Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 7 July 2007

Archives

Barnstars Mainpage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Information

Articles planned

• Norman H. Horowitz Caltech biology professor

Projects underway

• Objections to evolution drafts
  • falsifiability
  • Evolution as theory and fact rewrite
  • evolution as religion draft
  • Level of support for creationism Name controversy
  • History of evolution additions
• Evolution Discussions

Articles in need of help

Pain scale, Dol, Dolorimeter, Stress (medicine), Post traumatic stress disorder, Hans Selye

An absolutely amazing webpage

"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution, ignorance is", John Stear, No Answers in Genesis

--Filll 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're going to drive yourself crazy reading this garbage. But of course I read it. Orangemarlin 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just about died laughing reading it. But it is like crack or crystal meth. It will rot your brain.--Filll 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the whole website is very well done. I just don't get Creationists. Orangemarlin 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The truth about Genesis and the origin of life

You have to read this one:

--Filll 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict thesis

I'm not a philosopher (and I really don't play one on TV). You're the scientist, so what is this about? Is this a crazy article, or is it really a philosophy? Orangemarlin 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not philosopher either, and there is an awful lot of this kind of stuff here, that is for sure. Seems like too much to me.--Filll 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis

Huh???? I was just walking through Misplaced Pages, trying to confirm whether I really believe that this encyclopedia is Christian biased, and I'm beginning to be convinced. This article is a travesty! It's not encylopedic, it's unbalanced, and it doesn't even pretend to bring in a literal viewpoint of Genesis. This is frustrating. Orangemarlin 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazing discussion

You have to go see this section and read all the links. Incredible!--Filll 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Baraminology

Ye might like this Adam Cuerden 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now with a sequel. I've also used my research on this to update the article, using only things they say themselves. Adam Cuerden 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Help required on Edison

{{helpme}}

We have a big vandalism problem at Edison.--Filll 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• The page is currently semi-protected, so you're seeing a problem with a user that is already autoconfirmed (i.e., has an account that is at least four days old). The best thing to would be to is politely tell the user that he/she is editing nonconstructively; you may use lower levels of warning templates if you wish, then progressing to higher ones. I see that the issue is somewhat resolved... good luck working on the article, then :) Gracenotes § 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You know, it's possible that you know all or most of this, but I hope that this helps in some way, at least. Gracenotes § 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On the physics rewrite...

Just FYI, since you've been concerned with non-expert perceptions of articles in the past, a smart non-physicist has offered some comments on the current state of the rewrite at Talk:Physics/wip. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there...treasure ships were real

These religious fundies say the darnest things. :) I'm not sure your controversy over the Zheng He treasure fleet is. There are numerous documentation that the treasure ships were up to and over 350-400 feet. Discuss.: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Treasure_ship#Factual_dispute

Here is a Natl Geographic documentary that deals with the facts of the Zheng He Fleet, and the unsubstantiated idea proposed by Gavin Menze's 1421 idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOXeWmQz8DU&mode=related&search=

-intranetusa

Treasure ships were real, so what's your counterpoint?

Yes, considering they found massive dry docks and massive rudder posts, along with the historical textual evidence (in China, India, and the Arabian ports the fleet visited), yes I can say the treasure ships were real Btw, they found the rotted parts of a gigantic wooden palace-barge built by a Roman emperor. So what's so hard to believe about treasure ships? The evidence is there.

-intranetusa

We will never be able to show this conclusively for sure. But the largest Roman ship we have recovered is a good 25% shorter than the 450 foot treasure ships (and barely half the length of the putative 600 foot treasure ships), and it is not clear that this roman ship was used to make a long voyage in the open ocean. Take a look at some of the big wooden ships at List of world's largest wooden ships.--Filll 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"But the largest Roman ship we have recovered is a good 25% shorter than the 450 foot treasure ships (and barely half the length of the putative 600 foot treasure ships), and it is not clear that this roman ship was used to make a long voyage in the open ocean. Take "

Yes, but the treasure ships were built in the 15th century. Also, The largest Roman ship was "supposedly" the Caligula's palace barge, which was just suppose to float on a lake. Ocean going vessels such as treasure ships certainly could have been bigger, with a steeper draft. Yes, I've already looked at that wiki topic. That was one of the topics where I responded to your post. What I find funny about the article is that they lumped Treasure ships with Noah's ark, Syracusa, and Isis - when Isis, Syracusa, and Noah's ark have no shred of physical evidence whatsoever except "testimony."

-intranetusa

PS: Even if we dispute the size of the treasure ships, at least it is confirmed that Zheng He did make diplomatic journeys all the way to eastern Africa.

