'm not an expert on Creationism, but I don't tolerate such attacks...If you can send me a complete list of the talk pages it will be really helpful.

A suggestion, let's use e-mail from now. You can send me one using a this link. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 14:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm glad to see you were trying to add some critical information to the article on the pseudo-scientific theory known as 'creationism'. I have added a new section 'criticisms of creationism' to the article, and I would appreciate any put you have on this matter. If the changes I've made have been edited out by the time you check the article out, feel free to add them again and to add your own. I will be asking other people to help me put this right too. Aaarrrggh 21:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joshuaschroeder. Regarding your comments about Ungtss on my talk page, I'm not really sure what to do with him. I had thought that if enough people stood up to him he'd get the clue that his way of doing things wasn't going to fly. I've been running into problems with him mostly on Deluge (mythology), and now myth. Unfortunately he has another person (Phil Rayment or something like that) who is nearly as bad or worse helping him out, and he managed to confuse some editors without a background in mythology into thinking his sources were valid, so it's been a struggle. Of course he's been warned repeatedly to act responsibly by even those people (except Phil, who supports him and tries to outdo him at times). We could try to do a Request for Comment on him, but those appear to be fairly useless from my experience... Especially since someone harassing me decided he'd try to get me back by doing one on me a while ago, and then a collection of like-minded people slammed the heck out of me because I changfed what they wrote and stood up to their bullying in the past. I really think this is just an unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia lets any old person off the street on. Articles get patrolled by rabid wwolves wwith distinct agendas, and there's very little we can do about it other than constantly revert or fix their shenanigans until we give up in frustration. They know this. I wouldn;t be surprised if political action committees start having full time paid Wikipedia and other website handlers soon. DreamGuy 03:31, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do we make a WP:RfC?

I'm thinking to do a request for comment on Ungtss as a first step on the dispute resolution system we've got. Although RfC has proved not to be very efficient, it's a requisite if we need to do further moves like a request for mediation or for arbitration. I've been collecting evidence and I think we can do this. What is your opinion? --Neigel von Teighen 17:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no need to worry about it. i'm quitting. schroeder + dreamguy will be free to develop their atheistic intellectual paradise without any interference from me. i do, suggest, tho, that before dealing further with these two, you look deeper into some page histories, including Joshua's creation of Ungtss vs. Mainstream science and Dreamguy's absolute insistence on the exclusion of religious views from pages on mythology. The attacks your seeing from me are the result of nearly 3 months of battling deliberate censorship and vandalism, and they've selected you as advocate because you are not aware of the things they have done, or the dozens of evolutionists and atheists who have supported my edits against theirs. People who have been involved in these battles for any period of time would support me.
but rather than waste your time or anyone else's time in this matter, I will simply withdraw, and allow wikipedia to maintain its systemic bias. i will just be sure to warn those i know that wikipedia as an entity is fantastically reliable for issues not involving religion, spirituality, or ideology, but will never be reliable on those topics, because of the fundamentalist anti-religious ethos carried on by men such as those with whom you are communicating. Ungtss 23:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"People who have been involved in these battles for any period of time would support me." Actually, that's patently false, as you are losing your battles left and right as more people see through to your agenda. But, OK, leave, works for me. 01:40, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ungtss, I wasn't elected to be Schroeder's advocate: I accepted the case...You're quitting and that's not very common on Wikipedia's disputes: the majority of the long disputes get quickly into Arbitration cases. But, if you say you're quitting only for creating a sockpuppet account and restart your attacks, you'll get problems. --Neigel von Teighen 21:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sockpuppets? Quite simply, I have better things to do than skank around wikipedia with sockpuppets ... and i certainly have better things to do than endless edit wars and arbitration. if the system wants biased creationism articles, it can have them. if it ever wants npov ones, it can call on me to take part. Ungtss 23:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If "the system" wanted biased creationism articles it would have just let your changes stand unedited. DreamGuy 14:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


Concerning the Request for Comment, I don't think the version as there now will cut it. You need to point directly to cases where we tried to work with him and he refused, expecting people to read through every talk page in existence isn't going to happen. Worse than that, one of the other recent RfCs was about someone with a Creationism bias, and it backfired because a number of other creationist posters showed up to support him.

On consideration, at this point if he's really not making any edits to any pages related to creationism in any way, I'm not sure there's anything to accomplish by a RfC anyway. What behavior out of him should we expect different than no longer editing the pages. If he wasnts to harass us on our talk pages, fine, I don't care, as anyone reading them can see right away that he's not someone worth taking seriously, based upon his rants and insults. DreamGuy 17:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boycott warning by Ungtss

