Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:36, 8 January 2007

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thanks for your contribution on Talk:List of closed Melbourne railway stations! It's good to have people here who are knowledgeable about Melbourne.

Was the station in Kororoit Creek Road itself, or just nearby? Also, have you had a look at some of the other blanks in the main list? Any assistance you could give would be much appreciated.

Ambivalenthysteria 06:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Status

Just to let you know that I am watching. :) With admiration, I must say. But I am keeping my signature on the edits and comments of Creationism and its Talk page for now to a minimum--just to let things cool off a bit. I saw you changed the label again to "One point of view." Bravo! I cannot believe the steadfastness of some certain individual in insisting that the Encyclopedia Britannica is creationist! I am curious what happens next! :) Here is some data that may prove useful as you make your next decisions. There were some late night exchanges on the bottoms of the Rednblu, FeloniousMonk, and Pjacobi Talk pages that you might like to know about. I suggest you don't bother spending too much time with those orations if they don't give you ideas in how to proceed. I'll be watching. And of course, anything we say on these talk pages can and will be used against us! :)) As if we had anything to hide. ---Rednblu 00:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV Edits to Talk:Creationism

I've reverted your POV comments to the previous version that RednBlu and myself had settled on. For the sake of other readers and a fair description of the issue, please keep POV comments out of the discussion outline for Talk:Creationism, you can make your points in the discussion itself at Talk:Creationism/What_is_wrong_with_the_lead_section--FeloniousMonk 03:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trams

NB: My responses to Adam, shown here highlighted, were originally posted on his talk page(), but they have been deleted from there, and for completeness I have copied them into here

Adam, I've altered the captions in Trams in Melbourne (why did you alter the caption of the one that was already there?), but you might like to add in where they were taken. I think No. 3 (and possibly No. 2 also) is in Victoria Parade, but I'm not certain enough to say so.

Also, there is a problem with the photographs. Clicking on either of the first two shows an enlarged version of a different photograph. The third one works okay. I have no idea what the problem is here, so am unable to fix it.

Philip, all three photos were taken in Victoria Pde, the top two at the stop outside the Eye and Ear Hospital and the third a bit further west outside St Vincent's. The photos all click through to the correct versions for me.

On Misplaced Pages's world-view, I did not mean to use "humanist" to suggest "anti-Christian." To most people it means simply "reflecting broadly humane values." While I would certainly oppose articles which overtly reflected a Christian ideology, I would also oppose those which reflected an anti-Christian ideology. But I do maintain that Misplaced Pages must take a rationalist and secular view. Thus I would oppose an article saying "God made the world in seven days," because that is a not a proposition which can be scientifically sustained. Adam 02:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page:

• The problem with the tram pictures seems to be something to do with updating. For the first picture, I was still seeing the old picture that yours replaced. When I clicked through, I got your new picture. For the second picture, however, I saw your new picture and clicking through gave me the old one! It now seems to be working okay for me, but now I'll have to go back and change the captions! As they are (nearly) all at the same place, I won't include the location in the captions.
• I notice that Misplaced Pages doesn't handle pictures properly in its history. Showing the Tram page as it was before you uploaded the new pictures still gives the new pictures, but with the old captions. Thus your picture of an A class tram shows up in the section about W-class trams, saying that it is a W class! (See )
• Regarding "humanist", perhaps it was your use of the word in the same phrase as "secular" and "rationalist" that misled me. Your statement seemed to be very much one of excluding a Christian (for example) worldview. I wouldn't expect Misplaced Pages to state (as a matter of fact) that the world was created in seven days. But then neither would I expect it to state (as a matter of fact) that the universe was billions of years old and commenced from the "Big Bang", as they are also ideas deriving from particular worldviews (in this case, secular/secular humanist/agnostic/atheistic/etc. worldviews).
• By the way, just out of curiosity, why did you create my user page?

Philip J. Rayment 03:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I created a User page because I dislike red links, as do most other Wikipedians. Red links cry out for articles!

I think we do have a fundamental difference in opinions about the nature of knowledge, which is a problem, since we are both supposed to working for the name knowledge-based project. The statement "God made the world in seven days" is a statement of faith. Chistians who believe it do so based on scripture, which they consider to be a revelation of the word of God. The statement "The universe is billions of years old and was created at the Big Bang" is a statement of science, based on empirical observation interpreted through reason. It might prove to be a false statement, but if it is false that is because both our observation and our reasoning are imperfect, and the path to better knowledge lies through more observation and better reasoning. An encyclopaedia has to stand for one form of knowledge or the other, it cannot really encompass both, since they are in contradiction. My view is that Misplaced Pages should stand for knowledge based on science and not on revelation. Adam 08:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A simple request

Please stop your repeated characterizations of me as an "evolutionist", etc.. I have corrected you once on this already but I see you're still at it. One more time, you're misrepresenting me and my position- I'm a Rationalist and I'm asking that you stop.--FeloniousMonk 01:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I responded to your previous "correction" by pointing out that I was using the word to mean someone who believes in evolution. I believe that to be a correct use of the word, and I believe that you do believe in evolution. Could you therefore point out exactly how it is wrong? People can be labelled in many ways. I could be (correctly) labelled an Australian, a Christian, a protestant, an evangelical, a creationist, etc. Which one of those I would use depends on the circumstances. If the context is creation and evolution, then referring to you as an evolutionist seems entirely appropriate. When it comes to names, I generally do like to use the name that the person themself prefers (thus I like to be called Philip rather than Phil), but when it comes to descriptive terms, I would prefer to use the most appropriate term for the particular context. Please explain to me where my thinking is wrong on this. Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because it is invalid to say someone believes in a scientific theory, since by the definition of Popper, science is based on the elimination of belief. In the academic sphere, evolutionist is given for something who studies and works on evolution as a career, not to someone who agrees currently with its principles, which is generally taken as true by default.--Fangz 00:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<<Because it is invalid to say someone believes in a scientific theory, since by the definition of Popper, science is based on the elimination of belief.>>
That surely depends on your use of the word "believe". According to Merriam-Webster Online, one of the meanings is "to accept as true, genuine, or real". With that definition, it is quite proper to say that someone believes in evolution.

<<In the academic sphere, evolutionist is given for something who studies and works on evolution as a career, not to someone who agrees currently with its principles, ...>>
Merriam-Webster Online does not give a definition for evolutionist, but for -ist, it offers the following among others:

• one that specializes in a (specified) art or science or skill.
• one that adheres to or advocates a (specified) doctrine or system or code of behavior

The first definition is consistent with what you are saying, but the second is consistent with my use of the word. So my use would appear to be legimate.
The Oxford dictionary, however, does give a definition, and one definition only, that being:

• a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

This indicates that my use is accurate and yours is not!
But even if I accept your use, what word should I use instead to indicate someone that believes evolution to be true?
Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But not everyone who agrees with evolution at present believes in it!

Doctrine:

• A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
• A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
• A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.

And so, if you do not believe in evolution, you cannot be an -ist.

Then there is the issue of acceptance. What do you mean by accept something to be true? In the general sphere of creationist, belief is taken as acceptance - without question. As in, I believe X, Y and Z are self-evident etc etc. By Popper, we never accept a theory as true. We accept there is no reason at present to believe it is false, and we accept that it is useful as a theory. We never accept something to be true, because we can never prove that to be so.

<<But even if I accept your use, what word should I use instead to indicate someone that believes evolution to be true?>>

Evolutionist. But not every scientific supporter of evolution is an evolution-ist.--Fangz 00:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<<But not everyone who agrees with evolution at present believes in it!>>
Huh? To substitute other words for "believes", you are saying that "not everyone who agrees with evolution accepts it as true, genuine, or real"! Could you explain that to me?

<<By Popper, we never accept a theory as true. We accept there is no reason at present to believe it is false, and we accept that it is useful as a theory. We never accept something to be true, because we can never prove that to be so.>>
Now you are splitting hairs and playing with words. I accept that in science nothing can ever be proved, but you are taking that concept too far. Are you saying that you don't accept that it's true that you exist, that the world exists, that science exists, that we are both typing in English, etc. etc.? Would you stand up in a group of evolutionary biologists and state for all to hear that you don't accept that evolution is true (without clarifying what you mean by that sentence)? Even if you would do that, do you really think that those biologists would understand you to mean what you have just written above?
Philip J. Rayment 01:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

according to genesis

heya -- rednblue + i have been working on an "alternative" to the creation according to genesis page , and we're gonna bring it up for a vote when we're done -- i'd REALLY appreciate your help in making it shine if you would -- i just got tired of edit-warring with mr. everything-in-the-bible-is-a-hateful-conspiracy-and-horrible-evil-lie Cheesedreams. User:Rednblu/tempMinorityOpinionPage -- thanks! Ungtss 03:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

great work! any other substantive ideas to put in? Ungtss 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flood geology

i don't know if it's on your watchlist, but i've started fleshing it out -- appreciate all the help i can get:). (naughty, naughty edit conflict!:) Ungtss 03:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thanks

heya! appreciate your clearing up the true YEC take on things so much of the time -- like i say, i don't go to church, so i'm kinda out of the loop with these things:). i'll try to use the preview button more often ... i find for some reason i always get errors when i use it -- either it won't upload or somebody preempts me ... but i'll try and do better when things are quiet:). Ungtss 15:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

flood myths

hey ... we've got censorship problems on the flood myth page ... would appreciate your help in resolving them whenever you get the chance:). Ungtss 00:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another time it is better never to revert text because you don't understand it. Revert vandalism and graffiti and pov assertions made in bad faith. Post doubtful text in the Talk page to be worked on. We'll edit it so that you do understand it. Thanks. --Wetman 15:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

heya!

hey bro -- i've been working on Creation biology -- care to take a look and make all the edits you feel are appropriate before i link it up to the creationism template and subject it to the usual vandalism? Ungtss 17:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

another one

care to work your magic on Creation geology? Ungtss 19:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

mediation

Hi, can you try to reason with user:138.130.194.229/user:220.244.224.8/user:138.130.195.166? He isn't doing himself any favours at the moment and might be more receptive to reasoning from someone who shares his POV rather from an evil atheist scientist. Tell him he can either start to be reasonable, or we'll have to escalate it further and go to the arbcom and have him banned. Nibbling away and being polite rather than being overly aggressive would ultimately bring better results for you. (Cheesedreams didn't realise this from the opposite angle and she ended up in trouble). He could be a good contributor to your creation wiki, mind. Dunc|☺ 21:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. However, having reviewed the claims on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/138.130.194.229, I cannot support the accusations against him, as I have now stated there. Philip J. Rayment 11:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible

I modified the text to mention Genesis 5:4 (removing the "this is utterly false" comment, though I agree with that comment).