We have no reason to believe that the Zeng He treasure ships were any more real than any other purported ships for which people make claims of immense size. There are some documents with doubtful measurements that refer to the Zeng He ships, but many of the claims about the Zeng He expeditions are very hard to swallow, frankly. They might be true, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say. Where is the clear physical evidence that is unequivocal and beyond dispute in the case of the Zeng He treasure ships? It really does not exist. There are no physical hulls that still exist. At least the Caligula palace barge and other large ships were dug up out of the mud, so we know they existed. In the case of the Zeng He treasure ships, a few timbers found in the mud and some claims that mud flats contained dry docks of immense size at one time really do not cut it. Show me a long keel. Show me a buried hull. Show me something more substantial, and you might have a case. Without physical evidence, it is very hard to say anything conclusive that supports these incredible sizes. I am not even sure how well confirmed the diplomatic journeys are, or on the size of the expedition. This might have happened, but it is tough to give it much credence with our evidence at this time, as near as I can tell. Sorry.--Filll 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Numerous sources, ranging from the National Geographic to the History Channel to USNews to the Economist, all featured articles regarding the treasure ships of Zheng He (size ~400). There is no treasure ship remains because the treasure ships were ordered to be burned. However, they did find massive dry docks that would've been used to create ships of immense size, and a 12 or 15+ foot stern post rudder. However, you're still correct that we have no direct physical evidence of the ship's size, so the size is still up for debate.

"I am not even sure how well confirmed the diplomatic journeys are, or on the size of the expedition. "

The diplomatic journeys themselves are well confirmed by direct and indirect evidence. Ranging from historical documents (from the kingdoms of India, Arabia, etc) to Ming porcelain & other goods. Also, I'm sure you've already seen the Ming painting of the man with the giraffe from Africa... Intranetusa (Talk) ?, March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Here's an interesting article (skeptical, neutral viewpoint): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/archeology2.html

But we get back to the fact that it is not verifiable. Unless the Chinese had some miracle materials (and verifiability doesn't do so well with miracles), it is just not possible to build wooden ships over a certain size. The problem is that there is just no evidence available, even written ones. Every culture brags about having the best and the biggest, but we need to see it. I think this is a myth, but I don't have any proof either. But my job is not to prove the negative (that they never existed), the burden of proof lies with those that think they existed. Orangemarlin 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

" it is just not possible to build wooden ships over a certain size." They addressed this point with features such as separate bulkheads.

"Every culture brags about having the best and the biggest" Not exactly. The treasure ships are actually not very well known and the claim that the Ming treasure ships are 400+ ft are Ming historical records.

"The problem is that there is just no evidence available, even written ones. " Actually, there are plenty of written evidence. Just do a quick google search and you'll get millions of hits. The problem is that there is no direct physical evidence. Intranetusa (Talk) 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. It is hard to know how to evaluate these claims with no good direct physical evidence. So it is somewhat of an interesting mystery. However, our more modern and well-documented experiences with large wooden ships gives us a bit of pause with these claims of incredibly large ancient wooden vessels. That does not mean they did not exist, and that the claims in the documents are not correct. However, it does mean that the claims have to be ascribed a lower reliability than if we had better evidence. And for me, I would have to rate the probability of these incredibly large wooden treasure ships as quite low.--Filll 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The measurements come from Ming dynasty historical documents.

Actually, some time ago a mast was discovered in the ancient Nanjing shipyards (where Zheng He's ships were built) which was consistent with the stated sizes of the Treasure Ships. However conclusive physical evidence, in the form of a sunken ship etc, is, as you say, lacking. --Sumple (Talk) 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not able to find any material about a large mast recovered from archaeology from the Zeng He shipyards. However, I am not particularly convinced that a tall mast would necessarily prove that there were 450+ foot long 9 masted treasure ships being constructed for deep ocean expeditions (some have even suggested that there were treasure ships that were 600 feet long). A calmer analysis is provided by the article at which relies heavily on assorted Chinese sources and scholarship. It appears more likely that any larger ships were more like barges for river travel only. It also appears that the length of the shipyards do not suggest long ships, but facilities for constructing many shorter vessels side-by-side.--Filll 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted from User talk:Intranetusa)

Hi, the info comes from Ray Huang's Macrohistory of China. On checking it up, it wasn't a mast, but the rudder. In the Chinese version, the sentences are on pp 185-186. He also mentions that the largest boats were 440 feet long and 186 feet wide, and the smaller ones were 370 feet long and 150 feet wide. He mentions that these giant ships are found in books but not in physical specimens.

IMO, Ray Huang is sufficiently established as an authority on Ming-dynasty China for referencing. But if you are planning to reference this, the (original) English version might be more suitable. Citation: China: A Macro History. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1988. 277 pp. ISBN 0-87332-452-8. --Sumple (Talk) 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, --Sumple (Talk) 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you review

I see you are also interested in Natan Slifkin. Please review these articles, because I have run up against an intransigent editor:

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

Perhaps you could also review the changes the same editor has made to Natan Slifkin. He does not come from the Jewish perspective, and he seems to be following me around and looking for ways to harass me.