JS, I'm thinking we should do the RfC now. Ungtss has recognize to have boycotted the creationism pages, but doesn't show any will to stop doing that (see [1]). I can't do the request because it seems that the current system requires the RfC to be started by a direct participant of the dispute (I'm an indirect one). I can show some evidence and defend you if this gets worse. I'll also ask DreamGuy about this. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 19:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh? i haven't edited creationism at all. i was encouraged by DanielCD (see this link) and RednBlue (see this link) to simply avoid this area, rather than quit entirely, because wikipedia does not yet have adequate standards for npov in creationism. also consider this. i apologize for getting overly frustrated with these two, but it is not a pattern. it is a personal conflict between me and them going back months. Dreamguy has also been known to flagrantly insult other creationists, such as this gem to philip rayment, in which philip was informed, "To sum up, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and it's obvious. You should leave articles about mythology to the people who know the topic.[2]" I also found it interesting how he used "religious-motived mind" as an insult against mr. rayment. there's also this gem on his talkpage with somebody i don't even know. [3]Unfortunately, the evidence on Schroeder disappeared with the articles he got deleted (including, may i remind you, 4 articles titled Ungtss vs. mainstream science in geology, Ungtss vs. mainstream science in biology, etc. what seems to be the problem, sir? Ungtss 23:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ungtss, only in your head is "To sum up, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and it's obvious. You should leave articles about mythology to the people who know the topic." a "flagrant insult" -- That editor was making patently (and proven) false statements about mythology as justification for removal of a section about what mythologists think about the myths so he could put more focus on the religious viewpoint. Pointing out that he is wrong and obviously has no business making edits to a page about mythology is not an insult, it's a simple, practical and necessary statement. In fact, it's trying to explain Wiki NPOV rules: people with obvious bias and no knowledge of the topic at hand should get the heck away from the article. And now you whine and moan about it? And that's especially hypocritical because you routinely make insults that go clear off the scale of acceptability. Get a grip. You're only proving our case that you are so biased that people supporting your agenda can do no wrong and anyone trying to follow Wiki rules are somehow intellectually inferior and morally corrupt. DreamGuy
1) religious views are part of npov, particularly views of religious scholars on religious issues. presenting only secular views on religious issues is inherently pov.
2) you routinely delete cited scholarly opinions because they are "religious," and therefore unacceptable in your view. (here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deluge_%28mythology%29&diff=8471163&oldid=8471006 here). in the process, you personally attack me in the edit summaries, wondering "where i get off" and contemplating my "blatant religious bias."
3) you have routinely described religious views as a "bias" rather than a "pov," lining up your apparently npov views with all others, which are apparently mere "bias," whether held by cited scholars in the field or not.
4) you and your friend schroeder are in the minority in your opinion of me, and CERTAINLY in the minority in your opinion of Mr. Rayment, as illustrated above.
5) the views you censor are held by a number of high-grade academics, and present an alternative viewpoint that deserves representation on a page on the topic.
6) no creationist here has EVER suggested deleting the secular pov from these pages as long as i've been here. we've simply requested a fair and accurate representation of our viewpoint, and have been routinely censored and personally attacked, as illustrated above.
7) you have attacked not only creationists, but also people with views different than yours on the jack the ripper article -- to the point where the other person continually requested that you cool down, only to be repeatedly slammed by you.
8) schroeder has renamed PAGES to vandalize and mock me.
9) and now you're on me. right. Ungtss 17:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1) Considering that the disputes I have had with you are not on articles about "religious issues," your claims that I only allow secular views of religious issues is nonsense.
2) I routinely remove opinions that are not scholarly or that are irrelevant to the pages in question. Your claim to the contrary is merely your bias showing itself again.
3) No, I don't call religious views bias, I call an orchestrated agenda to insert religion into articles that have nothing to do with it and to remove what experts much more qualified and numerous than the people you falsely claim to be experts from articles because it makes your side look bad is a bias. Complaining about how awful changes are that take a small step toward nuetrality but still are full of your POV when more drastic changes to get them into the middle are necessary is a bias.
4) Yes, yes, yes, you always try to back up your side with spurious claims to a majority. Funny, I don't see anyone other than the Rayment guy (who is perhaps just as abusive and biased as you) taking your side in the articles I edit. If you actually had a majority, you wouldn't be here complaining because you would have been able to keep your POV edits in the affected articles. You can't, because consensus is consistently reached that you are doing your changes for bad motives.
5) High grade academics? LOL, yet more unsupported statements. Creationists are consistently among the least educated and least skilled in the field, and we already know you lost your argument that CS Lewis was an expert on mythology.
6) That's either an outright lie or the result of an incredibly reality-impaired bias. Happens constantly, they just try to call the deletions "balance" when it's no such thing. The recent blow up came from Rayment wanting to remove the only section in the Deluge (mythology) article about what the experts on mythology use to explain their origin, with the hopes of leaving more space for more religious campaigning.
7) You call it attacked, I call it standing up to bullies. It's amazing how some people will call foul and make accusations when someone dares to change something they wrote, even when you can prove that it's factually incorrect or that the consensus of the editors on the page overwhelmingly disagrees with them. The people working on the actual pages end up siding with me, so I'm obviously doing things the right way.
8) Not my issue, and certainly a lot less damaging than the things you;ve routinely done here.
Here's the deal: If you stay off the page you agreed to and stop butting in on other people's conversations on talk pages to toss out insults and false accusations, then there isn't a reason for the RfC to proceed, and you can feel free to do all those alleged solid contributions to wikipedia that you claim to want to make. I have the feeling though that you are only here to bang one drum, and that's to put your religious views into articles in a highly biased and unencyclopedic way. Prove me wrong and we won;t have anything to complain about. DreamGuy 19:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
given the choice between banishment and inquisition, i choose the former. I agree to your terms. Ungtss 18:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You could chose a third option that of being judge by your wikipedia peers for your free willed actions and accepting their judgement. --LexCorp 18:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
my "peers" are free to do all the judging they want. the rfc they put up is devoid of any substantive evidence against me that doesn't fall to the doctrine of unclean hands, and fails utterly to demonstrate "failed efforts to resolve the conflict," even 72 hours after its posting, meaning it is in violation of policy. that rfc has nowhere to go. but perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence of how uncivilly i've treated you?
but more importantly, wikipedia is my hobby, not my life. i have better things to do than allow myself to be judged by the likes of schroeder. i've recognized that there is too much systemic bias here for wikipedia to be a valid forum for describing creationism. i'm gonna stop wasting my time, and let you all do as you please. Ungtss 20:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
By 'peers", Lex evidently means only atheistic peers like himself, Schroeder or that bigoted sysop Duncharris who is unfit for the role. They want to turn NPOV to APOV (atheistic point of view). 220.244.224.9 14:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well something should be done about the superstition, vandalism, and censorship of the evolutionists on Wikipedia--and what could be a better thing to do about it than for the evolutionists to exorcise another proven witch? 8)) Who will file the RfC to get the fire started? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL, yeah... Because it's the scientists who always burn witches and not the anti-science religionist types. You might have picked a metaphor that doesn't so immediately display that you are on the wrong side of the argument. "Superstition, vandalism and censorship" is pretty much the standard operating procedure for Ungtss here. All we are trying to do is put an end to highly biased people going through Wikipedia and adding their views without any attempt to try to NPOV. Of course when the slightest effort to move the article to a little bit more towards NPOV instead of pure-Creationism dogma happens, the creationists start heaping insults and acting like neutrailty is somehow bias. I haven't seen you on any pages I actively edit, Rednblu, but you are either wholly bamboozled by Ungtss or soming from such a strong bias that your view of what is happening on these pages bears no resemblenmce to reality. DreamGuy 07:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
What nonsense -- it's not the creationist who are deleting swathes of texts that try to counter their POV that creationism is pseudoscience or that the Bible teaches absolute geocentrism. Also, atheistic regimes such as France after the French Revolution and the communist world have done their share of persecuting scientists.203.213.77.138 09:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL, yeah. The evolutionists in this case are the religionist types. You got it! 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 14:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but then if that clear bias of yours is affecting articles in any way here, it's no wonder other editors are making changes. DreamGuy 14:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Of course, atheism is a religion, and evolution is the pseudo-scientific justification for it. And atheistic regimes have done their fair share of persecution, including the French Revolution chopping off Lavoisier's head, saying "The Republic has no need for scientists" (not to mention the millions butchered under atheistic communism last century).
[comment added by unregistered user 220.244.224.9]
Sorry, but A) atheism is not a religion, B) evolution has nothing to do with atheism, C) communism is not atheism, and D) you seriously need to get out into the real world. DreamGuy 16:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Of course atheism is a religion: it attempts to answer all the big questions that other religions do, and is based on a metaphysical claim incapable of empirical proof. But you can quibble about what "religion" means all you want, because the fact remains that theistic religions and atheism are all worldviews.
Many evolutionists disagree that evolution has nothing to do with atheism. E.g. Dawkins said that Darwmin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and Provine claimed that a religion was compatible with evolution only if it was for all practical purposes indistinguishable from atheism.
Communism is predicated upon atheism.203.213.77.138 09:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where is that Frenchman Le Pierrot when we need him? 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 16:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

likely he's "out in the real world." schroeder -- consider -- it's not my sockpuppet, as clearly demonstrated on the RfC. i understand that i've become the embodiment of evil to you, but i suggest the application of some Reason here. Let it die. Ungtss 17:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ungtss RFC

Joshuaschroeder, I have added evidence and endorsed the summary against Ungtss. I provided some diffs that show the bad faith editing of him and some other things. I hope someone else endorse the summary too.