Lilith is sometimes presented as the mother of the "other woman" who is available for Seth to marry. I think the article on Lilith goes into more detail there. Mpolo 13:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

rfc's all around ...

i've got schroeder up for rfc in response to his frivolous rfc of me. i note he continues to abuse you on young earth creationism, as i know he's been doing for months. if you're interested, feel free to contribute to the RfC. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JoshuaSchroeder Personally, i've boycotted the creationism pages due to the seemingly endless systemic bias, so as soon as his charade of a RfC is deleted, you'll have to battle him all by yourself -- but i figured i'd let you know, it's been a great pleasure working with you:). Ungtss 16:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you look at Young Earth Creationism again?

Hey, could you look at Young Earth Creationism again? One editor has basically declared an edit war against eny editor who wants to have the full creation story in the Young Earth Creationism article. As you know, I'm no YEC, but I fully support the article having a balanced viewpoint, and I don't think YEC makes any sense unless we include the full creation story. Samboy 18:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(butting in). i fear the only way this nonsense will ever end is if a number of people of your intellectual persuasion (a viewpoint which is absolutely invaluable here -- you wonderful souls who hold to the goal of fairly representing beliefs with which you disagree) stand up to him and force him to stop. One on one edit wars will never succeed with him (or his previous iterations, Bensaccount and Cheesedreams). It's gonna take a consensus effort among evolutionists and creationists alike to fight off this nonsense. otherwise, these pages will ALWAYS be a pov campaign by the latest zealot to get off the boat:(. Ungtss 19:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Formal invitation

Mr. Rayment, you've been invited to become a member of FACTS. If you'd like to learn more, have a look around the society: User:FACTS. Hope to see you there:). Ungtss 23:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please help with vandalism

Hi there. There are articles such as modern geocentrism, created kinds and Creationist cosmologies where an anon has made perfectly good edits and one Joshua Schroeder keeps on knocking them off. 138.130.201.204 09:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, i'm afraid it's never going to end with him. what we need are specific policies, and the enforcement of those policies, or pov warriors like schroeder will simply continue to vandalize and suppress ideas that scare him. toward that end, i would greatly appreciate your assistance, however, at Wikiproject:FACTS, in attempting to work around his nonsense (and the nonsense of those like him) in the hope of eventually achieving npov on the main pages. Ungtss 13:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see that David Cannon is a sysop now, and he has contributed to some YEC articles. I'll have a look at that FACTS project. 138.130.201.204 04:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Phillip, I like your profile. I think it is amazing to see a creationist come out of Austrailia or even a Christian for that matter. No offense to Austrailians, but it is pretty secular over down under there.

Have you ever heard of Doug Stanton? He is an evangelist from Austrailia, who comes to Minnesota to preach. Sorry, to ask you questions here, but I didn't see an e-mail address. you can reply if you like at richardgaryson@yahoo.com

Beneficial Mutation and Natural Selection

If creationists believe in this stuff, then what is the difference b/w them and evolution? Also, how do you explain dinosaurs. Also, how do you know your religion is right and other people's is wrong. Do you think you are smarter than Asian buddists? Are you racist? Mike

If creationists believe in this stuff, then what is the difference b/w them and evolution?

You don't know? How is it that you seem to think that you know enough about the issue to be surprised that I believe it, yet don't know the answer to this? Perhaps you don't really know much about it at all? Perhaps you are simply bigoted.

But as you asked, I'll save you the bother of searching for the answer yourself, and point you to Genetics: no friend of evolution which will answer your question about beneficial mutations and natural selection.

Also, how do you explain dinosaurs.

What is there to explain? You haven't stated what the problem with dinosaurs is that I need to explain.

I don't think I'm smarter than Asian Buddhists. People can be very intelligent but wrong. How do you know that your beliefs are right and mine are wrong?

No, why would you think that? The Bible teaches that we are all descended from one original couple, that we are all children of God. That leaves little room for racism. Darwin, on the other hand, believed that the Australian Aborigines were less evolved than the white race. So are you racist?

Philip J. Rayment 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying all non-fundamentalists are racists if they believe in evolution? Wow... way to simplify the issues Phil. --202.164.195.56 09:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. That was your simplistic conclusion. Philip J. Rayment 17:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was yours Phil. see below:

--202.164.195.56 03:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was you that originally asked if I was racist, apparently solely on the strength of me being a creationist. I replied in like manner by asking if you were a racist. If you think that it is simplistic for me to ask if you are a racist on the basis of you being an evolutionist, then surely it is simplistic for you you have asked me a similar question in the first place. Additionally, because evolution and racism have strong links, such as Darwin's views on the matter, I actually had more basis for asking the question than you did. — Philip J. Rayment 04:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice... Bit weird how you manage to contradict yourself in the space of one paragraph on one point. You complain about my simplicity, yet reaffirm your own. Congratulations, I am sure it's only days until you convert the masses.

I find it a little ironic that someone who believes in the bible word for word would lecture someone else about racial division. Plus I am quite certain that your christian bretheran have committed numerous atrocities such as slavery and slaughter in the name of Christianity. I wouldn't consider it fair game to generalise that all current Christians have such warped beliefs, yet you have no problem arguing that all evolutionists believe in racial profiling. You appear to have a massive chip on your shoulder Phillipe, do you think god would be proud of you spending hours a day on the internet fighting wikipedia edit crusades? You will spend eternity in purgatory you stubborn, blinkered, zealot.

--202.164.195.56 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bit weird how you manage to contradict yourself in the space of one paragraph on one point. You complain about my simplicity, yet reaffirm your own.

How did I contradict myself? How did I supposedly reaffirm my own simplicity?

I find it a little ironic that someone who believes in the bible word for word would lecture someone else about racial division.

Due, no doubt, to your own blinkered views on what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not support racism and you have offered no argument that it does. Yet you somehow presume to suggest that I'm racist because I believe the Bible.

Plus I am quite certain that your christian bretheran have committed numerous atrocities such as slavery and slaughter in the name of Christianity.

Then you would be wrong. Sure, some people probably have done such things, but anybody could do such things and claim to be Christian. The real question is whether they are actually acting according to Biblical teaching. Such people who go against Biblical teaching could not rightly be described as my "christian bretheran (sic)".

I wouldn't consider it fair game to generalise that all current Christians have such warped beliefs,...

Yet that seems to be your presumption, in asking if I'm a racist simply because I believe the Bible.

...yet you have no problem arguing that all evolutionists believe in racial profiling.

I did no such thing. What I did is say that there is a strong link between evolution and racism. I did not say that all evolutionists are consistent with that and are racist. Please read what I write and don't put words into my mouth.

You appear to have a massive chip on your shoulder Phillipe, do you think god would be proud of you spending hours a day on the internet fighting wikipedia edit crusades?

You started this with an attack on me because of my beliefs. That suggests that it is you, not me, with a chip on the shoulder. I do not spend "hours a day on the internet fighting wikipedia edit crusades", so that question is invalid.

You will spend eternity in purgatory you stubborn, blinkered, zealot.

So now you resort to insults? The refuge of one with no argument.

Philip J. Rayment 15:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How did I contradict myself? How did I supposedly reaffirm my own simplicity?

You concede that both our comments were simplistic:

If you think that it is simplistic for me to ask if you are a racist on the basis of you being an evolutionist, then surely it is simplistic for you you have asked me a similar question in the first place.

And yet you then go on to reinforce your previously simplistic assertion:

Additionally, because evolution and racism have strong links, such as Darwin's views on the matter, I actually had more basis for asking the question than you did.

Is that simplistic enough for you to understand?

there is a strong link between evolution and racism

You might be interested to know, that according to the theory of evolution, by definition, nothing in the world today can be more evolved than anything else. All living things you see today have evolved over the same period of time right back to single cell organisms.

Your assertion that those who believe in evolution believe "that the Australian Aborigines were less evolved than the white race" is by definition impossible. Evolutionists believe that while organisms may have evolved along different paths, it would be impossible for one current species to be more evolved than another. To clarify, I am not suggesting Aborigines and Asians are different species, but rather that your use of evolution-theory to suggest that one could be "more" evolved than the other is utterly incorrect.

Darwin may have had racist beliefs, but it is ridiculous of you to suggest that the current bank of information regarding evolution comes in its entirety from Darwin. Darwin was a preacher of evolution, he may have discovered it but he certainly did not invent it.

And Phil, if insults are the refuge of those with no argument, how would you classify placing snarky little (sic) comments next to incorrectly spelled words? It's not like you are translating historical documents here mate.

--202.164.195.56 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You concede that both our comments were simplistic

The question was simplistic, but I wasn't being simplistic in asking it; I was copying your style in order to highlight to you how silly your question was.

And yet you then go on to reinforce your previously simplistic assertion:

No, I provided evidence in support of the presumption behind the question.

You might be interested to know, that according to the theory of evolution, by definition, nothing in the world today can be more evolved than anything else. All living things you see today have evolved over the same period of time right back to single cell organisms.

Please supply a source for that, because I don't believe it. I agree that (according to the theory) everything has been evolving for the same period of time, but it does not follow from that that nothing is more evolved than anything else. Are you seriously suggesting that humans are no more evolved than blue-green algae, which is supposedly virtually identical to what it was 3.8 billion years ago?