Now here is an amazing coincidence. I see that you had planned to start an article on the Caltech biologist Norman Horowitz. I started one several weeks ago! He was one of my Dad's favorite teachers. I met him as a child. I was planning to add an additional paragraph and some references about his work on sidophores, but you are probably much more knowledegeable about that. --Metzenberg 04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at your Norman Horowitz article. I did not get much beyond the information collection stage, so I might not be able to add much. I will look at your other articles too and see what I can do, but it can be very difficult to deal with a disruptive editor I am afraid.--Filll 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Filll, this one is a real irritation: Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Consist of a lengthy discussion of the "God Delusion". Basically a series of book reviews hand picked to condemn Dawkins. But the part that really got me was the side article created on H. Allen Orr. A brief statement of who he is then an epistle on his "book review" of the God Delusion.

It is an encyclopedia not a forum for exposing your world views... the primary contributor seems to have forgotten this: BNeal, I stumbled across this on a discussion page

"Hi Pastordavid. Re your 747 vote, you might want to know that I am a strong theist (and run John Polkinghorne's web presence) and the reason I think the 747 Gambit should be kept is that it is a very bad argument which has been rightly criticized by notable commentators, even some sympathetic to Dawkins. The people who want it deleted are Dawkins supporters who want to shield their Guru from criticism. If that encourages you to change your vote I'd be very grateful, though of course it's your decision. NBeale 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Pastordavid"

Thought you might be interested.

The evolution intro is withstanding the test of time ... I assume a hallmark of a solid article. Some rather big guns have protected it ... so it must be passing muster.

I have been following some of your “discussions” … you are ruthlessly efficient with the written word. It is like reading a good book. You have become somewhat legendary among my 'gifted' students who pop in and out on the evolution page. --Random Replicator 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have not been as active lately. I think Dawkins is a bit too aggressive for my taste, but they sure do like to attack him. I think his views should be presented fairly, at a minimum. Glad to hear your students like to see me rip one or two of these luddites and flat-earthers a new one from time to time. Some of these guys definitely deserve it.--Filll 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fill please note this: The 747 Myth. Orangemarlin 23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution Controversy

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Evolution#Controversy (2) and Talk:Evolution/WIP. Thanks! Gnixon 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Genetics

I noticed you had a lot of criticisms of the Genetics article. I've rewritten it, let me know what you think. I also rewrote the history section of the article. -Madeleine 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with EB?

Hi Filll,

How've you been? We haven't crossed paths lately. :( You especially might be interested in the equipartition theorem article that I've been fixing up the past few days.

I have a more important favor to ask of you, though. I've been working pretty diligently on the Encyclopædia Britannica article, which is now a featured article candidate. It's received a few excellent reviews, but overall surprisingly little attention. Could you maybe look it over and think up ways of improving it? Thanks muchly! :) Willow 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reading through it and I see a few places where I might have a suggestion or two for you :). A list will be forthcoming.--Filll 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Filll, you're great! :) I've got to run now, though, so don't be surprised if I don't answer right away. Talk to you soon, Willow 01:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Still working on it!--Filll 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Refeature Evolution

Do you think Evolution is ready to be re-featured? - RoyBoy 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would check with User:Silence.--Filll 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An outrageous set of religious videos

Just take a look at .--Filll 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

LMAO! I especially enjoyed the bit that compared Merv Griffin to Pol Pot. Thanks for posting that link! PS - I'm glad to hear that you stepped away from the article Black people...I'm afraid it's a lost cause. Besides, kicking ass on neo-Nazis is even more entertaining : ) Doc Tropics 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Complexity

Hi there. There is a lot written on this topic, which is why I think Silence's resistance to discussing it is unwise. However, I'm trying to stick to the peer-reviewed sources and academic reviews, otherwise we could have a lot of dubious stuff added to the article. TimVickers 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

An example of what I find so disturbing about the religious right

Just watch this one: --Filll 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I remember why I stopped going to church. Wikidan829 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond Intelligent Design

I'll work on the article, but I think you need to pick up Chapman's book, 40 days and 40 nights about the Kitzmiller case. I think you'll find more references to this issue. Orangemarlin 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

As a contributor the the FAR discussion, your input to this FA nomination would be much appreciated. Thanks. TimVickers 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy

This article became totally polluted and still needs to be worked on and watched.--Filll 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnomes

I am chipping away at a few of these articles. Some of them are in awful shape and have been in awful shape for several years.--Filll 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A few articles I hopefully have helped include Adjaran, Anastenaria, Ackley, Iowa, Giant Drop (drop tower), Sauerkraut Days (disambiguation), Sauerkraut Days, Henderson, Minnesota, List of Iowa railroads, Fifty50, Parcent, Alive Bible Club, Hans Ragnemalm, Finnish language, Sinitta, Atkinson index, bolster, Chiastic structure, Dalida, Sir J.J. Institute of Applied Art, Saint Irene etc.--Filll 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, about Rapid-Decay theory and Baraminology...