If this happens not to work, I'll request mediation (which, in my opinion, won't work) as the dispute resolution system points out. If that doesn't work, arbitration will.

Yours, Neigel von Teighen 20:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Evolution is not a "fact"?

To take another example, [by your line of reasoning] it would be impossible to call "gravity" a fact. One could point to any observation and claim that gravity is the "cause" for the fact rather than the fact itself. However, this isn't the way physicists refer to gravity at all. Rather, gravity is the collection of observations and models that describe said observations that allow for physical predictions. Gravity is a "fact" because it is observed. Likewise with evolution.

Joshuaschroeder 23:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • In my arguments with creationists I have not gotten very far in arguing that evolution is fact. 8)) In contrast, I have no problem in getting agreement from the creationists that gravitation is fact. What convinces the creationists about the "fact" of gravitation is the Torsion bar experiment--in the modern versions you can see the laser beam deflect to a greater angle as one mass is moved toward the other! It is dramatically convincing. I have tried to design an equivalent demonstration of evolution, but none of the ideas I have come up with so far have the same inescapable quality of demonstrating evolution as "fact." Let me give you a short list of the designs that do not have the convincing quality of the Torsion bar experiment.
    1. Cancer. Observe the cancer cells mutate and become a different species altogether. <<What is missing from this "demonstration" is mutation to become something "better" that becomes able to fend and multiply for itself in the wild--outside the host. Let's not turn this experiment loose on high-school students I hope!>>
    2. Drosophila mutations and speciation. <<Again the mutations I know about are still Drosophila.>>
    3. Genome comparisons of S. cerevisiae, A. thaliana, C. elegans, D. melanogaster, M. musculus, P. troglodytes, P. paniscus, H. sapiens . . . This would convince me. But it does not have that crucial convincing quality of the Torsion bar experiment--of making the laser beam deflect dramatically to a greater angle when you bring the second mass closer to the first.
    4. So I am still looking for a demonstration of evolution that would have the "watch it happen in real-time" convincing quality of the Torsion bar experiment. 8)) Wish me luck! 8))
  • If we had a "watch it happen in real-time" demonstration of evolution, then I think we could claim that evolution is "fact." We could then say, "Look numbskull. Don't you believe your eyes? What you see there has all the qualities of every valuable fact that you see in your everyday life! If you see it happen, what you see is fact. You might balk at agreeing to explanations for what you see--but at least what you see must be fact. You saw what you saw--that is fact."
  • Even so, even for the X processes, such as gravitation, for which we have "watch it happen in real-time" demonstrations, it seems to me to be a bad idea to beat somebody over the head with "X is fact." After all, there is something wrong with how we are looking at gravitation--because, if we looked at it right, we likely would see the unified theoretical relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. And somebody will win the Nobel Prize in the future by uniting the field theories of gravity and electromagnetism--by disproving some "fact" that you and I hold today about gravity.
  • Since the scientific method is inductive, it is wise for us to play down the conclusion of "THIS is fact." That is, I would much rather have a clear falsifiable hypothesis than I would a master "fact" that explained all the little facts of induction. Let me give you an example. Rather than the master "fact" of F=ma, I would rather have the hypothesis in falsifiable form, such as "To falsify, find some situation in which, applying a constant force to an object over time will produce a steadily decreasing acceleration." For, if I keep formulating falsifiable hypotheses instead of a master "fact" that explains all the little facts of induction, I get clues, such as suggestions about high velocity conditions, for constructing the experiment that will give me the data--the real "facts"--the little facts of induction--that will inform me how to improve my falsifiable hypothesis. Does that make sense?
  • I appreciated your essay. And I hope that my reply has made it worth your time to write the probing essay that you left for me. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The problem here is that there is substantively nothing different between macroevolution and microevolution except for the scales involved. Thus, to claim that evolution is not a fact is really a claim that macroevolution is not a fact, which is a basic denial of universality once again.

To extend the analogy of gravity further, it would be like someone accepting the Eötvös experiment you listed on my talkpage as evidence for "microgravity", but rejecting "gravity" (or "macrogravity", if you will) as the reason for orbits because they disbelieve those scales (both in time and space).

Joshuaschroeder 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe. We are hypothesizing here about how people think.
  • I think you mean "uniformitarianism" rather than universality. Am I right?
  • Uniformitarianism seems to come quite easily to a person who spends a lot of time doing science. And uniformitarianism in space seems to come quite easily to educated people generally, even non-scientists.
  • But uniformitarianism in time seems to be hard for creationists to grasp. Creationists generally see "modern times" as different from "barbaric" times--the "state of grace" times as radically different from the "sinner" times. So the Bush Administration cannot see that, from uniformitarianism principles, Bush II is little different from the other Holy Christian Crusader tyrants that whipped the Muslim world for the glory of God. 8))
  • Accordingly, I would hypothesize that you could convince the creationists of the "fact" of evolution for any "fact" that you could demonstrate over and over today whether it is microevolution or macroevolution--including whatever uniformitarianism extensions you may require for your "fact" in space.
  • But uniformitarianism in time runs counter to non-scientific nature and human common sense. Thus, to the non-scientist, it is unfair for you to claim something as fact that you cannot demonstrate in real-time. If you have evidence in real-time, that evidence is fact. You and I understand that uniformitarianism in time implies that we evolved from the ancestors of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, given the known mutation patterns in the known genomes and proteomes. However, non-scientists have a problem with uniformitarianism in time. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

So, to come back to the analogy, why should the creationist believe that gravity existed before they were born? If there is no universality of physical laws to imply that observed mechanisms today acting in the past account for the state of the universe today, what replaces this? How can such a replacement be used to define "fact" independent of empiricism?

In other words, how can we say it is wrong to call evolution a "fact" if there exists no "facts" at all?