Your assertion that those who believe in evolution believe "that the Australian Aborigines were less evolved than the white race" is by definition impossible.

You're still not reading very carefully. I didn't not assert that "those who believe in evolution" believe that. I asserted that Darwin believed that. It therefore follows that followers of Darwin might believe that, but I did not assert that they do.

Evolutionists believe that while organisms may have evolved along different paths, it would be impossible for one current species to be more evolved than another.

See above re blue-green algae.

Darwin may have had racist beliefs, but it is ridiculous of you to suggest that the current bank of information regarding evolution comes in its entirety from Darwin.

Any more ridiculous than you asking if I'm a racist simply because I believe the Bible? But yes, suggesting that it all comes from Darwin would be incorrect, if I had done that. But neither was it only Darwin who linked evolution and racism.

And Phil, if insults are the refuge of those with no argument, how would you classify placing snarky little (sic) comments next to incorrectly spelled words? It's not like you are translating historical documents here mate.

The use of "(sic)" is not limited to translation of historical documents. It can be used whenever something is quoted to indicate that the mistake is in the original.

Darwin was a preacher of evolution, he may have discovered it but he certainly did not invent it.

That's begging the question, because you can't "discover" something that doesn't exist. But I agree that he didn't invent it; the idea was around before him. Here "merely" gave it some respectability and popularised it.

Philip J. Rayment 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mernda/Meranda

my bad, just a typo, could of sworn i read it with as Meranda when i was looking it up else where. oh well i fixed all the links, and moved the Mernda station page so it should be all good now. another website u might not of come across for this stuff is , has the open/closing dates of lines/stations plus other important information on them. cheers mate --Dan027 15:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Coloured fonts in Melbourne railway articles

My mistake. I just ran across a station article with yellow, and maybe it's just my monitor, but it was hard to read. When I looked at the history, it looked like someone had just taken it upon themselves to add the color when they added the zone info, and the updates seemed pretty spread out chronologically (about one month), so I didn't think it was an assessed decision. Then I just started going down the line "fixing". I do think it's confusing with red & blue links, as well, but if the issue's been tackled already, I defer. ENeville 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Railway People Conspiring to Bring Down Misplaced Pages

Is it any coincidence that when Phillip P Raymond, LakeyBOY or Evan C get into an argument anywhere on wikipedia, that they all ineveitably run the opposing person down? I think there is something inherently wrong that you boys use your internet connections to win edit wars against people. Just because you all love trains and that, doesnt mean that you are pitted against the whole world. you sicken me.--202.164.195.56 09:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL --Dan027 10:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it any coincidence that when Phillip P Raymond, ...

It's a pity that you can't even get my name correct.

... LakeyBOY or Evan C get into an argument anywhere on wikipedia, that they all ineveitably run the opposing person down?

Inevitably? You wouldn't be exaggerating a tad there, would you? And this coming from the person who threatened to have "you all" (presumably including me) banned from Misplaced Pages for not providing sources for an article I didn't write!

I think there is something inherently wrong that you boys use your internet connections to win edit wars against people.

Huh? What "internet connections"? What are you talking about?

Just because you all love trains and that, doesnt mean that you are pitted against the whole world. you sicken me.

And loving trains has nothing to do with this, just like being a creationist has nothing to do with it. But that's twice now you've raised irrelevancies as a basis for criticism.

Philip J. Rayment 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alamein line

Thanks for correcting my non-professional use of the term 'branch line' in the article Alamein railway line, Melbourne ... I am out of Australia at the moment and away from any reference material, my addition was made from unreliable memory. As I recall in the early 70s the little shuttle service only operated on the weekends, perhaps only on Sunday (and perhaps it was always a single carriage, don't put any store in my 'two-carriage' recollection!). On the weekdays - as I recall - were the longer 'red rattlers' with the individual compartments, which had been phased out a little earlier on some other lines I think. I believe the only day the tickets could be bought from the guard (through a little window at the back of the carriage I think) was Sunday. The article doesn't quite read that way at the moment, but as (i) I don't have accces to reference material, & (ii) you seem more competent, I'd rather leave the fine-tuning up to you. Cheers. Stumps 20:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Shuttle services operated on weeknights and all day on Saturdays and Sundays. All except for Sundays were operated by 2-car (M-D) sets. For much of Saturdays, and perhaps early on weekday evenings, two sets operated the service. One of the two sets included a double-ended motor carriage, and on Sundays this double-ended motor operated by itself. I don't know when the guard sold tickets. It could have been on Sundays only, but some if not all of the M-D sets were walk-through, presumably to facilitate ticket sales on 2-car trains, which, as I have noted above, did not operate on Sundays. But perhaps this applied on the other shuttle services (Altona and Hurstbridge), not Alamein? Philip J. Rayment 14:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

far be it from a reply

hi phil. this is not a reply to our ongoing argument. I have some serious exams coming so my response to your quotes may be a while.

just wondering your opinion on:

1. why there are hot and cold areas on the earth?
2. why is there such inequity? Why has my life up to this point been so much easier than others?
3. what is the purpose of this, I really don't get it. I am a person who has been given every opportunity to pursue enrichment and intelligence, and yet I am a devout agnostic. For all my education, I cannot see why christianity is more "right" than islam or buddism or hinduism or anything.
4. To be honest, I dont think that you could tell me that you know your "god" (inverted commers meaning no offence)is any more enlightened than anyone elses.
5. I honestly dont think that any religious person could tell me the difference between their god and another's without referring to a religious text which relies on other people's accounts.

I would love a non-quote based reply phil. This is a completely non-provocative post Phil, or at least I mean it to be!

Mike--202.164.195.56 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike, because you want a "non-quote based reply" (by which I assume that you don't want me quoting your individual questions), I've numbered your points for easy reference.

And thanks for the non-provocative post. I'm happy to answer genuine questions. However, if you want to take either discussion much further, perhaps Misplaced Pages is not the place to do it. It might be better to contact me by e-mail (although you might have to be registered and logged in for that to work; I'm not sure).

1. I'm not sure what you are getting at with this one. Hot and cold areas are due to elevation and nearness to the equator. But perhaps you are asking why God would have created it that way? One answer could be for the sake of variety; it would be a less interesting planet if everywhere had the same temperature. But perhaps more relevant is, what benefit does a variety of temperatures provide? This is not an area I've studied much, but a range of temperatures powers winds and currents, which help provide a fresh climate and the like.
2. The Bible teaches us that this planet is not how God intended it to be. He created a perfect world (i.e. without defect), but due to man rejecting God (see The Fall of Man), the world has "run down" and is no longer the defect-free place it was meant to be. Therefore, we have death, suffering, and various inequalities, such as some people being rich and others poor, etc.
3. I'm not sure what you are getting at when you ask about the purpose of this; what is "this"? As for why Christianity is more "right", it would seem that you are of the (common) belief that religion is merely something in one's head; nothing more than a fact-free belief. However, Christianity (and some other religions) make truth claims, i.e. claims about things being factually true. Also, some of the truth claims that Christianity makes are mutually exclusive with truth claims made by other religions. For example, Christianity claims that God is a Triune being. Other religions claim that God is a single being. When you have two contradictory claims like this, you have two possibilities: either one claim is correct and the other incorrect, or both claims are incorrect. Clearly both claims cannot be true. If follows that if Christianity is correct about its claims, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. cannot be true. Of course that doesn't actually answer which one is true or whether any are true, but it does show that they cannot all be true.
   Another point of view (aka worldview, aka religion) is the humanistic/atheistic one (which agnosticism is similar to in practice, if not in principle). But again, atheism and Christianity make contradictory truth claims, so both cannot be true. One other point to consider is that the contradictory claims can, between them, be all-encompassing. For example, Christianity claims God exists and atheism claims that he doesn't exist. There are no other possibilities—one of the two must be true. So in many respects, the option I presented above of all worldviews being incorrect is not actually an option. One of the worldviews/religions must be correct (not necessarily in every point, of course, but in at least one of their key claims, such as about the existence of God.
   So, in theory at least, it is entirely logical and possible that Christianity is "more right" than other religions. All that remains is to test the claims of each and see which one is "more right".
4. God, by definition, is a unique being. So the question is not whether he is more enlightened than any other god (as there is no other god), but which (if any) claim of God is actually true.
5. You question presupposes something that is not necessarily true; that all religious text are merely people's accounts. Christians believe that the Bible is actually God's account; not man's. You also seem to presume that religious texts are all totally unable to be examined for accuracy and reliability. However, in the case of the Bible, a very large proportion of the text is history, and much of this history is verifiably true. Of course it is not possible to verify every bit of it, and ultimately it is believed by faith. But think of this: How did your learn things, say in school? You believed, by faith, things that you were taught by your teachers. Why did you believe them? There are a number of possible answers to that, but one would be because you were able to check out some of the things that they said, and they were correct on those things, so you considered them reliable and trustworthy. If you found that one of your teachers was telling you some things that weren't true, you'd probably be suspicious of everything he said. It is similar with the Bible; if you find it trustworthy on the things that you can check, it is reasonable to trust it on the things that you can't check.

Philip J. Rayment 04:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks phil

Mike--202.164.195.56 30 October 2006

Jonathan Sarfati

It should probably be pointed out that the article now seen is not the article nominated: When the keeps started coming in, saying to fix the POV, I realised it probably wasn't going to go forward, and had a look at how it might be fixable. This involved moving some sections to the talk page, for revision and work, to balance out the article, as I couldn't see any other way to get it near-NPOV in the short term. As it stands now, I'd say it's... well, it's at or near NPOV, despite not being a very good article.