I haven't been following Creationism pages that closely, but I was under the impression that all articles already in Category:Creation Science wern't supposed to also be in Category:Pseudoscience because of redundancy, since the Creation Science category itself is in Category:Pseudoscience. Just wondering if something has changed is all. Homestarmy 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I will follow consensus, whatever that is. Point me to the place where this was decided.--Filll 18:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "Creation Science" supposed to mean? Wikidan829 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well creation science is a type of pseudoscience where supposedly scientific methods are used to "prove" the literal truth of the bible, including the formation of the earth in 4004 BC.--Filll 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose God put light in motion to deceive us into thinking the universe is really millions of years old too ;) Wikidan829 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Filll, think about it, there's a whole slew of editors who watch the pages you added the pseudoscience category to, and a great many of them who would agree that all Creation Science and most anything it is related to would be categorized as pseudoscience, so why wasn't the category already on those pages? The person removing the category on Baraminology for example seemed to think it was redundant too because Creation Science is already in a sub-cat, but i'm not that familiar with how category policy works, the person who removed the category seemed to of left a reason for it on This talk page, it might of been some reorganization thing from the looks of it. Homestarmy 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why are some of the topics in both the creation science category and the pseudophysics category, which is a subcategory of the pseudoscience category?--Filll 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know much about how Category policy works concerning this, (The only thing I absolutly remember is that articles aren't really supposed to have any categories in them who's placement on an article is disputed, but as you may of noticed, some categories seem mysteriously immune to that part of the guideline) i'm just saying what I know :/. Offhand, maybe pseudophysics isn't as disorganized as the pseudoscience category was, or maybe nobody is taking care of the pseudophysics category as much. Homestarmy 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Hi,

Though I totally understand your frustration regarding the creationist viewpoint and intellectual cheating, edits like this one aren't really in keeping with the civility policy or the 'no using talk pages for a forum' either. We'll have to keep destroying the creationist arguments with reliable sources rather than wit.

WLU 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

EMSP

Filll, I'd suggest not bothering with him anymore -- trying to reason with him is like trying to perform dentistry on a chicken. •Jim62sch• 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have come to the same conclusion. He does not make any sense. Oh well.--Filll 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionism

I'm surprised I didn't see your name in these edits. This article is a travesty of POV. Orangemarlin 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a piece of slop. I started editing, but it needs almost a complete rewrite. •Jim62sch• 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have chopped away at it some, but every time I look at it, it looks worse than before. I do not know how this piece of trash grew right under our noses. Now it is a huge mess and has to be cleaned up. Ugh.--Filll 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we all missed it either, but we did. I'm not so sure we wouldn't be better off reverting back to this version •Jim62sch• 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So, how do we catch this crap in the future? I found it completely by chance, but that's not going to help. It was an old article too. Orangemarlin 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Teach Both Theories

• Teach Both Theories--Filll 21:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Love it!!!! Orangemarlin 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

References

You've started a lot of articles, some of which deserve to be GA's. Maybe one or two an FA. One thing frustrates me about your articles is that you don't use standard wiki referencing. Go to WP:CITET, and give it a read. It's kind of difficult at first, but now I have all the coding memorized. It standardizes everything, makes it easy to click on links, and gets rid of odd numbering, where a reference will have a reference within it. I want to tackle some of your articles, but that's a lot of work, so i would like you to start out clean. Just a suggestion. At least I'm not asking you to say only 2% of mainstream scientists believe in the tooth fairy. Orangemarlin 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I keep meaning to learn about Harvard referencing or some other method of referencing. I will get around to it, I promise. For the moment, I am just making articles, or moving some very crude stubs towards real articles. I do mean to go back and push a few of these towards GA or FA status at some point, however. --Filll 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance

User Yqbd might need a block for violating the 3RR rule. He has been uncivil, and has just deleted any warning on his page and copied them back on my page, as can be seen above. He has been warned a total of 7 times on his talk page, several times in the edit summaries of various pages, as well as on talk pages of the articles in question. I do not think he is understanding the consequences of such aggressive behavior. Thank you.--Filll 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanx! trcole123 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd was blocked for 12 hours at 17:23 for a 3RR violation at another article. In the future, you should consider reporting 3RR violations yourself, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Remember that the fourth revert must occur after a clear 3RR warning. (It doesn't matter how much earlier, or even if for another article. And if the user has a 3RR block on his/her record, as Yqbd now has, then you can simply assume the user was warned prior to that block.)

Regarding removal of warnings from user talk pages - this is acceptable, per Misplaced Pages:User page#Removal of warnings; please do not repost warnings should a user delete them. Keep in mind that removal is considered to be acknowledgment that the warning has been read. The warning is still visible via the history of the user talk page, which is where administrators always look, so deletion does not actual hide anything. (And I suggest that you delete the bogus warnings that Yqbd posted on your user talk page, with an edit summary to that effect; they're confusing to others who don't take the time to research the matter fully, which you don't want to make casual readers do when they arrive here for other reasons.)