Joshuaschroeder 22:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Here is an analogy I use when arguing with creationists. In the 1930s, Enrico Fermi and others did some experiments that showed that incredible amounts of energy could be released by bombarding U-235 with neutrons. Einstein alerted President Roosevelt to the "fact" that you could make a bomb of tremendous destructive force by squeezing enough U-235 into a tight space to produce a chain reaction. Now was it a "fact" that you could make a bomb of tremendous destructive force by squeezing enough U-235 into a tight space to produce a chain reaction? Well, it wasn't yet the kind of "fact" that you could introduce into evidence in any court of law--because no one had witnessed it yet so that they could testify to it. What were "facts" were the data from the experiments that Enrico Fermi, Otto Hahn, and Fritz Strassmann had done. Among the next steps were the discoveries of "cause" that Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch did in figuring out why Enrico Fermi observed the "facts" that he did.
  • Likewise evolution is the "cause" for the "facts." And the "facts" consist of the observations on genomes and proteomes of everything from bacteria to humans, including many "facts" of shifts in genomes, proteomes, and phenotypes in creatures that have been observed in our lifetimes.
  • Is there anything wrong with you and me treating evolution as a "fact"? Nope--as long as you and I are willing to adjust our certain "facts" to conform to the new findings of empirical observations. 8)) But it is best that you and I not talk about "evolution as fact" to the creationists--because they have enough intelligence to distinguish between "facts" and the "conclusions" derived from the "facts." Our difficult job is to get the creationists to deal with reality. And using the phrase "evolution is fact" clutters the intellectual landscape by being wrong, wrong, wrong. The creationists are willing to deal with the "facts," and the "facts" are exactly what would be admissible in any court of law--the testimonial accounts of what happened. Is a fossil or a genome a testimonial account of what happened? Yes. A fossil or a genome would be "facts"--but neither a fossil nor a genome is evolution. Evolution is the "cause" for the "facts." ---Rednblu | Talk 01:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I need to keep refering back to gravity because I think to be consistent you would have to conclude that the statement "gravity is a fact" would also have to be "wrong wrong wrong" in your formulation of "fact" as above. If you can find me a creationist who will agree that by the criteria for claiming that evolution is not a "fact", gravity is also not a "fact", then I will concede the point. But creationists are fond of selectively culling certain parts of science they find controversial when real "criticism" is leveled against science in general not on, for example, evolution in particular.

If creationists would just accept that these arguments that you outline are applicable to any scientific model be it atomic physics, chemical principles, gravity, electromagnetism, physiology, etc. then they would at least be honest. Right now they (and somehow have convinced you to as well) tread on shaky groud of selectively choosing certain criteria for parts of science and other criteria for other parts of science.

Joshuaschroeder 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • We are just trading ideas. I would not want to convince you. 8))
  • It seems to me that gravity would be quite easy to introduce as "fact" into a courtroom. For example, you might ask me to testify what I had seen in the Torsion bar experiment. Better yet, I could bring the whole Torsion bar experiment, with permission of the court, into the courtroom as a demonstration. 8)) I would enclose the whole apparatus in plexiglass to keep the courtroom air-conditioning from swaying the suspended apparatus. I would project the 1) laser beam onto the wall opposite the jury box, I would mark the 2) first position of the laser beam dot on the wall with white tape, and I would mark the 3) second position of the laser beam dot after I moved the second mass half the distance to the first all the while the jury watched. "There, you see ladies and gentlemen, the two masses attract each other and twist the torsion bar and make the laser beam deflect to dot two when I move the two masses closer together."
  • What could I introduce as "fact" about evolution? You could get my friend to testify to what he has seen in the progressive mutations of skin cells in creating a cancer colony--together with progressive "genomes" of the mutating "species." The trouble with that series of "facts" is that there is no indication of increasing capability. What I mean by "evolution" is the 5 million year process by which the ancestors of the chimpanzees would speciate into the three different species--modern chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans. What I mean by "evolution" is the development of increasing capability to deal with the environmental niche. I could introduce lots of "facts" that make "evolution" a plausible "cause" for the "facts." But I could not introduce evolution as a "fact" into the courtroom--because what every available witness has seen is "facts" that strongly indicate that humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees; no one has seen it happen.
  • However, I argue at this stage, that just because the atomic bomb was not a "fact" when Einstein told Roosevelt about it does not lessen the impact; the "facts" strongly indicated that there was a tremendous atomic energy "cause" for the "facts" from Enrico Fermi's experiments. And the real question is "Where will you place your bets?" ---Rednblu | Talk 03:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I understand that you think the emphasis is incorrectly placed when scientists refer to framework arguments as facts, but I fail to see what harm it does since there isn't a consistent alternative being offered (except, if you will accept my idea that facts don't exist at all and everything is up to interpretation).

Joshuaschroeder 00:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • 8))
  • I personally do not object to you claiming that "evolution is fact"--if it helps you understand and engineer your world for a good cause. But when you assert to creationists that "evolution is fact" when clearly they are right that you are using "fact" to give something a little more legitimacy than it deserves, then I object. I object because claiming that "evolution is fact" makes it more difficult for creationists to look at the actual "facts"--which are the observables and the underlying evolutionary "cause" for those "facts."
  • Of course, scientists deal with framework "facts" all the time. And scientists deal with "facts" in a very malleable fashion. "Facts" are not a catechism that we learn as conclusory "facts." Framework "facts" are provisional. For example, without thinking much about it, you or I would easily call Newton's law of gravitation a framework "fact" when we both know that it is wrong--and just a caricature of what is really happening. For example, we both know that the singularity at r=0 is nonsense. Besides for small r, we both know that even more powerful strong forces take over and, hence, Newton's law of gravitation is wrong by not describing the appropriate force field for small r. So with all of those provisional disclaimers in operation, scientists have a very malleable but very practical understanding for "facts."
  • So what makes me curious is why scientists would assert in public that "evolution is fact." It is a really embarrassing thing to do--to claim that "evolution is fact" when the audience is right in jeering. Treating "evolution as fact" has never assisted science or assisted the scientists' understanding of what evolution is. Scientists just understand "evolution" like they understand geometry. When you understand geometry, you can make up your own theorems about it, and you can prove for yourself which theorems are right and which are wrong. It is a waste of time to approach Geometry with the attitude "geometry is fact." "Evolution is fact" makes it sound like the genetics students have to learn the catechism of facts. It is not that way. It is a matter of coming to understand the "causes" so that you are creative enough to design your own experiments to generate the "facts" that you need to discover to progress. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rfc

you're up. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JoshuaSchroeder -- Ungtss 16:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ungtss' FACTS

Joshua, I'm seriously thinking in making a request for mediation with Ungtss or, maybe, an arbitration. I casted my vote in the VfD process about Wikiproject:FACTS and considered a parallel policy. --Neigel von Teighen 20:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am in support, Neigel. Thanks. Joshuaschroeder 15:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

shall we discuss what the goal of this mediation / arbitration will be? Since I have boycotted creationism pages, i haven't had an edit conflict with schroeder in about a month. three other people have, of course. but what exactly do you and i have to mediate? Ungtss 16:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Funny how Ungtss claims to have boycotted pages but not only did he make edits to Deluge (mythology) again in the last few days (not "about a month") to add creationism ideas to what's supposed to be a mythology article (along with yet more personal attacks in the talk pages), but he's also trying to make his changes on the more obvious creationism pages by setting up his "FACTS" project (really an agenda-pushing group) to make changes for him. At this point, any claims he makes to have boycotted the pages in dispute cannot be taken seriously. DreamGuy 09:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Ungtss, judging by your choice of inflammatory language in your recent character assassination of Joshuaschroeder at Talk:Modern_geocentrism#civility, I'd say you have a lot to discuss in mediation.
Declining or abandoning mediation is considered very bad form and will reflect poorly on you if comments like those at Talk:Modern geocentrism land you in another RfC or an RfA.--FeloniousMonk 09:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Amazing. Schroeder vandalizes page titles, violates the 3rr, removes swaths of cited and quoted creationist ideas from creationist pages, attacks 203 as a troll in edit summaries (a brief history will show that 203 did not make a SINGLE personally directly remark, so the justification for attacking 203 in an edit summary remains quite mysterious), puts up an rfc without attempting to resolve the conflict, four days after the "conflict" is resolved by my unilateral withdrawl, and makes false accusations of sockpuppetry, but it's okay. nobody cares. In fact, nobody even takes the rfc down even LOONG after policy requires it, or bumps his rfc up even after it's certified. I document the above direct violations of policy in an rfc, and it's just a "revenge rfc." I encourage 138 to stop attacking schroeder without denying that what he is saying is true, and i'm inflammatory. i simply add links to critias and timaeus, and i'm "adding my pov to pages." i create a sandbox for npov subsequently joined by 8 different people, only two of which were creationists, and i'm "pushing my pov." i'll mediate if necessary -- reality is certainly on my side. how does one find a mediator with some sense of reality? Ungtss 14:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:138.130.201.204

