Changes

I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives.  I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did.  Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style?  Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives.  I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did.  Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style?  Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's not a joke.  What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''.  The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective.  Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[physical science#[edit] Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]].  There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative.  Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's not a joke.  What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''.  The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective.  Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[Natural science#Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]].  There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative.  Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I'm a Christian, a Conservative, and an "Evolutionist" (that term's new to me too).  But I've also taken science classes.  Don't you think it says something that the only sources you can point to are biased niche-sources, and not anything actually serious?  And the last time I checked, assuming your conclusion is bad science :-P -[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I'm a Christian, a Conservative, and an "Evolutionist" (that term's new to me too).  But I've also taken science classes.  Don't you think it says something that the only sources you can point to are biased niche-sources, and not anything actually serious?  And the last time I checked, assuming your conclusion is bad science :-P -[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:Science has no agenda at all; it is not an intelligent being.  But the ''scientists'', on the other hand, do often have agendas.

:Science has no agenda at all; it is not an intelligent being.  But the ''scientists'', on the other hand, do often have agendas.

:"''Evolution simply explains life better...''".  That is your ''opinion'', but given your gross ignorance of the alternative view, I wouldn't put much weight on it.

:"''Evolution simply explains life better...''".  That is your ''opinion'', but given your gross ignorance of the alternative view, I wouldn't put much weight on it.

:"''...and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you)''".  You've broken nothing to me; I've heard that before.  And it's simply untrue.  [[Physical science|Science]] was founded on a Biblical (i.e. creationist) worldview and many if not most of the early scientists were creationists.  So evolution, which came later, does ''not'' underlie all of modern science.  Additionally, some evolutionists have even admitted this.  See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/347 here], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/86/ here], and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5075 here].

:"''...and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you)''".  You've broken nothing to me; I've heard that before.  And it's simply untrue.  [[Natural science|Science]] was founded on a Biblical (i.e. creationist) worldview and many if not most of the early scientists were creationists.  So evolution, which came later, does ''not'' underlie all of modern science.  Additionally, some evolutionists have even admitted this.  See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/347 here], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/86/ here], and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5075 here].

:"''I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind.''".  Huh?  What makes you think that the editors of those journals haven't already made up their mind?

:"''I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind.''".  Huh?  What makes you think that the editors of those journals haven't already made up their mind?

:"''Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question.''".  Why is that?

:"''Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question.''".  Why is that?

:::I'm familiar with the concept of "order of magnitude", thanks.  I don't see the relevance here unless you are saying that 6000 years is just too big an adjustment for you to make.

:::I'm familiar with the concept of "order of magnitude", thanks.  I don't see the relevance here unless you are saying that 6000 years is just too big an adjustment for you to make.

:::I don't dismiss all of geological dating just because "there are errors".  I reject it for several reasons, including (a) it contradicts the written testimony of God, (b) there are ''lots'' of examples of contradictory dates, (c) it is based on unprovable assumptions, and (d) there are very few if any examples where it has been shown to be right on rocks of known age.

:::I don't dismiss all of geological dating just because "there are errors".  I reject it for several reasons, including (a) it contradicts the written testimony of God, (b) there are ''lots'' of examples of contradictory dates, (c) it is based on unprovable assumptions, and (d) there are very few if any examples where it has been shown to be right on rocks of known age.

:::Your "interest" in some science views being okay and some questionable ignores the difference between [[physical science#Types of science|operational and origins science]].  Your examples are the former, whereas I am rejecting the latter.  No contradiction there at all.  And some of those examples actually benefited from the research of creationists.

:::Your "interest" in some science views being okay and some questionable ignores the difference between [[Natural science#Types of science|operational and origins science]].  Your examples are the former, whereas I am rejecting the latter.  No contradiction there at all.  And some of those examples actually benefited from the research of creationists.

:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: That's an interesting bit of fiction.  Problems include:

: That's an interesting bit of fiction.  Problems include:

:* Yes, there was a pursuit of knowledge, but science as we understand it [[Physical science#Beginnings|arose in and because of a Christian worldview]].

:* Yes, there was a pursuit of knowledge, but science as we understand it [[Natural science#Beginnings|arose in and because of a Christian worldview]].

:* Christianity has been around by that name for 2000 years (and is a continuation of Judaism which was a continuation of the belief in the Creator, dating back to the creation of the world), whereas the peer review process has been around for what?  A couple of hundred years?

:* Christianity has been around by that name for 2000 years (and is a continuation of Judaism which was a continuation of the belief in the Creator, dating back to the creation of the world), whereas the peer review process has been around for what?  A couple of hundred years?

:* It treats all religions as equal, and therefore as equally wrong.  This is a logical fallacy.  Just because some must be wrong (they can't all be right when they proclaim contradictory things), it doesn't follow that they are all wrong.

:* It treats all religions as equal, and therefore as equally wrong.  This is a logical fallacy.  Just because some must be wrong (they can't all be right when they proclaim contradictory things), it doesn't follow that they are all wrong.

:* Belief in the Earth being around 6000 years old is not a recent, post-scientific, belief.  It is what the Bible has recorded for thousands of years and in fact almost everybody thought that the age of the world was that order of magnitude until only about 200 years ago.

:* Belief in the Earth being around 6000 years old is not a recent, post-scientific, belief.  It is what the Bible has recorded for thousands of years and in fact almost everybody thought that the age of the world was that order of magnitude until only about 200 years ago.

:I was annoyed at having to give you a ban.  You were the first person I've blocked, other than people who came here solely to vandalise.

:I was annoyed at having to give you a ban.  You were the first person I've blocked, other than people who came here solely to van<i></i>dalise.

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:You'll have to explain yourself better; I'm not following.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:You'll have to explain yourself better; I'm not following.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

PWNED! [[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 15:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

PW<i></i>NED! [[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 15:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Mind your manners, Aknot. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] _{[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]} 10:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Mind your manners, Aknot. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] _{[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]} 10:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)