I'm going to leave the "help me" up because an administrator might want to add to the block of Yqbd based on incivility. In general, you can report egregious acts of incivility at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So what do ya need help with, Filll? --A legend 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what to do next time for someone like Yqbd. He has been temporarily blocked and I think that if he does not learn his lesson, he will get increasingly longer blocks. Thank you very much.--Filll 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I've removed the {{helpme}} template from your talk page since you seem to have been helped already. Please let me know on my talk page if you still need assistance with something.--Chaser - T 00:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rough Draft: Beyond Intelligent Design

Please take a look at this: User talk:Filll/beyondintelligentdesign--Filll 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

After some welcome suggestions by User:Orangemarlin, this article has been launched as Beyond intelligent design and a few links made to other articles. It is still fairly rough, but it is a start.--Filll 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd

Well this was strange don't you think? Good job on BeyondID. I'll need to look at it more. Orangemarlin 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that her edit which accidently "coppied" many pages of unauthorized and uncredited material from another author seems a bit peculiar, however computers can do very strange things sometimes and have to be watched carefully so they do not dump all kinds of nonsense where they are not supposed to. Thanks for the assistance on Beyond intelligent design. I have heard about 10 of this guy's radio shows and a couple of interviews with him, and I decided that his unique viewpoint had to get a bit more airing here. I think Mulder is a perfect example of someone who objects to intelligent design because it is not radical enough, and really is not understanding the fairly transparent strategy the Discovery Institute is pursuing. His beliefs hardly even need any rebuttal since they are so baldly outrageous. Of course, I still have not got the references down, but eventually I will figure that out.--Filll 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd best respond here since its a pretty big rant off-topic

On the topic of stale Creationist arguments, I have noticed that distinct deficiency in many Creationist websites, but when you're outnumbered in the academic field by like, what, a bazillion to one, I think its to be expected that its a bit hard for many people to keep up. I mean, with other typical Christian apologetics, the thing we're arguing against doesn't change very rapidly, other religions generally maintain their same doctrines for the most part or change them only every now and again, and many criticisms of Christianity are almost as old as Christianity itself, and have been answered over and over like thousands of times, only for the questions to come up again and again, as if nobody has ever even tried giving an answer. Not so with Evolution, it's not like all Creationists get all those hip, popular science magazine subscriptions that y'all seem to like so we can keep up on the latest who-knows-how-many alterations to evolutionary theory, I don't even know how many times on MSNBC i've seen headlines in the science section about "New Discovery/Hypothesis/Theory Radically Changes Scientists Views on Human/Insert Other Animal Here Evolution" or something like that, it would probably still be a tought time for Creation Scientists to keep up even if we had equal numbers with academia.

Of course, that doesn't excuse the many woefully out-of-date websites out there that are sometimes several decades behind, but i've heard plenty of evolutionists (RED FLAG FILLL, YOU'RE TALKING TO A FUNDIE! :D ) who try to defend evolution and themselves are many years out of date or are using innacuratly oversimplified versions of the theory that were given to them in high school or something, so I think for many Creation Scientists, (I'm actually not big on Creationism apologetics myself, it really seems like a terribly roundabout way to convince someone to become a Christian.) its not easy to figure out exactly what they are supposed to be criticizing at any one time. Not everyone out there are as well informed as editors of Evolution articles here, by and large, just about every single evolutionist (OH NOES, THAT WORD AGAIN!!111!1) here really seem to be increadibly in tune with the latest on developments in evolutionary theory and the entire modern theory as a whole, much more so than the general population methinks.

I still remember the first time I made my own sort-of protest on the Evolution article, as I imagine many Creationists before me have done, I was asking somewhere around the beginning of 2006 why Evolution didn't violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, since many other Creationists seemed to be trying their hand at protesting at the time as well. It turns out that my science books lied to me, can you believe it? My Chemistry teacher confirmed that what User:Slrubenstein said was true, indeed, the law can only really be applied absolutly in a closed system, which the earth certainly doesn't appear to be. However, I look on Answers in Genesis around a year later, and they finally got an article responding to this, the first one i've ever seen or heard of from anyone actually trying to counter this, if I understand it correctly, rather old reply by evolutionists (THERE I GO AGAIN, WHEN WILL THE FUNDYNESS STOP?!?!?) to this objection by creationists, so the disconnect between most creationist apologetics sites and the actual modern theory of evolution doesn't seem to be primarily a problem of Creationists insisting on trying to attack straw-mans even when they know they aren't really attacking evolution, but rather, a problem of lack of manpower to keep up with a field tended to by thousands upon thousands of supposed scientists, (THERE I GO AGAIN WITH THOSE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC OPINIONS OF MINE, WHEN WILL I LEARN????) constantly changing the theory in countless ways probably every day. I know all about how there's supposed to be rapid change in scientific fields when there's reaserch going on, because obviously there's no self-correction of malformed old theories if science can't be flexible and rapidly adaptable, but come on Filll, uneven teams much? You've only got like every major field of academia there is on your side with people ready to fight, and what do we have, maybe a token few Ken Ham's who have some degree of academic familiarity with biology, and then a bunch of volunteers basically, I think we deserve a bit of a handicap in our favor here, sheesh. Homestarmy 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rant is a bit long. I won't get into the numbers game, but there are reasons why the numbers are what they are, nor is giving a bit of a handicap an issue either. Evolution really hasn't changed that much, the basic premisses are still the same, just some of the hypotheses have been tweaked -- which is why it's science, and why creationism isn't.