There is quite a lot of useful material in those sections, but the article was seriously unbalanced with them in. It may be you disagree with the choices of removal, and I'm not saying my actions were necessarily right, though I hope they were at least somewhat. Adam Cuerden 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that you cut significant sections out of the article, and I had already seen the fuller version. That doesn't change my opinion one iota. Removing descriptions of Sarfati's views does not help the POV, which was already an anti-Sarfati('s views) POV. To repeat my comments in the AfD page, it is supposed to be an article about Sarfati, which includes describing his views, not an article giving "balance" to his views. Given that most scientists don't have sections with "criticisms", the very idea of trying to provide "balance" to his views (because you don't agree with them) is itself POV.

Can you provide specifics as to exactly what was wrong with the bits that you removed?

Philip J. Rayment 08:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

List of rail accidents

There is currently a discussion about whether we should set criteria for inlcusion of accients on the List of rail accidents page, and if so what the criteria should be.

The discussion is located at Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion, where your input would be most welcome. Thryduulf 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Wow I didnt realize I was such a "bad guy". I am sorry you feel that way Philip, but to be honest, Orangemarlin, myself and others do not want a nonneutral WP article either. It is a matter of POV whether a given article, or given statement in an article is neutral or not. This might have been frustrating for you. However, it is also incredibly frustrating for someone interested in NOT pushing a particular narrow religious view of some extremist groups to have articles and editors attacked as being atheists, satanic, stupid, ignorant, etc. If you want a debate by email, maybe I will drop a line on your page. However, the "physics changing" I was commenting on I realize might have been in error. Maybe not. I had thought that the rainbow was a covenant between God and Man to never Flood the earth again. Before the Flood, there were no rainbows and after, there were rainbows. What do you think causes rainbows? Rainbows are caused by the differing coefficients of refraction of different frequencies of light i.e. dispersion of light. Now to claim there was no dispersion before the Flood, and then dispersion after the Flood means that a huge number of things in physics were different before and after. Of course, there are many fantastic other things to swallow in the Flood account or other parts of Genesis, so this should not be a surprise. After some reading, I realize that at least in some interpretations, there had never been rain before the flood, since things were perfect. And only after the flood was there rain. I had never read this interpretation before, but I guess it might be one interpretation. This as well would entail a change in the laws of atmospheric physics. No evaporation of water? No water vapor? No clouds? No condensing of water vapor to form raindrops? And there was still all the same types of life before the Flood as After, more or less? Wow, that is an awful lot to imagine; in fact it is far more complicated than the change of dispersion (although the change of dispersion migth have many far-reaching consequences too). I have no problem with someone believing this. I have no problem reporting it. I think it is an interesting exercise to imagine what it means exactly and why it is unrealistic and what the consequences of believing in this are. However, to claim that this is something different than allegory or a religious myth or poetry or legend in a general secular worldside ENCYCLOPEDIA is asking a bit much. If you believe that it is NPOV to claim that the Flood story truely explains why there are rainbows, or why there is rain, then what do I say to:

• those from thousands of other religious traditions with other creation stories of their own, and other ancient stories purporting to explain where the rainbow comes from, or the rain. How do I explain ramming aggressively some right wing fundamentalist evangelical bible inerrancy Christian bible mythology down their throats as true history? How can I or should I allow it? What do I say to them? I believe it is irresponsible to allow that. I am sorry. I am not some mean ogre. I taught Noah's Ark in Sunday School class even to my students. Do I like Noah's Ark and the Flood? Yes I do. It is the myth I was taught and I am comfortable with it. It is a beautiful story and great poetry. Everyone in our culture should know it (and the reasons it is impossible scientifically) because it is part of the cultural fabric of AngloSaxon culture and many others. But it is not the only such legend that exists. It is only one legend of thousands, and just so happens to be the myth tradition of a lot of people who speak English and have access to the internet and use Misplaced Pages. Is that the reason it should be described as true? Would I be allowed to teach it as true history in a US public school under the Supreme Court rules? I doubt it. So why is it so awful to abide by the standards of the US Supreme court? I do not think they are pushing some agenda, as often as this charge is made.

• those who know the Ark and the Flood as myth, and expect an encyclopedia to be scientific in nature and about the verifiable and mainly about the dominant position of experts in that area? Do you think many meteorologists or geologists or physicists or biologists would accept an encyclopedia that claimed that REALLY TRUELY the Flood story explains where rain comes or where rainbows come from? Do you think that Encyclopedia Britannica does this? Do you think that World Book Encyclopedia does this? How serious do you think they would take Misplaced Pages then? Misplaced Pages is accused of being unreliable because anyone can edit it by Library Scientists and Academics. So what would people think if they came across articles claiming that
  • Noah's Ark is real in all biblical details
  • the Flood was real in all details
  • Rainbows are explained by the Flood
  • Rain is explained by the Flood
  • Fossils are explained by the Flood

How many major museums claim this? Ever seen any other major encyclopedias claim this? Why do you want or expect Misplaced Pages to claim this? How serious would Misplaced Pages be taken then?

• Did you ever consider that the reason you find yourself in a minority on creationist articles on Misplaced Pages is that maybe, your POV is a minority? Among your friends or in your church, it might not be. But in the world at large of educated computer users, it might be a minority POV. Ever consider that?--Filll 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, myself and others do not want a nonneutral WP article either.

I believe you. As I have now posted on the Noah's Ark talk page, the problem is not that either of us wants to knowingly push our POV; the problem is that what you see as neutral we see as POV, and vice versa. But you have generally argued as though it is self-evident that your POV is neutral. But it is not self-evident, and you have not backed up your claims.

...it is also incredibly frustrating for someone interested in NOT pushing a particular narrow religious view of some extremist groups to have articles and editors attacked as being atheists, satanic, stupid, ignorant, etc.

It is also frustrating being referred to as part of a "narrow religious view of some extremist groups", when the creationist view is actually pretty widely held, not to mention the various other labels that have been used. And I have never referred to you as satanic or stupid, never referred to you as an atheist (although I may have said that your views are those of an atheist), and I don't recall claiming specifically that you are ignorant, despite the fact that you do appear to be ignorant of the creationist viewpoint.

I had thought that the rainbow was a covenant between God and Man to never Flood the earth again.

It is, but it does not follow that there was therefore a change in the laws of physics.

Ooohkay...But isnt one interpretation that there were no rainbows before the Flood, and then after there were rainbows? As a sign of the convenant?--Filll 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After some reading, I realize that at least in some interpretations, there had never been rain before the flood, since things were perfect. And only after the flood was there rain. I had never read this interpretation before, but I guess it might be one interpretation.

I'm glad that you have reduced your ignorance!  :-). So you now have two explanations; one (the change in the laws of physics) that creationists do not use, and one (no rain before the Flood) that some creationists do use. By the way, the explanation about no rain is not "because things were perfect". You appear to be confusing this with something else. More reading needed. But there is yet another explanation, mentionedhere, that God simply used something that already existed (the rainbow) as a reminder of his promise.

That sounds decidedly reasonable and noncreationist. And poetic. It is the kind of answer I would give.--Filll 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This as well would entail a change in the laws of atmospheric physics. No evaporation of water? No water vapor? No clouds? No condensing of water vapor to form raindrops?

We have never observed a change in the laws of physics, but we have observed climate change. Not as dramatic as going from no rain to rain, but such a climate change could conceivably occur without any changes in any laws of physics.

Well I guess so, but that would be a HUGE climate change and have huge implications for life on earth.--Filll 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

However, to claim that this is something different than allegory or a religious myth or poetry or legend in a general secular worldside ENCYCLOPEDIA is asking a bit much. If you believe that it is NPOV to claim that the Flood story truely explains why there are rainbows, or why there is rain, ...

Is it really asking too much to explain that this is what some people, including some scientists, do actually believe? Without having to put the POV that the belief is wrong?

An awfully small minority of scientists would claim it. I have no statistics yet, but it stretches the bounds of credulity.--Filll 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To be continued... Philip J. Rayment 05:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

...Continued

what do I say to ... those from thousands of other religious traditions with other creation stories of their own, and other ancient stories purporting to explain where the rainbow comes from, or the rain.

It's a common anticreationist tactic to claim that there are lots of other religious creation stories that would each deserve their own space, but really, how many others are there that have the wide support that the Biblical creation account has? And to the extent that there are others, why not include an article about them as well?

How do I explain ramming aggressively some right wing fundamentalist evangelical bible inerrancy Christian bible mythology down their throats as true history?

Rather, how can you explain that question when that is not being proposed?

It is a beautiful story and great poetry.

It is not poetry (it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry) and it claims to be history.

So why is it so awful to abide by the standards of the US Supreme court?

Because I'm not a U.S. citizen? :-)

Why do you want or expect Misplaced Pages to claim this?

Why do you keep claiming that this is what I want, when I have repeatedly said the opposite?

Did you ever consider that the reason you find yourself in a minority on creationist articles on Misplaced Pages is that maybe, your POV is a minority? Among your friends or in your church, it might not be. But in the world at large of educated computer users, it might be a minority POV. Ever consider that?

Yes, I have considered that, and I think that your last point is correct. That is, my view is a minority of educated computer users, at least those editing Misplaced Pages. So what? Since when is that the standard for anything? Have you considered that approximately half (if I recall correctly) of Americans believe that God created man? Have you considered that most of the Muslim world agrees? Have you considered that only a small proportion of the entire world's population believes that man evolved from animals? (Australian aboriginal creation stories, for example, have aborigines created by various beings.) Or will you, like so many anticreationists, switch from claiming support of majority opinion to support of expert opinion, when confronted with such details?

Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So do you believe in:

I have interspersed my replies.

• A worldwide flood?

Yes

• Some huge volume of Water appearing and disappearing?

No, if you mean what I think you mean. Perhaps you could clarify.

• some startling lack of geologic flood evidence, with the correct uniform dates, all somehow gone?

How can a lack of evidence disappear???

• rescuing animals from all over the entire earth and returning them?

No

• an Ark of the prescribed dimensions?

Yes

• caring for the animals and feeding them?

Yes

• taking care of the fresh water and salt water creatures somehow?

Noah taking care of them? No.

• rainbows before and after the flood, but those after the flood are somehow endowed with a special meaning?