FYI-- I've left User:138.130.201.204 an admonition against making further personal attacks, and specifically those directed at you. If you find this behavior continuing, I suggest RfC. Further, his continually labeling you a 'POV vandal' is considered a form personal attack. Ironic, coming from someone so clearly bent of promoting his particular POV. Sadly, wikipedia is a magnet for this sort and I fear more trouble from this user in the future. Good luck and cheers.--FeloniousMonk 09:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you'll note in the edit history that shroeder kicked things off by calling 203 a troll. irrelevent, i know, since only creationists are capable of sin under this regime. just an interesting fact to note. Ungtss 14:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mediation

i have looked over the policies and procedures, and it looks promising, at least on paper. i'd like to go to mediation. i would like the issues to be:

Please help the factions:
  1. work together to develop a coherent articulation and application of the rules of npov for these pages.
  2. determine whether it is appropriate to have creationist views on geocentrism on the geocentrism page.
  3. determine whether the long personal research essay at the end of creationism is appropriate.
  4. determine under what circumstances it is appropriate to delete cited and quoted creationist views from pages about creationism.
Feel free to add any more if you like. I would also like to request that the mediation committee select a mediator who is moderate or agnostic on the issue itself, to allow for objectivity, and that the discussion focus on the policies of npov as they STAND, not the hopes of some factions to change NPOV to SPOV. Do you accept? Ungtss 19:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flood Geology - Comparison with mainstream geology

You (since you are the person who added the words) have not replied to my request on the Flood Geology talk page to clarify the (deliberate?) lumping together of evidence of catastrophic burial (i.e. raindrop wind/water ripple patterns in geological strata boundaries) with disputes concerning ichnological matters. Will you respond, or shall I attempt to reword the section without your input? Wdanwatts 20:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the talkpage briefly and didn't see what you were referring to. The supposed "evidence" for catastophic burial is not considered empirically sound by the vast majority of geologists. Is this the problem? Joshuaschroeder 22:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes. That is the problem exactly, or more to the point its conflation with footprints appears to leave the issue confused. Perhaps a reference to the empirical unsoundness of using rain/ripple marks in stone as evidence of catastrophism would be useful at this point. Wdanwatts 23:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you saying that you haven't ever read a text that explains the formation of ripple marks in sedimentary rock? Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That would be a true statement. Jacobs/Russell/Wilson 1974 "Physics and Geology" [ISBN 0-07-032148-5] only mention ripples and rain marks negatively (as in are not formed in ...) when discussing volcanic andesite sediment, and Fairbridge's (ed.) 1968 "Encyclopedia of Geomorphology" [Library of Congress 68-58342] does not (as far as I have read it) discuss the rate of lithification necessary to record such (ephemeral?) surface marks. Fairbridge comes closest to discussing rapid lithification with the statements "Recently cemented beaches ... contain many of these structures" and "some beachrock ... has been cemented since World War II." These books are (so far) the sum total of my contact with geological theory. If you would care to point out a better source, I would gladly look at it if I can. Wdanwatts 17:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You probably want to look for books on sedimentology rather than geology in general. Joshuaschroeder 17:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After looking at six (four that actually addressed sediment formation) books concerning sedimenary rock, I still don't see any information on the rate of sediment formation, other than the note that beachrock can apparently form in less than a year. Do you have any specific books in mind? Dan Watts 15:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
What books did you look at? Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long, I was not where the books were this weekend. I looked at "Sedimentology of some Flysch Deposits" A. H. Bouma, Elsevier 1962 (Purely descriptive),"The Techniques of Sedimentary Mineralogy" F. G. Tickell, Elsevier 1965 (Also descriptive), "Carbonate Rocks - Origin, Occurrence and Classification", Chilingar, Bissell, Fairbridge Eds., Elsevier 1967 (this one uses the word diagenesis, but has little/no information on diagenesis rates), "Carbonate Rocks - Physical and Chemical Aspects", Chilingar, Bissell, Fairbridge Eds., Elsevier 1967 (this one also mentions diagenesis, but little/nothing on actual rates), "Origin of Sedimentary Rocks", Blatt, Middleton, Murray, Prentice-Hall 1972 (contains discussion of wind, water ripples, but again, no time rate information), and "Principles of Sedimentology", Friedman and Sanders, John Wiley & sons 1978 (which includes some stuff they wrote in Carbonate Rocks - Origin, Occurrence and Classification about dolostones and limestones and decent discussions of flow regimes and how they affect/effect ripples, but again nothing about diagenesis rates). Do you have/know sources concerning the rates of lithification and why ripples/rain marks should/could be preserved? Dan Watts 19:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
You might try this text: TUCKER, M.E. 2001. Sedimentary Petrology: an introduction to the origin of sedimentary rocks. Joshuaschroeder 21:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look for it. Dan Watts 02:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I got that one today. Dan Watts 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation science and POV

User:Bensaccount believes that the creation science page should start "Creation science is pseudoscience which...". Even though I agree with him that "creation science" is pseudoscience, it seems to me flagrantly contrary to the NPOV rule of Wikipedia to start the article that way, and I fear that excessive shouting stridency in defence of real science will only rob the page of credibility and indeed lend credibility to the nonsense-mongers. If I revert him one more time, it's a revert war. I've tried discussing it with him in talk, and he just says "well, it's true, so why not say it?"; since everyone thinks that their opinions are "the truth" this amounts to "NPOV be damned, all my edits are right".

The Scientology article doesn't start "Scientology is a murderous, cynically money-grabbing cult which..."; if we can be that nice even to them, we can be nice to the creation scientists, and damn them much more effectively with not with loud words but with the ridiculousness of their ideas.