BTW, I think you mean the 2nd Law of Thermo, not the 1st. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the imbalance is fairly clear: anyone who is intellectually honest and who studies the controversy for any length of time finds themselves inexorably convinced by the evidence for evolution. It really is a slam dunk. I am not even a biologist, and the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that evolution is one of the great scientific insights of all time. The long long list of laboratory and field observations alone, from new species of Mosquitos in the London Subway, to new nylon eating bacteria species, to new species of bugs evolved to eat bananas in Hawaii, to different species of plants on either side of the Great Wall of China, to hip bones and vestigal rear legs on whales, to teleomeres at the splice site in one human chromosome, to all the laboratory experiments to flesh eating bacteria to bacteria resistance and on and on and on just is overwhelming. The other genetic evidence and literally hundreds of millions of fossils pretty much nails it for me. Even the tilapia, the fish the ichthus is apparently modeled after, shows strong evidence of evolutionary processes. The imbalance between creationists and scientists that support evolution is not because there is some secret society of atheists or satanists in academia, or that there is some plot to drastically change science so fast that creationists cannot keep up. It is not much different than people who want to maintain that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the earth is flat. The evidence just becomes so overwhelming that eventually only a few extremists are unwilling to give up their old traditional beliefs that they believe are based on the bible. (I will note that biologist Joan Roughgarden is a devout Christian but also a strong evolution proponent, and she has written a book that provides large amounts of evidence for evolution using bible passages, because even the observations about farming and herding and the natural world that the bible writers used contain "proof" of evolution in them). The entire "entropy" argument is basically nonsense, because the people making it really do not understand what entropy is, or evolution, or in fact, even what science is or the scientific method. They just know that it is all somehow vaguely satanic and evil because their preachers have told them so, ranting and raving against some phantom foe that they do not even understand. It is all pretty sad, really, and would be comical if it were not so dangerous to future of the US or technology.--Filll 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is also funny that there are areas of real scientific controversy in evolution and these are places where there is a lot of scientific excitement. However, most creationists are not interested in that since these areas do not match their preconceived notions of what the problems with evolution are. Creationists have some completely unscientific and unrealistic visions of what scientists should be doing and what the dominant scientific theories should be, that basically ignore most of the evidence that has been gathered over the last few hundred years. They will stand on their heads to explain away any piece of evidence that does not allow a particular literal reading of the bible, ignoring all other interpretations of the bible by other sects or historical interpretations or contradictory passages in other parts of the bible. It is like a massive cult of aggressive ignorance.--Filll 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, i'll take your word for it that you've debated plenty of creationists before, and many of them probably have given better defenses for Creationism using just sciency stuff than whatever I could muster, but didn't any of them point out that basically every one of the examples you gave fit in just fine with current Creationist thinking concerning microevolution? I know that its probably more modern than whatever the Creationist movement thought about all those things at first, but does trying to adapt our theories based on the observations of evolutionists really have to count as deceptively trying to support our own beliefs? Homestarmy 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I have heard creationists claim that they do not object to the type of evolution that they realize is impossible to deny (microevolution) and they only disagree with the other type (macroevolution, or whatever arbitrary division they decide to impose). Sometimes creationists claim that the boundary is between species, but then when it is shown that new species have been observed emerging, creationists change their definition of macroevolution. There is no mechanism that anyone knows of that would prevent evolution from stopping at some arbitrary place. Evolution creates variation within species, and then creates new species, and does not appear to terminate anywhere. Fossil records make this incredibly clear, and every time someone claims they have a gap in the fossil record, further investigation produces one or more fossils to fill the gap and complete the record. By the way, the appearance of teleomeres in the middle of one of our human chromosomes is unequivocal evidence for the emergence of the human species from a primate precursor. Is this what you had in mind by "microevolution"- that humans and monkeys had common ancestors? I suspect not. But the evidence is in the DNA. Undeniable. I could give you plenty of evidence of creationist dishonesty, but let's just start with quote mining, shall we? If bearing false witness was an important Commandment, almost every single prominent creationist would be burning in hell for ever and ever. But there are many many other examples...--Filll 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Read this.

As for "microevoution" fitting in with creationist beliefs, that depends on the brand of creationism, doesn't it? Hell, creationists can't even agree on what "creationism" means. •Jim62sch• 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Impressive article. You are quite right. Creationists like to pretend that they agree with each other, but a little bit of investigation quickly demonstrates that this is far from the truth. Since there is no objective way to establish some sort of standard account (as there is in science), creationists just declare their own personal fantasies to be the truth, and try to shout down the "evolutionists" and their fellow creationists, determining the "winner" by whoever can be loudest and most outrageous and obnoxious.--Filll 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rant?