Yes

• no rain before the flood but rain after?

I used to believe in no rain before the flood, but I now believe that reference I pointed you to.

• intermarriage among siblings after to repopulate the earth?

I've never seen that suggested, and I don't see why it would be necessary.

• dinosaurs perishing in the flood?

Apart from the ones on the ark, yes.

• dinosaurs living with man?

Yes

• the fossils all being from the flood, and no evidence of evolution?

Most of the fossils being from the flood, not all of them. As I have said a number of times and you haven't cottoned on to yet, it is a matter of how you interpret the evidence.

• The olive tree after growing very fast so the dove could return with a branch?

How fast would be necessary? What presumptions are behind this question?

• the ark lasting for a few thousand years without decaying much?

I believe that, if it is above the snow line, its preservation is possible. Until/unless it is discovered, I keep an open mind on whether it has lasted.

• the version of the flood story in genesis being the correct one, and the others with their variations being just mistaken copies of the genesis version?

Yes.

and so on and so forth...--Filll 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Philip J. Rayment 10:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Permit me to respond to some of the terms you have on your user page, as a means of promoting greater understanding.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Terminology

One of my concerns is the biased use that sceptics make of terms. Just as Christians often use "spiritual language" that may be obscure to non-Christians (e.g. salvation, redemption, repentance, eschatology), sceptics use words that have a meaning to them that is not used by others.

The same is true of Creationists. Many words used have a special meaning, different than conventional meanings, or the meanings of scientists. For example:

• science
• fact
• theory
• proof
• evolution
• religion
• humanist
• materialism
• naturalist
• humanist
• atheist
• Christians

To someone not familiar with the "debate", trained in science etc, it is a bit of a shock to be confronted with the realization that these words are being used in completely different manners. For example, it is a bit disconcerting to be told that science is a religion, or evolution is a religion and the source of all wars and pornography and all evils in the world. It is a bit much to be told that Catholics are not Christians, or are in fact are atheists or satanists. I could go on and on, but talking to a creationist is like entering an Alice in Wonderland fantasy world.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The same is true of Creationists. Many words used have a special meaning, different than conventional meanings, or the meanings of scientists.

I would appreciate it if you didn't talk as though "creationists" and "scientists" are two mutually-exclusive groups, because they are not (unless you have your own definition of "scientist" that specially excludes creationists).

Yes, creationists do sometimes use at least some of those words differently to some other people, but I would put to you that the use creationists make of them are all legitimate (i.e. not invented) or are justified rather than just taken for granted.

Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

However, whilst Christians often make an effort to avoid "spiritual language" when talking to non-Christians (albeit with limited success at times), sceptics appear to expect others to accept their terminology as correct and non-negotiable.

I realize scientists can speak their own special language that is confusing. But all groups do this. At least the scientists meanings are often if not usualy included as one of the meanings in the dictionary. Many creationist meanings are not in any major dictionary or encyclopedia. It can take a lot of study to even understand what they are saying and answer their angry charges and hate-filled diatribes and threats (maybe you have no experience of this, but I certainly do. It is common for people in the US who are creationists to make death threats against judges, doctors, professors, authors, etc).

As mentioned above, I reject that creationist meanings are not in dictionaries, etc. Please supply (and explain) an example.

Not being an American, perhaps I don't appreciate what some American creationists are like, although I find it extremely hard to believe that it is "common" for them to make death threats.

However, I would ask that when you are criticising the creation view, you stick with the views espoused by the major creationist organisations, such as the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and Answers in Genesis. I do get the impression that a considerable number of man-in-the-street creationists, particularly in the U.S., are not at all familiar or up to date with the details of the creation model as understood by those organisations. Anybody can find somebody that promotes some whacky view of anything, but picking on the views of someone who is not representative of the majority of creationists (or evolutionists) (unless notable in their own right) is hardly fair.

Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Words frequently have multiple meanings. Although one word can sometimes have two or more totally unrelated meanings (such as lead, which can be both a metal and the opposite of follow), normally these meanings are related in some way. Thus computer was something generally that computed, but a derived (and now more common) meaning is an electronic programmable device. Another category is metaphorical meanings. An example is day, which means a single rotation of the earth, but metaphorically also means a period of time. Literal meanings come before metaphorical meanings; that is, metaphorical meanings are derived from literal meanings, not the other way around. The normal manner of distinguishing which meaning is intended is from the context. Thus there is no confusion about the meanings of the word "day" in the following sentence, that actually uses it in three different ways: "In my grandfather's day, it took six days to travel across the country, travelling only during the day".

Yes they certainly can. But often I have found creationists will want to use this as a trap for the unwary secular layperson, or the scientist, in debates etc. Sometimes without knowing it, but often knowingly. Very disingenuous and dishonest, frankly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the reverse; evolutionists equivocating about just what "evolution" means, with creationists more likely to explain just what they mean. Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Religion"

Religion can mean (this is not intended to be exhaustive):

1. A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
2. Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
3. A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
4. A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
5. A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?)

To me, if there is no diety and no supernatural, there is no religion. So plumbing is not a religion. Farming is not a religion. Car repair is not a religion. Counting tree rings is not a religion. Looking through a microscope is not a religion. Solving equations is not a religion. Science is not a religion. Evolution is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion. Agnosticism is not a religion. Some political systems that elevate a leader to almost godlike status can approach religions. For example, in Egypt in the time of the Pharohs, the Pharoh was a god. In Japan, in the Shinto religion, the Emperor is or was a god. In communism, with the "cults of personality" that exist, the totalitarian leader is treated like a god. Sometimes even the term "messianic zeal" is used to describe this situation. I am not sure if they are religions or not, and where the boundary line might be drawn. But they can take on features of a religion.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, if there is no diety and no supernatural, there is no religion.

Okay, so you choose to use definition 2 of my list. That doesn't mean, of course, that your choice is the only legitimate choice. And it does not follow from your list of things that you consider not religions, that your choice is a reasonable one. Several of them, for example, could not reasonably be considered to be consistent with the first definition, the one I generally use. There are some things in your list, however, that would be be considered religions according to definition No. 1.

Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationists will often want to define, for legal purposes, or political purposes, or to try to smear the other side, that "evolution is a religion" or "evolution is atheism" or "atheism is a religion" or "science is a religion" or similar things. When I have tried to understand, through the screaming and cursing and physical threats of creationists against me, what they were saying, I often find that when pushed, creationists will stretch the meaning of the word "religion" to mean something that someone does passionately. If you farm passionately or clean your toilet passionately, it is a religion. I never imagined that I was worshipping my toilet by cleaning it carefully, but that is what I was told over and over. The reason is that for legal purposes, creationists (at least in the US) want to define science or at least evolution as a religion, so they can get it excluded from the public schools on constitutional grounds. A secondary reason is that they feel that science is being put on a pedestal and superior to religious beliefs, so they should smear it in the same way as creationism is smeared, and brand science as a religion. This can be effective at irritating scientists and rationalists etc, and possibly effective for proselytizing purposes. But it is quite irritating, and serves to confuse the issue. Of course, the creationists who delivered the message that cleaning a toilet is a religion were very proud of themselves and cocky, and very smug and pleased with themselves, as though they had defeated Satan himself. The ones I encountered were angry, and unable to hear the other side of the argument ever or to acknowledge what the other side had said. And cursing and screaming and threatening and nasty and insulting, calling me stupid and ignorant. Not nice. So it does color my opinion somewhat.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had those experiences, but I must say that I've had similar from you, at least for this bit:... angry, and unable to hear the other side of the argument ever or to acknowledge what the other side had said. Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I never use No. 5, preferring to use denomination for that (My religion is Christian, my current denomination is Baptist)

No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving. Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.

I have had some heated discussions with Muslims who claim that all Christians are polytheists or blasphemers or worse, and as such, deserve to be forced to convert or put to death. And they are just as passionate as Christian fundamentalists, let me tell you. It is impossible to argue with them on these points, let me tell you.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you have pointed out that you prefer definition No. 2, and I've said that I go for definition No. 1. I have also provided justification for my choice. This bit about Muslims has no relevance to my choice, as far as I can see, and you have not provided proper justification for your choice.

To put it another way, one can't prove that God doesn't exist. So belief in no god is a faith position, just as belief in God is. Both beliefs affect how we view a number of issues. So, for example, a believer in God might believe that abortion is wrong, on the grounds that a foetus has a soul (before you disagree, this is an example only; I'm not arguing that position, here and now at least). Similarly, a believer in no god might believe that abortion is okay, on the grounds that there is no such thing as a soul. Therefore, both beliefs affect one's views on various issues. To label one as "religious" and the other as not religious, and to therefore dismiss the "religious" view because it is religious is self-serving nonsense. I don't particularly care if one wants to stick with the "religious" label (I'd prefer "worldview", actually), as long as one don't use it as grounds for dismissing or disregarding one of the views.

Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Objection: Your use is an invented one

Not at all. I didn't make up this use of the word; it is also used that way by many others, and that use is found in dictionaries.

Objection: It is not fair to use a term of atheists that they don't use of themselves

If the term is accurate and appropriate, why not? There are many instances of people not using particular terms of themselves, but where it is still an accurate and appropriate term to use. And if that objection were to be allowed, then people ought to stop using the term religion of Christians, because many Christians don't use the term of themselves (probably because they are Protestants who have in mind definition No. 3).

Of course the differing definitions are confusing. But if a scientists or secular person or regular layperson is going to discuss things with a fundamentalist, or a creationist, one has to realize what language they are speaking. Otherwise, the creationist will use it as a weapon and attack and cut the opposition to ribbons. I personally do not think it serves any good purpose to define just about all human activities as religions. It makes the word lose its meaning. I understand why they are doing this, but it is not helpful frankly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And as I have explained above, neither is it helpful to simply label one point as "religious" and use that as a point of distinction. Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Belief"

Belief is assent to an idea. Thus I believe that the world is round, that gravity exists, and that God created the world as described in the Bible.