I don't want to resort to formal dispute resolution if I can avoid it; as one of the other anti-creationist contributors to the page, I'd be very interested to know what you think about this. -- ciphergoth 12:35, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I do think that we can rewrite the intro. Posting an option on the talkpage first will probably help your case. Bensacount will comment. Joshuaschroeder 14:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your noticing the creationists' invasion of the page on liquefaction and removing it. In turn I edited their page, which is cleverly written so as to seem impartial, but which actually insults the scientific approach by tarring scientists as believers in (simple or crass) materialism. I modified that part. Pdn 20:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For policy on Pseudoscience as it relates to NPOV, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience. The section below that about Giving "equal validity" is also very relevant to the discussion. In short, it's not against NPOV to point out something is considered pseudoscience, in fact it's basically required to describe the topic fairly. Similarly, just because someone has a view it doesn't mean it should be given equal time (or more time, as the case for the Creationism and related pages as they exist here currently). With this in mind, User:Bensaccount was sort of on the right track. I made changes to the Creation science page to reflect reality and Wikipedia policy. You should make similar changes on related articles. DreamGuy 21:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

<<Thanks for your noticing the creationists' invasion of the page on liquefaction and removing it.>>

Pdn, if you look at the page history, you'll note that a creationist wrote the page on liquefaction. In fact, it was i. you'll also note that it was the anti-creationists who invaded it, in order to make sure there was no reference to creationism on it, even in external links, despite relevence. and why? because creationism must be suppressed at all costs. Ungtss 12:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Such an argument is specious indeed. It would be as if a UFOlogist wrote the article on rocketry and peppered it with their own flights-of-fancy on alien propulsion systems and then claimed massive conspiracy when those references were removed. Liquefaction is an idea totally independent of creationism, developed without creationist help, and simply used by creationists in their own flights-of-fancy. There is nothing wrong with the flood geology page referencing liquefaction, but the inverse is not valid. Joshuaschroeder 23:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was responding to the accusation of "invading pages." i did not invade the page. i wrote it. you invaded it. Ungtss 00:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nobody made any accusation of creationists invading pages. It was you who made the peculiar accusation that "anti-creationists" invaded. Joshuaschroeder 16:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why are you calling PDN nobody? Dan Watts 14:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No compelling physical theory for first 10-33 s

Hi, Joshua. Thanks for correcting my erroneous sentence in the Big Bang article. However, the problems that led me to write that sentence are still in the article. Can you edit it or explain it to me or give me a reference (preferably on the Web) so the connections among the first three sentences of that paragraph are clear? What is the conflict between QM and GR? And what happened around 10-33 s that made a present physical theory possible? (Maybe that should be answered elsewhere in the article.) Thanks. —JerryFriedman 15:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you check out the articles on quantum gravity and Planck time you might get a feelings for the article is referring to. If this doesn't help, let me know. Joshuaschroeder 16:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang as creation myth

Hi. I added to Big Bang that parenthesis that some have called the Big Bang a creation myth, and I gave a reference in the Reference section under "Religion and Philosophy". (I must admit, though, that I was only going by descriptions on the Web that said A Dictionary of Creation Myths includes the Big Bang.)

First, if the position of naturalist philosophers belongs in the "Philosophical and religious interpretations" section of the article, then the position of people taking an anthropological approach, defining "creation myth" as any "origins belief" without any implication of falsehood, can be there too. ("Creation myth" redirects to "origins belief", by the way, and that article will give you a good idea of the points of view on this topic, though I don't think it integrates them very coherently.)

Second, I think Big Bang is getting into POV territory with "Some of these ideas purport to explain the cause of the Big Bang itself (first cause), and have been criticized by some naturalist philosophers as being modern creation myths." If you don't take the point of view that science is superior to myth—the majority of the U.S. doesn't and I suspect the majority of the world doesn't, at least for matters irrelevant to everyday practical problems—then the "criticism" is without force. You could equally well say, "The Big Bang theory has been criticized by some philosophers as a scientific theory, providing neither guidance nor comfort."

Even I, with some pro-scientific bias, felt that "criticized as being modern creation myths" seemed smug and unintentionally ironic, given that some people have called the Big Bang theory a modern creation myth. Maybe that paragraph needs to be rewritten, distinguishing in an NPOV way between scientific origin stories and myths in the sense of supernatural stories. —JerryFriedman 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark energy

I see that you removed my comment on the original nature of the cosmological constant from Big Bang - its being a constant. Your justification seeme to be that nowadays everyone endows the dark matter with an equation of state. But when you choose w = -1 as you mention, you are back to Einstein's cosmological constant. The evidence points that way. So, one view is that quintessence is a red herring, perhaps a bit like phlogiston or the luminiferous aether. I'll agree that w being unequal to -1 an idea that capable people pursue, and that in any case the value of the cosmological constant is hard to understand (I pointed that out to my Michigan State University students in 1977), but to introduce the "equation of state" and conclude w = -1 is kind of like adding the luminiferous aether and then concluding its density is zero, it seem to me. The cosmological constant was not defined by a density and a pressure - it was a constant of integration. You can make up a medium that has the same effect in the equations when w = -1 and say that this medium or substance has a density and a pressure, but that does not mean that the cosmological constant has or had a density and a pressure. I'd like to have some simplicity preserved, and a sense of Einstein's original theory, "until proven otherwise." Maybe there's some way of getting that in with fewer words than I used. Let's think on that. Pdn 20:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Universe model

Hey, I thought you might want to vote here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Electric Universe model. –Joke137 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on this page. It is too bad the original VfD wasn't as clear and succinct. I find it very frustrating how these things always fall into the "Delete pseudoscience" and "Keep don't suppress cutting edge science" camps, rather than actually trying to implement Wikipedia policy. –Joke137 18:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey Joshua, you may wish to see a concern I have here. (Just so you'll know.) -- Furchild 03:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Do not do that again. Circumventing a vfd vote is a big no no. If we allowed people to do what you did, then it would make vfd votes moot, consensus or no. --Woohookitty 04:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Science

I like your succinct 'dispute anything at odds...' version in the introduction. It allows individual interpretations which are acceptable to people on both sides of the discussion. (Have you read the lunar crater age stuff I linked?) Dan Watts 16:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you please weigh in on my "Latest attempt" at Talk:Creation science#Latest attempt. Even Bensaccount seems to like it. -- BRIAN0918  14:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am eagerly awaiting your response concerning uniformitarian medicine. Dan Watts 13:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC) - Thank you for your prompt response!