I believe if anyone was 'ranting' it was you. You are not objective. You want to force people to believe as you do. This is what you said in your 'rant' Octoplus 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You have a lot to learn, clearly.--Filll 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I'm slapping you about side the head. USE EDIT SUMMARIES. Grrrrrrrrrrr. It's hard to tell what you did. You can even write, "deleted the biggest bunch of hogwash since Bush won Florida in 2000." Orangemarlin 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just cause I don't use the damned thing half of the time doesn't mean you can get away with it.  ;)

Zeitgeist, the movie

Possibly because of the easy available of computerized production tools, and the availability of the internet as a distribution channel has created more and more conspiracy theories. One recent example is Zeitgeist, the movie. I just finished watching it. I have to admit, it is pretty amazing. Some elements of truth are in it, but there are some bits of pure nonsense. Presenting in a compelling way, for sure. Contains some material relevant to Jesus myth hypothesis. --Filll 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Which bits were pure nonsense? I only got through the first part before my browser choked and died. I thought he was drawing a bit of a long bow with some of the astrological comparisons, but the literary comparisons were interesting. ornis 16:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are just a few of the claims from the movie. It is a very elaborate theory that makes some incredible claims:

• World War I and II were arranged and financed by the Federal Reserve bank.
• Vietnam was also a set up
• Since World Wars I, II, the installation of Hitler in power and Vietnam were all the result "false flag" operations, it is reasonable to expect that 9/11 was also a false flag operation to justify the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq
• The 1993 world trade center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing were financed and planned and directed by the FBI
• Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11
• Many if not all of the 19 9/11 hijackers are still alive
• The bankers plan to put RFID chips in the entire world population
• The assassination of President Kennedy was ordered because Kennedy was uncovering evidence of some grand conspiracy of "men behind the curtain" that were connected with the 9/11 conspiracy
• There is strong evidence that NORAD was directed to allow the attacks on 9/11
• Christianity is a complete myth, constructed to keep people docile so that bankers and other leaders can do what they want
• The 1929 crash and depression was arranged by the bankers and government on purpose
• The Pakistanis financed the 9/11 attacks
• All these schemes and more are linked to the 9/11 conspiracy, arranged by the US government to attack its own people--Filll 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh... I didn't get that far... wow. They probably should have left it at "...christianity is a myth derived from earlier myths..." and called it a day. ornis 16:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of movies that weave all kinds of strange links together including the 9/11 event. Take a look at 9/11 conspiracy theories and the links at the bottom.

If Christianity is a conspiracy religion designed to keep people like me "docile", they've sure done a terrible job at it, I kind of like this Ron Paul dude, and if he was elected president, that's pretty much the end of the Federal Reserve system. Mike Huckabee also supports FairTax, which would probably also at least hurt the Federal Reserve, since there'd presumably be no more IRS if he was prez either. Homestarmy 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Their'd be an IRS no matter who was president -- someone has to collect the taxes and make sure that all revenue due is paid. The elimination of the IRS is a wet-dream at best. •Jim62sch• 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Then who collected taxes before there was an IRS? Homestarmy 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A falsifiability and evolution rough draft

Please take a look at Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft2.--Filll 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Return of Raspor?

I strongly suspect that User:Octoplus is a sockpuppet of User:Raspor. Should we check? Here is why I have my suspicions:

• endless trolling
• badly formed sentences and grammar and lack of punctuation, similar to Raspor, although he is capable of writing clearly
• wildly exaggerated indenting on occasion (started when Raspor was chastised for not ever indenting)
• Raspor's suggestions that evolution is not a hard science or inadequate because of its lack of mathematical rigor, and Octoplus' allusions to a mathematical proof of the inability of evolution to produce life that uses differential equations
• long and frequent posts to talk pages but never any constructive suggestions to change the article
• familiarly of Octoplus with the page and the WP rules even though the account is quite new
• when frequently invited to produce something, Raspor and Octoplus both decline, and blame their lack of output on some sort of discrimination by other WP editors
• both have a similar attitude and seem aggrieved about something
• both tried to direct the attention to themselves and remain in the spotlight (when I moved material to Octoplus' talkpage, he deleted it and then claimed he had never seen it). When this was pointed out, he moved on to another complaint, much as Raspor would.

Suggestions?--Filll 12:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy today, and I would like to add another sockpuppet charge to my long list of accurate and successful Raspor and kdbuffalo sockpuppet charges. However, I don't have time today, so my suggestion is you start here: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets and follow up with a WP:RFCU. Be accurate for the RFCU, or it will be declined for fishing, and the possible Raspor sockpuppet will think he got away with it. Unless he got smart, the checkuser will probably lead back to some small town in Ohio, but we'll never know. By the way, I agree, although Octoplus is being slightly more careful about grammar and punctuation. Orangemarlin 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to move on this tomorrow. I'll leave you a note about it. It's suspicious. Orangemarlin 05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I did leave a message with this evidence at User:SlimVirgin's page as suggested by User:FeloniousMonk since she has blocked and monitored User:Raspor and his sockpuppets. So far, she has not done anything, apparently. I guess a better case has to be built and it done more formally. --Filll 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Raspor/Octoplus