Of course you are incorrect. The planet earth is closer to an oblate spheriod, or a generalized ellipsoid with lateral heterogeneities. But it is roughly spherical. You are free to believe the world was created as described in the bible. However, to function well with others, it must be acknowledged that:

• as near as we can determine so far, the dominant view is that much evidence does not support this, or at least in some strict interpretations
• many others will read the bible differently than you, or have a different bible and will disagree with you

This does not mean that those who disagree with you are wrong or stupid or ignorant. It does mean that there is substantial disagreement about this, even among creationists (as I noticed reading a few creationist letters to Ken Ham). People who choose to accept the dominant view supported by the evidence interpreted in the dominant way, the best current scientific understanding are not evil. They are not worshipping a false god like a toilet or secretly plotting some humanist totalitarian New World Order. These sorts of accusations (which I have heard often) are just silly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When I said that I believe the world is round, I was distinguishing it from the belief that the world is flat. I wasn't trying to be precise as to its exact shape.

I certainly recognise that the dominant view among scientists is not a creationist view.

I also recognise that people differ on what they think the Bible means. But I don't think this difference is as big an issue as you seem to think it is.

And yes, there are disagreements within creationary circles about some issues, just as there are disagreements within evolutionary circles about some issues. But I disagree that the dominant view is supported by the evidence. And if the Bible is correct, then those that disagree are evil, but again, I'm almost certainly using that word in a way different to the way you would understand it. I'm using it something like "not of God", not like "particularly gross or objectionable".

Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the word often has connotations of accepting an idea without evidence, or without good reason. Thus I have come across evolutionists who object to being described as believing in evolution. I (generally) do not use the word "belief" this way; if I say that someone "believes in evolution", I mean that they agree with the idea; that is what they think occurred/occurs. I will continue to use the word in that context because I don't know of another way of putting it that is not wordy or awkward.

A scientist only accepts any theory until a better one comes along to replace it. That is called the scientific method. So belief is a bit of a strange word with strange connotations; it is more of a provisional belief. The reason scientists might not like the word "belief" is that they do not want to be accused of following a religion. And smeared with being idolators and blasphemers. And having science then censured as being a religion, excluded from schools and government funding etc.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A scientist only accepts any theory until a better one comes along to replace it.

That's the theory, but scientists are human and it doesn't always work out that way in practice. If it did, there would surely be no disagreements at all among scientists?

The reason scientists might not like the word "belief" is that they do not want to be accused of following a religion.

That may be so, but that is not the dictionary meaning of the word. And no informed creationist claims that science itself is a religion. Remember that creationary scientists are themselves scientists.

Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Evolution"

Two meanings of Evolution (from a dictionary) are as follows:

• Any process of formation or growth; development
• Biol. the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the environment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridisation, inbreeding, and mutation.

There are of course many other related meanings of the word "evolution".--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear that the first meaning is not limited to life, and we can thus (and do) talk of, for example, the evolution of stars or the evolution of cars.

The multiple definitions can be a huge source of confusion and used by creationists as weapons against evolution.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, creationists tend to define their use of the word (want evidence? This is precisely what I was doing by putting this on my user page!), but evolutionists tend to equivocate on what it means. Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

However, going beyond those dictionary definitions, creationists point out that biological evolution can be subdivided according to the mechanisms involved. Many people use the terms macroevolution and microevolution to distinguish these categories, although leading creationists these days discourage the use of those terms. The distinctions are:

• A sorting or loss of genetic information results in modified characteristics of living things. Thus fish living in unlit caves might lose some of the genetic information for making eyes, leading to a variety of eyeless (or at least sightless) fish.
• A gain of genetic information adds new capabilities to living things. Thus some dinosaurs gained the genetic information for wings and feathers and became birds (over a long time and in small steps, of course).

It is sometimes claimed that mutations never result in a gain of information, or sometimes with an improvement in the organism. I would ask, what about my father, who had a reaction time 3 times faster than the average person? His father and mother did not have it. My sister has it. I do not. What about my friend who has preternaturally good eyesight? His parents do not have it. What about the gentleman "rainman" was based on? And other "idiot savants"? Although they do not have uniformly better characteristics, they have some remarkably good characteristics that just arose. How? From where? Recessive genes? There is never any random change in the genetic code that causes an improvement in things? Part of the difficulty here is the definition of what constitutes a "kind" and what constitutes a "species" and what constitutes "evolution". Since big evolutionary steps happened long ago and we only have records in fossils and in the genetics, creationists can and do claim that it never happened. But many sciences are not experimental and are only observational. Seissmology. Solar physics. Meteorology. Astrophysics. Geomagnetism. Etc. So just because the events happened a long time ago, does not mean that they cannot be studied. And no one knowledgable claims that the theory explaining how they species came to be is infallible or the truth or unchangable. It is only the best possible answer at the moment from the evidence we have. And it will be replaced by another when better evidence emerges. What is wrong with that?--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would ask, what about...

It is of course a bit hard to answer about your father and the other examples, without knowing anything about the situations. But yes, recessive genes could be one explanation. Another could be a mutation that damages or destroys some biological control mechanism. It's a bit hard to go into specifics with such general and personal questions, but every mutation that has been studied has been a neutral change or a loss of genetic information. This is an observation of science.

There is never any random change in the genetic code that causes an improvement in things?

There can be losses of genetic information that improves things, such as the loss of the information to develop wings on beetles on windy islands. Not having wings means that they are less likely to be blown into the sea and drown. It is an improvement in that particular environment, but it is not a gain in genetic information.

...many sciences are not experimental and are only observational.

I suspect that there are experiments that can be done in most of your example fields, but at least they are, as you say, open to observation. The past is not, although as I have said before, science can be on some use.

And no one knowledgable claims that the theory explaining how they species came to be is infallible or the truth or unchangable. It is only the best possible answer at the moment from the evidence we have. And it will be replaced by another when better evidence emerges. What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. But I would ask, does this just apply to some details of the evolutionary theory, or also to evolution itself? Because it seems as though evolution itself is sacrosanct, and beyond question.

Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionists generally don't make the distinction between the two, and thus usually end up offering evidence of the first and then consider that the second has been demonstrated. They also accuse creationists of making up a distinction that doesn't exist (and of coining the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution", but this is wrong; see here). But whilst it may be true that creationists highlight the distinction and evolutionists don't, it is also clear that there is a distinction. Losing and adding genetic information are two different things.

Bioinformatics and information theory are very technical subjects. And frankly, I do not believe any creationists are adequately conversant with these fields to have anything to say about them. Including people like Dembski, whose work was critically reviewed by experts and found wanting. Very deficient. As in wrong.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite your belief that no creationists know what they are talking about in this area, there is no good reason for thinking that your belief has any validity. And I find much criticism of creationists to be motivated by a passion for them to be wrong. I haven't studied Dembski's ideas much, so I can't comment much on him, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the "experts" who found his ideas "wanting" were nothing more than people who had different views than him. Would you also dismiss Dr. Werner Gitt, former Head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology?

Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationists deny that the second (the gain in genetic information) occurs, and deny that it has been observed. Unfortunately many lay creationists fail to make the distinction when discussing the topic, but similarly many evolutionists (and not just lay evolutionists) fail to appreciate the distinction when responding to creationists. Thus they (a) offer evidence for a loss of genetic information when challenged on the lack of evidence for a gain, and (b) misrepresent creationists as rejecting all evolution when they in fact only reject the second category (although it is true that creationists do reject the use of the term "evolution" for the second category).

As I said, gain or loss and reproductive suitability in a given environment is a very complicated subject. Just finding a turtle with two heads does not prove "loss of information". If the two heads are useful in some environments, then this mutation will enable the turtle to breed better and pass this mutation along. I think the entire loss of information complaint is a bit confusing and really misused. Things like "entropy" and "information" are great weapons for creationists, because no one really knows what they mean.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

...great weapons for creationists, because no one really knows what they mean.

Are you saying that creationists are the only ones who know what they are talking about?

Seriously, your lack of understanding of information theory is not a good argument for dismissing it.

Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Evolutionist"

I was surprised to find that many people who believe in evolution object to being described as evolutionists. As far as I am concerned, that is an accurate and appropriate use of the word. That is, an evolutionist is simply someone that agrees with the idea of evolution. Again, as for "belief", I will continue to use the word because I don't know of another way of putting it that is not wordy or awkward.

It is only used by creationists, so it has a bit of a negative connotation for that reason I suspect.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that it is mainly used by creationists, because evolutionists tend to misleadingly prefer to make a distinction between "scientist" and "creationist", but it is not only used by creationists, and regardless of who uses it, the real point is, is it a legitimate term? I contend that it is. Philip J. Rayment 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

yes Phil I dont get that. they dont want to be called darwinists or evolutionists. what is OK with them? its a game. then they object to the term macroevolution when it is used in the journals all the time. its just meant to obfuscate the issue raspor 15:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason they object is that "-ist" implies (in their minds at least) a subjective faith belief in something, and they like to think that their particular view is objectively the "right" one.

I don't actually think that "macroevolution" is all that common a term, but it is certainly not unique to creationists, as some have charged.

Philip J. Rayment 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Fundamentalist"

A fundamentalist was originally one who accepted the fundamental truths of the Bible. Since the coinage of the term in the early 20th century, however, the semantic range of the word has expanded to include other meanings:

• One who strongly believes the basic teachings of any religion
• A literalist
• A legalist
• An extremist, sometimes with connotations of a terrorist.

It has gained the negative connotations because of the actions of some like the Islamists, the Jihadists, the fundamentalists who murdered doctors who perform abortions, and blew up abortion clinics, who killed hundreds of people in Oklahoma city, who preach hatred of other races, who want to execute all homosexuals, want holy wars, etc. So it gained these negative connotations somewhat honestly, frankly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why it was used of those people in the first place. Why, for example, was it used of Islamists, when its original meaning referred to someone believing the Bible? Nevertheless, I was simply pointing out the range of use, not questioning the use. Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the original meaning of the word almost seems to be lost these days.