We join our protagonists in mid-conversation:
"While this has been entertaining, what are you talking about? The ONLY reference to the CRS in 'the article' is a link to the CRS web site. Where is this requirement 'on the outcomes of research'?" Dan Watts asked expectantly.
"Obviously you didn't read the Skeptic Magazine article", Joshua replied.
Dan, in his most sincere voice, asked: "Is that an article at www.skeptic.com? The reference I found was [4] and it does not seem to address the current issue at all."
Since then, Dan has seen multiple (at least two) links to an article highly critical of Duane Gish from that magazine on the Creation Science page, but has not seen the implied article concerning the CRS. Will Joshua impart the (possibly secret) knowledge to Dan, will he ignore this blatant attempt to engender a response? Stay tuned for "As the Controversy Swirls" Dan Watts 18:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Creation "Research" Society

Ah! A response! This web page speaks of requirements for MEMBERSHIP in the CRS. Where is the "requirement[s] on the outcomes of research" of which you spoke so negatively? Requirements concerning submitted papers is not mentioned in the membership information that you referenced. Is there a reference concerning that subject, and will you [supply/point me to] it? Dan Watts 20:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Requirements in their own words

Is this what you are talking about?
"Thirdly, the essential purpose of the CRS is publication and research which impinge on creation as an alternate view of origins. The main publication of the Society is its quarterly, peer-reviewed journal which emphasizes original research and the reinterpretation of existing scientific data within the creationist framework."
It says that it EMPHASIZES these things. It does not say that this is a "requirement[s] on the outcome[s] of research." It does not say that only members may submit papers, or that the research conclusion is pre-determined. Is that your understanding? Dan Watts 21:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The reason it says "emphasize" is because they also include book reviews and letters to the editor in the journal. They do not allow submissions of research that are not creationist. Feel free to contact the organization if you think I'm lying. Joshuaschroeder 21:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I do not think that you are lying. I will ask. Do you know this from personal experience? Dan Watts 01:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do. I had a colleague submit to the magazine in order to find out what their agenda was. Joshuaschroeder 01:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science is Broken

Just in case you are interested. Found this page http://nov55.com/ovr.html explaining what is wrong with the current practice of "science". Written by a non-creationist biologist. RossNixon 11:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this site is complete drivel. --Ian Pitchford 12:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo

I was being charitable when I called the Flat Earth Society's premise a "hypothesis". It is, as you say, a "belief". Kudos for "telling it like it is". Whether it be the space program doubters, or the evolution doubters, or the holocaust doubters, once someone "believes" something, it is nearly impossible to shake that belief, no matter how much evidence is presented... especially when the believer is clearly an "ignoranimous", as Bugsy would say. :) Wahkeenah 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution controversy

If you look at my comment at the AfD, you'll see what content I think is ultimately appropriate. I just think it should be left as Ed Poor's version until the AfD run its course. It makes it easier for people to form an opinion without having to resort to the article history. That said, I wont be reverting it again. --GraemeL (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AN/3RR

FYI - your first diff goes to transhumanism. Might want to fix that. Guettarda 16:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ID

Thank you for your input on the Talk:Creationism page. I'm assuming that you are a scientist, and if not, then that's OK. Everyone has the rightaway on Wikipedia so long as they prove a certain amount of competence. I want to ask you a couple of questions before anything else is said:

"there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

In your opinion, does this statement carry any amount of truth?

OK, one more, if you don't mind.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Do you agree? If not, then I feel we will certainly have a difficult time understanding each other to any extent in the future. You see, my friend, science, and natural science are denoted as two seperate terms. Science is not restrained entirely behind a naturalistic threshold. Salva 21:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to define science with Einstein's quote. You need to open up your mind more - this is what I recall saying to you in our debate last spring, and you haven't changed at all. Of course, why would that be expected? Anyway, if you know anything about the late Albert Einstein, you would probably agree that the depths of that man's mind would have been nearly incomprehensible during his time. How else would he have developed his theories of relativity and quantum mechanics? The further Einstein delved into his research, the more he discovered about the makeup of the universe, physics, etc. and how complicated (irreducibly complex) the whole lot was. Would you call Einstein an IDiot or a crackpot creationist because he arrived at this conclusion? By the way, please post your responses on my user talk page. Thanks. Salva 23:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
That is correct. Now, you believe that that complexity is derived from spontaneous and entirely natural means, but you cannot yet prove it, and perhaps never will. I, on the contrary, believe that the same complexity was created by some sort of intelligent being, but cannot prove it, and likely never will. These are both great expectations, as it were, but alas - they are merely reflections of a deeper religious belief. Theism is attributable within my search for the truth, whereas atheism is attributable to yours. Einstein was not meaning to define science in sense of the word - he was stating a very plausible analogy to the latter. Salva 00:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So what? Einstein made observations that led him to say what he said. He was still a scientist and never strayed from scientific procedures. You seem to follow the same path, but have limited your search for the truth to anything that is natural. Remember what I said - natural science and science have different meanings. Where would technology be today if scientists throughout history never dared to believe the unbelievable? Salva 02:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, throw the philosophy of science. Supernatural science anyone? I'll get me coat. Of course, the science of trolling -- don't feed the idiots. You could drive horse and coaches through this piffle but don't bother. Try to keep sane, he's winding up Guettarda something chronic. Dunc|☺ 18:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From your user page...

From your user page...

You recently removed my point from the lunar landing hoax page. Can you explain your reasoning? The section I added is explicitely inviting responses, you should have placed your response there, instead of deleting surely? Richard 15:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Dunc|☺ 15:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should the 3RR rule apply?

Joshua, I lost track of how many times you and I have reverted each other at Terms used in the creation-evolution controversy, and frankly I have no plans to keep track of them. I would rather not use the 3RR rule "against you", because I think it would be unethical: "taking advantage" of rule just to get my way, instead of looking for a way to cooperate.

Perhaps after you read my comment at talk:Terms used in the creation-evolution controversy you might reconsider your decision to delete the paragraphs which Texture and I have been working on. Uncle Ed 17:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for arbitration

Just to let you know that I've put in a Requests for arbitration on various articles. --Iantresman 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alledged vandalism: (The Electric Universe (book))

Just to let you know that I consider your editing of the above article to be vandalism, for the reasons I give on the talk page. As far as I know, there is little in common between Körtvélyessy's book, and the Electric Universe concept page. Having looked through your contributions to many other articles, I actually consider you to be quite a proficient contributor. But those articles that appear to conflict with your professional interests, I feel that your contributions seem to have a common theme of censorship, denial, smear tactics and mis-representation. --Iantresman 00:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design edit

I have listened to the criticism, and found it wanting; in part because my points regarding distortion in the Wikipedia article are largely ignored. If anything, there is plenty of evidence on talk that Felonius has not considered the criticism of my changes. Let's take an example.

  • "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." (disproven and flatly contradicted by the leading proponent of irreducible complexity himself; see p. 249 of Darwin's Black Box)

I have tried explaining this again and again. And have tried to remove this distortion again and again, but it keeps popping up (along with the other distortion I have argued should be removed). May I ask why? And may I ask why you have made a reversion that distorts the minority position? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alledged vandalism: (Plasma cosmology)

Just to let you know that I consider your editing of the above article to be vandalism, for the reasons I give on the talk page. --Iantresman 14:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Referenced material

Joshua ... dont remove the damn referenced material. JDR 20:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Baryogenesis occurs

I defer to your knowledge of Timeline of the Universe, but the resulting article leaves me more confused than ever. It says there is a hadron epoch, and hadrons are baryons and mesons, and afterwards there is a lepton epoch, where hydrogen nuclei (baryons) are formed and baryogenesis occurs. Why is the hadron epoch called a hadron epoch if there aren't any baryons? Art LaPella 18:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, then going with your definition, do you think it would make it easier for the rest of us to understand if we changed it to "Baryogenesis occurs (not to be confused with the genesis of baryons)"? Then we would replace the first sentence of baryogenesis: "Baryogenesis is ... processes that generate ... baryon[s]", with your definition. Art LaPella 00:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elerner RfC