I agree that User:Octoplus is walking in the footsteps User:Raspor and Everwill. You should raise your concern with the admin who issued the original block, User:SlimVirgin, and if she agrees that User:Octoplus is a sockpuppet of User:Raspor/Everwill, she'll block him as a sock puppet. In the meantime, any long-winded, repetitive objections and rants from Octoplus should be moved to his user page (userfied) or a subpage of Talk:Intelligent design in order to minimize disruption of that page. Also, learn and follow the steps outlined at WP:DE if he continues to disrupt the talk page after the discussions have been moved. FeloniousMonk 14:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Falsifiability and evolution rough draft

I can look at it, but it wouldn't be until Thursday or Friday. I'm kinda swamped right now. Will that be too late?--Margareta 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No not at all. We have waited for months already, after all! I just thought I would think about slowly finishing up a bit of old business.--Filll 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Had a quick look which brought up ideas which I've added to Falsifiability and could be expanded on here, rather rushed with other things for a bit. One being Bombardier beetle which needed clarification. Incidentally, amongst the sources, one from AiG turned out to be very useful, and appears to be creationists doing real science. An impression helped by the sensible non-conclusion. .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Thank you for weighing in with a sensible summary of how the issue of falsifiability/testability relates to the topic, and for reminding everyone there of the basics, particularly ID working from pre-ordained conclusions backwards. ... Kenosis 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Under-referenced

The draft is under-referenced and thus open to the accusation of original research. In this case, it is particularly important to avoid synthesising data or arguments from two separate sources into a new interpretation or to advance a novel argument. The best way to avoid people concluding this is original research is to find several reliable sources that directly address this topic. Tim Vickers 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Some useful references might be ref 1 ref 2 ref 3. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a very rough draft, obviously. We are just starting out to try to scratch together an article on this issue.--Filll 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biology

Time for a little payback. I need your help in getting this article to FA status someday. We all write about a whole host of articles that use Biology as its basis, and yet that fundamental article is nearly a piece of crap. I've started by outline the foundations of modern biology. It needs help from there. We need to have some fun, fighting Creationists isn't interesting day after day.Orangemarlin 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat stunned that it is in such bad shape. The grammar is poor. The writing is sloppy. The organization is almost nonexistant. I am not a biologist but even I can tell there is a problem or two with this article. I am amazed.--Filll 11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Not sure if you are talking about the general problem or some specific edit. I'm sure you understand that archiving is a normal part of Wiki procedure. Banno 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about a specific edit of yours which deleted a plea of mine for sanity. However, you reverted your edit. There are some crazy things going on in association with that talk page which I do not understand. I am just honestly puzzled that a fairly minor screwup by an outside editor turned into a miniwar.--Filll 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Crossed wires, I think. My aim is to resolve the archiving problem and get the discussion back on topic. I'm sure yours is much the same. I did revert an edit in error, and fixed it - I hope! I have temporarily blocked one editor, and will block any others who re-insert large pieces of archived material. It's an article that arouses great passion, to its detriment. Best wishes, Banno 21:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So you go ahead and block others instead who did the same exact thing as Filll for precisely the same reasons. Wow, I'm impressed. Orangemarlin 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he'll block anyone else. •Jim62sch• 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What a day. I'm still shocked that Fatalis has created a bunch of crap for the three of us, he doesn't get taken down a peg or two for his outrageous behavior, yet Filll and I get warned for being uncivil, and ornis has a block. WTF is going on around here. Oh, and check out what this sockpuppet (I'm convinced) has written. I'm dealing with him tomorrow, because I think I've compiled sufficient evidence. Orangemarlin 05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still completely puzzled. I am wondering if this recent mess at Creation Science was caused because we did not aggressively enough block these trolls and move soon enough and this is attracting more trouble or more trolls or more POV warriors or something. I am not sure what the agendas of all these different players are but there seem to be a lot more players involved at these articles. All I have never encountered before. Many are new accounts with users that already seem to know the rules. Several seem reminiscent of past banned trolls. And they seem to want to impede progress and consensus on these articles.--Filll 12:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For a mathematician

LOL Orangemarlin 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good :) --Filll 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor Orangemarlin 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Orangemarlin 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on R's RfA

I read with interest your comments on the RfA of User:R, and appreciated some of the points you made, even though you wound up opposing a candidate whom I nominated and still believe would be a satisfactory administrator. I did want to say, though, that this is the first time I've had one of my nominations analogized to an explosion that killed seven people.... I don't suppose I could call it a personal attack or anything, but it was certainly an arresting comparison. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit it might seem a bit peculiar at first glance, but I have enough experience in large commercial and government enterprises to start to understand how and why bad decisions are made, and to see some patterns. I think your nominee might very well be a good administrator, but I am advocating that he be seasoned with a few months of solid article-writing first.--Filll 15:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alleged edit war on Creation Science

Too much bias exists in the phrase "creationist's attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify..." to leave the page summary as it currently stands. Removing misinformation and blatent opinions is no grounds for me to be blocked or banned. The only reason for me to violate the three revision rule is your persitence on restoring a clearly biased section of the article that greatly misleads readers.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.117.129 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)