This is a well known process called pejoration. How long would it take a person to develop a negative connotation of a group when the first 10 members they met screamed in their face, spit at them, cursed them in the worst possible way, threatened them and told them they were evil and going to hell, and that everything they had ever been taught by family and friends and school and church were WRONG and EVIL? How long would it take a person to develop a negative impression of someone who told them their church was full of whores and their pastor was a filthy ? How long would it take someone to develop a negative impression of a group that told him his parents were disgusting and stupid and evil and satanists? Fundamentalists have earned their negative connotations, in my book. You dont like it? Change your actions. And get your friends to change their actions, and behave in a civilized manner. --Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How long would it take a person to develop a negative connotation of a group when the first 10 members they met screamed in their face, spit at them,

However, as I mentioned above, it wasn't the original "fundamentalists" that acted in this way.

You dont like it? Change your actions. And get your friends to change their actions, and behave in a civilized manner.

First, I didn't actually say that I didn't like it (although I don't particularly). Second, I and my friends do not behave that way.

Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I, along with many other Christians, object to being called a "fundamentalist" on the grounds that the word has meanings and connotations that we disagree with. I have no objection to being described as a fundamentalist if it is clear that the original meaning is intended, but this is hardly ever the case.

A bit difficult. Every word you choose will soon get the same negative connotations attached to it. Pejoration again. Bibliolaters? Bible literalists? Fundamentalists? Evangelists? Bible thumpers?--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How about (depending on the situation) simply "creationists"? Why a perjorative term at all? What I'm objecting to is people using a known perjorative term of me, simply because it is perjorative. What does "fundamentalist creationist" convey that "creationist" does not, if not a perjorative aspect? Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have frequently seen creationists described as fundamentalists simply because they are creationists. That is, the word is used as if creationists are fundamentalists by definition. In this case, there is no merit in saying "creationists are fundamentalists who...". It is both redundant, and, given the connotations that the word carries, little more than an attempt to caricature and abuse creationists.

It is difficult to know what to call them. Not all fundamentalists focus on Genesis. Some focus on the book of Daniel. Some focus on the book of Revelations. Some focus on Romans or some other book. Very few focus on the Gospels I notice.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to know what to call them.

As I've just asked above, why not just "creationist"? What's so difficult about that?

Consistent with this, Misplaced Pages's own NPOV policy cautions against using the term inappropriately.

I do not mean to slur fundamentalists. It is hard to keep the negative connotations out of it, however.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it so hard to use "creationist" instead of "fundamentalist"? Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Apologetics

My parents raised me to believe that the Bible could be logically and rationally defended from sceptical criticism. This was mainly in the area of archaeology, but later I learnt of the overwhelming evidence consistent with the Bible's records of creation and the flood, and related events. Without this evidence, I likely would have still believed in creation and the flood, but I would never have dared debate the matter with sceptics. Armed with the evidence, however, I have considerable confidence that the Biblical record is rationally defensible.

My parents raised me to believe in science and rationality. My parents and church raised me to see it as a beautiful book with beautiful poetry and allegory and some deep truths in it. But every word is not literally true, no. I was taught this from an early age. It is part of my raising and my religion. Am I evil and cursed because of this? All my ministers and spiritual leaders and family? It is a bit hard to swallow, frankly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the view that you were raised with is that Genesis (with some minor exceptions) is not poetry, and it is written as history, not allegory. As far as being cursed, this again might be "Christian terminology", or, more accurately, Biblical terminology. The Bible says that all of creation is cursed (because of man's rejection of God), so of course that includes you (and me). Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Creation Ministries International

I have found Creation Ministries International (formerly Answers in Genesis) to be an organisation of great integrity and enormous passion. I therefore have no hesitation in recommending their materials to others.

They are certainly passionate. I give you that.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They are also scientific, meticulous, and concerned for the truth. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Creation Ignorance

I find it quite annoying and frustrating that there are so many sceptics that argue vehemently against the Biblical record of creation and the flood, yet are so grossly ignorant of the idea that they argue so strongly against. Yet they often have the gall to call a creationist ignorant because the creationist supposedly doesn't understand evolution!

Part of the problem is the different versions of creationism, versions of the bible, translations, interpretations, different creation stories from other faiths, etc.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is another common sceptic furphy. The various translations/versions of the Bible use slightly different wording to convey the same information. There is substantial agreement, not disagreement, between the different versions. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As a creationist living in a secular country, I get uniformitarian and evolutionary ideas thrown at me every day, whether that be via the education system, television, the Internet, newspapers, general magazines, or science magazines and journals. Being a creationist, I also read lots of books, magazines, and Internet articles supporting creation, watch videos and DVDs, and hear speakers on the topic of creation. Thus I learn about the debate from both sides.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, generally get to see and read very little creationary material, so most evolutionists (there are exceptions of course) do not have a balanced education on the topic. Probably 99% of their knowledge on the debate is from the evolutionary side, including what little knowledge they have of the creationary case. This is understandable, but what is not understandable is how they then make out they know enough about creation to be able to reject it!

This is a big problem. It leaves a scientist or secular person open to attack by creationists since they all believe slightly different shades of things and expect the whole world to know their personal interpretations of the bible and the words they use.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Such people should have no more problem understanding the "slightly different shades" than creationists have understanding the different claims about evolution. The problem is that they don't actually bother to find out what the creation view is, except for what the next anticreationist or anticreationist web-site tells them. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The following are some aspects of the creation model that many anti-creationists get wrong. I have not attempted to substantiate them (they can put in the effort for that themselves) but in the future I may at least provide links to where they can learn more.

• Noah's flood did not cover Everest and similar high mountains

But some creationists say it did.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, name names. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Noah's flood did not last 40 days and 40 nights

I do notice different accounts of this.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Do any claim that it only lasted 40 days and 40 nights? If they do, name names. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The water of Noah's flood did not come solely from rain

That I know.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. That's a start. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Creationists (as a whole) do not reject plate tectonics

Some sure do.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I qualified the statement. I've come across anticreationists who are surprised to hear that any creationists accept plate tectonics. Of course I doubt that that have any inkling that the idea was proposed by a creationist partly on the basis of the creation account in Genesis! Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Creationists do not reject science

Some reject so much of it and the scientific method that they might as well reject it all.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Name names, and support your claim. I know of no creationist that rejects science per se at all, and especially do not reject the findings of scientists in pretty well any field other than ones dealing with origins. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Creationists do not reject natural selection

Some sure do.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the ones from the organisations listed above. Only some of the uninformed man-in-the-street creationists I mentioned above. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Creationists do not reject speciation

Some sure do. If you do not reject speciation, then what of evolution do you reject?--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, not the informed ones. Creationists reject that mutations provide new genetic information. Speciation is due to a loss of genetic information. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Creationary scientists do hold real qualifications in all areas of science (i.e. including biology and geology)

Very few. In the US, way less than 1% of all geologists and biologists are creationists. Maybe less than 0.1% as the best references I have tell me. --Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Very few what? Very few "creationary scientists ... hold real qualifications in all areas of science". Back that up or correct your statement. I didn't make any comment about how many geologists, etc. are creationists. My comment was about the scientists who are creationists. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Creationists do not deny that there are beneficial mutations.

Some sure do. And will fight you to death on that issue.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, name names. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Misplaced Pages bias

Whilst I find Misplaced Pages very useful in many respects, it is severely biased when it comes to Christianity and creation in particular. Despite the NPOV policy, many editors seem unable to accept a neutral point of view when discussing creation, and the enforcement is totally inadequate.

It is imperfect. It is just as bad for someone in science, let me assure you.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's worse that "imperfect". Enforcement is close to non-existent in religious areas. Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I spent a great deal of time editing articles to do with creation, only to find that anticreationists would butcher them. In one particular case, I listed some beliefs of creationists, carefully wording it to make it clear that they were creationists beliefs, not something accepted by all, and referenced the information to on-line sources. An anticreationist deleted my edits and replaced them with his own views on what creationists believe, without reference sources. This was just one small portion of the butchering. I attempted mediation, but no mediator offered themselves, so no mediation occurred. The anticreationist continued unchecked. He subsequently successfully put the article up for deletion. Some people who voted for deletion openly admitted that they did so on the ground that they considered creation nonsense, not on the merits of the article itself. The fact that they felt free to do so speaks volumes. No moderator bothered enforcing the rules, and the improper negative votes of the anticreationists were counted along with all other votes. See here.

I would have argued strongly to keep that article. I think we need to document carefully the creationist views. I would be glad to work on such articles with you and fight like crazy to keep them. We need to know what creationists think and all the different varieties of thought and belief and reasoning. It is incredibly important.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Somehow your comments on the Noah's Ark talk page don't fill me with confidence that your help would actually be a benefit. Sorry. Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, an anonymous creationist editor found himself in an edit war, and was prevented from editing articles by them being locked. How were his opponents able to get action, and I wasn't? One of his opponents was a sysop! See here

I dont know what to say about this.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I came to realise that editing creation articles was a waste of time, as there are more anticreationists trying to undermine creation than there are people willing to write such articles from a neutral point of view, and totally inadequate moderation to control the situation.

Consequently, I have no intention of returning to edit such articles until and unless I learn that the situation has improved markedly.

If you wanted to try to write articles about the creationist POV (remember there are many to consider; at least 10 or 20 varieties), I am sure I could rally some of my friends to push your case and keep them from being attacked. I would like to try anyway, if you wanted. However, they should be labeled as creationist views, not facts or the truth or whatever.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to try anything again at present. I have no problem with the articles being clear that they are the views of particular groups, but I do have a problem with creationist views being treated as false, and even with them having refutation sections when opposing views do not. Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Phillip: I am not a christian

But i believe christians, muslims, atheist what ever should have their views presented clearly.

what is happening here is a travesty. only saving grace is that the ID, evolution and other articles are SO biased it is very obvious. thats what got me here. i read the ID article and said 'wow thats all wrong' then tried to make some changes. anything and i mean anything that is anything less of condemning ID will not be included in the article.

this is a failed experiment.

what is this FA all about? is there anyway that pro-IDers can treated fairly here?

raspor 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"FA" is "Featured Article". In order to be featured on the front page of Misplaced Pages, it must meet certain requirements, although I've never bothered about just what those requirements are.