I have added a request for comment on Eric Lerner's editing, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elerner. Please take a look at it and endorse if you feel it is appropriate. –Joke137 00:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joshuaschroeder (talk · contribs · block log)

Joshua, I blocked your account for 24 hours. Uncle Ed 19:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As you have undoubtedly noticed, Ed's block did not last long. You can see the brief but relevant discussion here. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-23 21:21:11Z

[edit] Username change

Your request has been completed. Regards — Dan | Talk 07:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joshuaschroeder is a gentleman who makes many fine edits

As such, I want him back... soon. A WikiVacation never hurt... I hope it will be a short one. - RoyBoy 800 18:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! I hope you have a relaxing wikibreak and can come back recharged and willing to help keep pseudoscience at bay. I have always enjoyed reading your comments; they're always thoughtful and informative. Best wishes... —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 05:57:14Z

Three cheers for Joshuaschroeder and others who care for evidence and logic and sources. 4.250.168.230 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (aka WAS 4.250)

[edit] Resignation and return

Joshua, I can see why you might have wanted to leave Wikipedia. You appear to disagree with the principle that articles on controversial topics should present all major perspectives on the controversy.

On the topic of evolution - particularly as seen by religious people - you seem especially exercised over the idea that anyone might disagree with your personal POV. Well, I'm sorry to break it to you but roughly 45% to 85% of Americans disagree with you. I suggest you get used to it.

My personal example may be helpful to you: I belong to a church which most people dismissed as a "cult" at the time I joined. I was annoyed at first, but I gradually came to accept their right to disagree. And being in the Wikipedia community has helped me to appreciate the value of letting other disagree even more.

When arguing for the deletion of unguided evolution you wrote:

The idea of "unguided evolution" is one that is claimed to be an atheist scientific view that eschews god.

If you followed the development of the article - instead of concentrating on censoring it - you might have discovered that the neologism "unguided evolution" is not necessarily atheistic, nor does it usually make a direct statement about God (or gods).

Deistic evolution - another article you insisted on censoring - clarifies the religious view that God created the life on earth but then took no further action. This is largely seen as compatible with evolution (in the sense of an "unguided, unplanned" process).

However, for many religious people, a statement that evolution was not guided or planned implies that God had no part in it. Even if scientists did not intend to "eschew God", Creationists generally interpret it that way, and many religious people believe that God actively guided evolution, so they feel it is important to make a distinction between divinely guided evolution and unguided evolution.

If the Unguided evolution page redirects to Evolution, readers will have a hard time to find the section of that article which discusses this distinction - even assuming there is one. So it would be better to make a sidebar article which makes the distinction clear.

Articles which clarify the distinction between similar or related concepts do not push POV, but they might make it hard for a majority of contributors to a lengthy, complex article to push their POV. Perhaps your real objection is that I have been making it difficult for you to keep pushing the POV that all evolution is unguided. As you probably know, opinion polls show that this POV is in the minority in the U.S. (only 15% of Americans accept this POV, while the 85% majority are split between either guided evolution or Creationism).

I hope that you will not "resign" but rather stay AND accept the non-negotiable Wikipedia position which forbids you to push your POV as "the truth", and that you will also be willing to let Wikipedia articles remain neutral about whether the POV you support is "true". Uncle Ed 19:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, that would really make me want to come back. FeloniousMonk 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"You appear to disagree with the principle that articles on controversial topics should present all major perspectives on the controversy." — Simply false, Ed. I have never seen this attitude in any of Joshua's edits. What I have seen is Joshua—rightly or wrongly—trying to draw a clearer line between science and pseudoscience. Sometimes this involves demoting non-mainstream theories in articles about mainstream science (e.g. Big Bang) and sometimes this involves noting the opinion of mainstream science on non-mainstream ideas (e.g. Electric Universe). There's a huge difference between this sort of activity and what you seem to be describing. You make it sound as though Joshua is trying to {{NPOV}} the God article because he's not a creationist. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-29 04:28:01Z

[edit] User:Ed Poor's comments moved from user page

No Ed - see [5] & the talk page. Guettarda 17:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw "1", and before I study the user talk page, maybe you can just tell me: are ScienceApologist and Joshuaschroeder the same person? That's all I want to know. Uncle Ed 18:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, apparently he changed his name before he quit. His edits are attributed to SA not to JS (see [6]; and [7]) and his talk page redirects here. Guettarda 18:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Also [8], wherein he explains his reason. Guettarda 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
If it is JS, following him around like this and exposing him would likely be viewed by him as more bullying behavior, Ed. Time to give it rest, and stop this. FeloniousMonk 20:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. I'm not following him around: I'm checking whether a user who said they were resigning actually did resign or is still posting under a new name. It affects future collaborative efforts.

  • If he's no longer posting at all, then there's no "him" to follow.
  • If he's still posting, then he didn't resign but merely changed his name

And please don't make personal remarks, FM. Your "more bullying behavior" remark is perilously close to a personal attack. It's tantamount to accusing me of being a bully - which is so insulting after my 4 years of championing the downtrodden of Wikipedia against bullies that I can hardly believe a usually genial guy like you made it! Uncle Ed 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Drawing reasonable assumptions from matters of public record and expressing concern over them in a relevant setting is not a personal attack. My goal here was to help you understand how JS may view your actions, which are not particularly friendly or welcoming, despite the 'you're always welcome here' tone of your earlier note. You'll find I'm neither tolerant of bullies nor easily intimidated. The only thing you need to do to avoid being identified as a bully by me is to not bully others, myself included. That would include not blocking editors you've been experiencing personal conflicts with, something which smacks of bullying. FeloniousMonk 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can I say

Welcome back? or should I pretend I didn't see your user page? KillerChihuahua 20:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, though I will confine myself to two projects only: the Arbitration with User:Reddi and the monitoring of POV-pushing at Redshift. --ScienceApologist 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
However limited, I am glad you are here. KillerChihuahua 00:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back, even in a limited capacity. I hope your efforts to keep the pseudoscientists at bay are successful. I'm not sure if I can be of much help, but please let me know if there's anything I can do! I'll start by adding Redshift to my watchlist... —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 05:15:40Z
It looks like your confinement has sprung a leak. Dan Watts 03:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me also say I am thrilled to see you back. And if you decide to expand your activities at some point, I'd be happy, although I won't complain if you remain limited either. I want to apologize for any bullying or harrassment you've received. That behavior was quite unacceptable. I'll try to do a better job making sure it doesn't happen again. Glad you're back, man. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me second why KS said. Whatever the capacity, we're all better off with you here, and I'm happy to see you not entirely gone. Guettarda 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Good to have you back, in some small way. The project is the better for it, I'm sure. -- Ec5618 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

*Waves* - RoyBoy 800 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete entire sections of the talk page at Redshift. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARedshift&diff=30629669&oldid=30626935 Sure, there's a lot going on. Maybe you did this by accident. It should be possible to include the photochemical usage of the term and other informal uages without caving in to pseudoscientific POV. Flying Jazz 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)