Pro-ID people and creationists are outnumbered on Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages's enforcement of its WP:NPOV rules is in the hands of people who are, in many cases, themselves biased and often unable to see their own bias, so until something drastic changes, I don't see any hope that we can be treated fairly. See here on my user page for my views and experience in this (although it talks about creationists, the same applies to ID because the anti-ID people lump ID in with creation).

Philip J. Rayment 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think i ever seen such bias as i have seen in the wiki articles . it is truly phenomenal! raspor 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered creation wiki? for creationists only.--Filll 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you addressing that to me or Raspor? And why? I am a some-times editor at CreationWiki, but that has nothing to do with the requirement for this wiki to be neutral, which it's not in these areas. Philip J. Rayment 11:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. With your lack of response, I was wondering if you'd seen my replies to your comments above, but I assume from your visit to this page that you have? Philip J. Rayment 11:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen yes.--Filll 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of an atheist?

• Are Catholics Atheists?
• Muslims?
• Hindus?
• scientists?
• people who believe in natural selection?
• people who are not sure that there is a god?
• people who believe in evolution?--Filll 15:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems an odd question, or perhaps I should say that those options seem odd options, but I'm guessing that you have some reason for suggesting them. My answer, however, is that an atheist is someone who believes that there is no god. Of course, that cannot be proved (as atheists keep reminding us, you can't test the supernatural, and you also can't prove a universal negative), so atheism is a faith position. If that answer doesn't satisfy you, perhaps you could explain why you included those options. Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. You live in australia which has a different culture. I do not believe someone who is an atheist is religious, at least in my definition of religious. Maybe in yours, but not mine. Now I have had people (creationists, fundamentalists, biblical literalists, biblical inerrancy people etc) tell me that all those groups on the list are atheists. It is a common weapon of creationists and fundamentalists to call people even from other sects or faiths, atheists, satan worshippers, evil, damned, cursed, infidels, blasphemers, etc etc.--Filll 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an atheist is not religious according to your definition, but an atheist IS religious according to at least one of the definitions found in dictionaries. And, as I have said on my user page, a definition that requires a belief in God is arbitrary and self-serving. Both Christianity and atheism (along with others beliefs) are (a) beliefs, and (b) worldviews. I have a worldview that presumes God. An atheist has a worldview that presumes no god. The claim of many atheists that their worldview is somehow superior simply because it presumes no god is self-serving nonsense, and the term "religion" is frequently used in this way, i.e. to make a qualitative distinction between atheistic and theistic worldviews.

I can understand, up to a point at least, Christians considering your options as evil, cursed, etc., but I can't see how they consider Catholicism and the other religions as atheistic, except for Hinduism, which doesn't recognise a god as such. And I can also understand some people simplistically assuming that everyone that doesn't accept the Biblical record (e.g. evolutionists) are atheists, despite the number of Christians that (compromisingly) accept evolution.

Philip J. Rayment 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that people use a variety of definitions for religion so that sometimes even cleaning a toilet can be a religion. They also use a variety of definitions for atheism to use it as a weapon against people they hate.--Filll 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

what def of atheist could be used as a weapon of hate? and how can 'cleaning a toilet' be considered a relgion?? raspor 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition of religion as "believing in something with passion and engaging in it with passion" will make cleaning a toilet a religion. I have had creationists use this argument on me to prove that science is a religion. And I pointed out about plumbing and cleaning toilets, and they are agreed. Ok...--Filll 15:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

is anyone in charge here?

they are butchering these articles. and even using false quotes and not citing. how does this work? is there anyone who can stop them? i dont understand this. raspor 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors are expected to work out their problems between themselves. There are sysops who can ban vandals, etc., but it has to be clear vandalism, or an agreement of a large majority of editors who vote on a particular issue. Given that the majority are pro-evolution, including many of the sysops, there is little that can be done to stop the systemic bias.

However, most editors do have some standards that they will adhere to, and clearly false quotes should not be a problem. The problem is selective use of quotes, where the quote is accurate but the bias is in judging the relevance of using a quote or not using a quote. You can put {{fact}} and {{verify source}} tags ( and ) on things that you believe need references or are wrong, and this should prompt them to provide a reference and support the quote, but if you overdo it, they will just accuse you of being difficult.

I planned on putting {{verify source}} tags on much of the 'Science of Noah's Ark' section added to the Noah's Ark article recently, because it is loaded with straw-man arguments and the like, if nobody else removed it first, but somebody did remove it, fortunately.

Philip J. Rayment 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

i put {fact} there and felon deleted it. so what can be done? its just bull crap??? raspor 13:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, so he did. I don't agree with FeloniousMonk's edit comment, but I guess that sometimes it is not clear exactly what you are looking for a reference to. Are you questioning that the Discovery Institute are at the centre of controversy, or that particular things listed are the cause of those controversies, or what? Philip J. Rayment 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

no the quote was false. it said the DI used the word 'heart' which it simply did not and the quote was not cited. i am actually amazed that such bias exists. it is scary raspor 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was just trying (when I ran into an edit conflict with you) to add that I've just seen the discussion on the article's talk page. I also see that you have some support in Ec5618. Give it a day or so and see if they come to their senses and modify that lead paragraph.

And by the way, I agree with the thrust of your argument with Filll in that same section. His claims that accepting ID/creation means throwing out all the things that science has given us is unadulterated nonsense (are you reading this, Filll? :-) ). But lay off criticising him about the colons. As far as I'm concerned, his practice of alternately indenting and outdenting is not the norm, but there's no hard and fast rules on this, and it does at least help separate responses, which is the main aim.

Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

phil can you show me the comments that you made about noahs ark and were moved. i really am stunned at how unethical the atheists are here. it really gives atheists a bad name raspor 14:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This edit shows it being added (it was actually Orangemarlin's work, but he appeared to be having trouble doing so, so Filll added it instead). It was subsequently modified slightly (links and references for the other wooden ships, mainly), but this edit shows the substance of it. If you prefer to see the final version of it, here is where it got deleted. Philip J. Rayment 14:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am reading this. As far as I know, the colons are only supposed to let you distinguish between one reply and another. The reason scientists and others do not want to accept supernatural causes in science is that science would be damaged. As I said before, it is like having physics homework to do. It will take 20 steps to solve this problem. You know the answer from the back of the book. You can only get to step 3. So you give up, claim a miracle moved you from step 3 to step 20 to get the answer. And then expect to get full points when it is graded. And in fact, want to get a better grade than a student who works the problem fully and gets all 20 steps down. It is not that we are atheists (most arent probably). It is not that we are against religion. And that science of Noah's Ark section I did not write, but I did edit a bit. I think it is too long myself and needs to be tightened considerably, or else moved to a separate article. with a short summary paragraph in Noah's Ark with a link. But I am not sure how to do this. There needs to be far more material for a separate article I think. Stuff like no geologic record, stuff about the rainbow. Stuff about saltwater and fresh water fish. Stuff about caring for the animals. Stuff from the bible indicating how deep the flood waters supposedly were. And to make it balanced, creationist explanations for each of these. --Filll 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

fill, define supernatural

raspor 15:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside the natural realm. Something like magic, or god, or ghosts, or witchcraft. Those are not from a dictionary, but just my off the cuff definition. There is a famous saying, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic, so it is not completely free from temporal bias and other biases.--Filll 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

very bad defintion. if you cant define it then how can you say it should not be considered in science. are you saying 'prayer' is supernatural. how about telepathy. see you arent thinking clearly about this. raspor 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Telepathy has been tested and never been found to exist. So yes, telepathy is supernatural. Prayer has also been tested and not been found to be helpful, however I am less anxious to call prayer supernatural. Expecting a response from the supernatural might unscientific, but there is some suggestion that prayer helps with brain chemistry. So it is more complicated.--Filll 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

well define supernatural. how can you say its bad to have in science if you cant define it raspor 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Something that is not or cannot be scientifically determined to be part of the natural world is supernatural. Want me to get a dictionary?--Filll 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

see that says nothing. now you are saying supernatural = not natural. so now define natural. have you heard of operational definitions. thats what you need here raspor 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in my article on creationist Harry Rimmer.--Filll 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a dictionary definition I more or less agree with: 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

I also like the definition from wikipedia of "unexplained". I would couple that with "unexplainable". If you have something that is unexplained and unexplainable, it has a supernatural cause.--Filll 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DUH!!! we cant use a dictionary defintion for something we want to use scientifically. now try again. this time an 'operational defintion' if you really are a scientists you know exactly what i mean. what the heck do you do as a "" scientist "" ?? raspor 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I do stuff you would not like as a scientist probably since it has to do with the natural world. But that is irrelevant here. The relevant part is, I know what a scientist is and what they do. I gave you numerous operational definitions and you did not like them.--Filll 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So how do YOU define the supernatural?--Filll 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

frankly you sound like a college freshman or sophomore. you cant even say what you do cuz you just prob have taken chem 101 and now think you are a 'scientist' you obviously dont know how to make proper scientific defs. i am not going to teach you. look it up or take a course. you keep bitching about the ** supernatural ** but cant define it. you are looking very silly raspor 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I might be very silly but I have good company, like the National Academy of Sciences and the US Supreme Court. I am glad to be in their company and you can have Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. Be my guest. You are not willing to offer a definition, which is fine. It speaks volumes. As for someone who seems like a freshman, you never capitalize words at the starts of your sentences, as is conventional. You use words like "defs" and "cuz". Hmm...--Filll 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Challenge

I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:

• currently alive and actively working in science
• believes in biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy
• works in a part of science that overlaps with creationist claims, such as biology and in particular, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. --Filll 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)