User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion with Filll

I see you had a discussion with Fill at Wikipedia. You must have a lot of patience! Actually, I looked at the discussion and it was quite civil. Fill was not so civil with me!!!! Conservative 22:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

This would go some way towards explaining it. And the quote in there was from my talk page; he wasn't always civil. Philip J. Rayment 05:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Great Flood article

Here's the layout I have planned for the Great Flood article:

  • Intro
  • Biblical account of the flood
  • Evidence supporting the Biblical account
    • This will include individual sub-headings on geologic evidence; underground aquafers; fossils, etc.
  • Arguments against the flood by scientists; to include clear refutations against these arguments
  • Extra-Biblical accounts; the cultural tales of the flood
  • Book references
  • Links

Can the material you are working on fit the above fairly well? I am open to suggestions. Karajou 12:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

What about refutations of the "evidence" for the flood? Nematocyte 12:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Think I can cover that :) Tsumetai 12:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Karajou: That's not quite the order I had in mind. If I can have another rant against Conservapedia (in addition to the one on my user page), it seems to be committing the same fallacy that Wikipedia is, of starting into an apologetic (for or against) before it's really described the topic. I've complained about that (to no avail of course) with regard to Wikipedia's article on Intelligent Design, which spends a majority of the introduction explaining why it's (supposedly) wrong (not to mention further refutations all the way through). I accept that it's early days for Conservapedia, but the Dinosaur article, for example, was shocking when I looked at it recently[1]. It spent one sentence "explaining" what dinosaurs were and the rest of the article in a creationist apologetic of them. Even though an evolutionary view has been added, that problem remains.

What niche is Conservapedia trying to fill? If home-school students (for example, given that they are a major reason for this site) want to find out about dinosaurs, there's plenty of other sources available. If they want a creationist apologetic for dinosaurs, there's several available which are very family-friendly. What does not otherwise exist, except I suppose at CreationWiki, is a place where the students can find out about dinosaurs from a biblically-friendly perspective. That, I gather, is what Conservapedia is for, and to do that, the Dinosaur article should actually describe dinosaurs, before launching into a creationist apologetic of them.

So that's the sort of approach I had in mind for the Flood. To actually describe it (from a biblically-friendly perspective) before getting into the apologetics of it. You may not think that's all that different from the outline you had, but it is a bit different, as you will see when I post it. (I've put the pressure on myself to get it done now, haven't I? :-( .)

Detail is what I want. I also want to avoid the typical cliches when posting evidence for the Flood itself; I want the facts as to it happening. Now I locked the page, but this was because about seven people came in and wrote a total of three short paragraphs about the Flood, with the result that the whole thing looked like an essay written in the 1st grade. And these clowns were supportive of the Flood as a fact! So, the above plan is not set in stone, but I do want both sides of the argument present on the page; as to claims presented by the mainstream side, I want clear, concise, and irrefuttable evidence (as much as possible) which contradicts it. Karajou 22:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Nematocyte: What about such refutations? Perhaps if you convince Wikipedia to put in refutations to its pro-evolution arguments, it might be fair to expect Conservapedia to put in refutations to its pro-creation arguments. Sound fair? And I'm sure that you really would be fair and balanced about it here, given the quote marks you've used around the word "evidence", indicating that you don't think the evidence really is such.

Philip J. Rayment 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Post your article anyway. I'm unlocking the page for that purpose. Karajou 11:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

How? I mean, do I replace what's there (it could always be reverted of course), or have two articles on the one page? And I said it's not quite ready anyway. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, it's far past my bed time. Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
It's simple. Highlight and copy your entire article. The go to the Great Flood article, click on the EDIT tab, hightlight everything there, then click "paste" from the edit menu at the top of the screen. What will happen is all of your info will replace all of what is already there. DO NOT WORRY ABOUT MY FEELINGS IF YOUR'S REPLACES MINE! My goal is to have the best article on the subject written here; if your's is simply better, than so be it! Karajou 13:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, despite me asking "how?", it wasn't the mechanics of doing so that I was asking about. I wasn't clear that replacing your article is what you had in mind. Now I'm clear, and I'll try and get my article into good-enough shape as soon as I can, although that may take a day or two.


I am Australian too, but this is an American site and it is in their rules to use American spelling. If you persist in reverting the article, I will place you on a short ban. niandra 05:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

It would have been nice if you had explained why you were reverting to American spelling in the edit comment, but the main point is that the rule requiring American spelling has been lifted (albeit only about 20 hours ago, but I mentioned that in my edit comment). So will you change it back, please? Philip J. Rayment 06:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I was obviously unaware of the rule being omitted. The distances will still keep the same format though. niandra 06:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, obviously! :-) Thanks for that. I hadn't changed the format of any distances, but I don't think there's actually a rule about that, and I did see some discussion on using metric measurements, given that Americans use them too, in certain circumstances (e.g. in scientific fields). Philip J. Rayment 06:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
No, there probably isn't a direct rule, but there is general consensus that things should be kept persistent. niandra 06:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Ask Aschafly to become a Sysop/Administrator

Please ask User:Aschlafly to become a Sysop/Administrator. We need people on the other side of the globe to protect the site during our night time. Conservative 20:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I don't think that it is, or at least should be, my place to ask. And if he did ask me, before I accepted I would want to know more about the job, shuch as what the duties of a sysop are and what would be expected of me. Philip J. Rayment 22:05, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
—and whether I get a flak jacket to protect me from the bibliosceptics! :-) Philip J. Rayment 22:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
The duty is very light. I believe it can be as light as "when you see a vandal block them". Only once did a user ask me to mediate a dispute. I asked Aschlafly to make you a Sysop and I believe he will ask you before making you a Sysop and explain your responsibilities. Conservative 22:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Im a biblioskeptic, and i still think youre a good choice--PalMDtalk 22:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Your assistance requested

I need your input if you are willing--> User:Palmd001/Falsifiability Challenge It should be self-explanatory, and I think you are probably the closest to an expert we have around here. --PalMDtalk 14:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Welcome as a Sysop!

Philip, welcome as a Sysop from the outback! A story about Conservapedia in Australia's biggest newsweekly is about to run and I want you on board when it hits!

Blocking rules are this: block someone immediately for obscenity for infinite duration. No warning, no questions asked. Just click "block" next to their entry in "Recent Changes" (and unclick the box that enables one to create a new account). The same is true for vandalism. You can always undo a block if there is a mistake, but mistakes are rare. For silliness or misguided entries or edits, a warning on their User Talk page usually suffices. Ideological disagreements do not result in blocking except in the rare case of someone who repeatedly and senselessly interferes with the work of others, after repeated warnings. Feel free to enlist other Sysops in those situations.

I believe Sidney is 14 hours ahead of New York time. When it is 1 am NY time, it would be 3 pm Sidney time. If you could be online during your late afternoon and especially your evening hours to watch for vandals, then that would be most appreciated!

Welcome again!--Aschlafly 19:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I guess I can handle that! :-) By the way, I live on the outskirts of Australia's second-largest city, which is by no stretch of the imagination, "the outback". Also, that city is Melbourne, not Sydney (although they are in the same time zone), and Sydney is not spelt with an "i". And the time difference depends on daylight saving in either place. Philip J. Rayment 23:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Very good. I'm learning every minute I'm on this site. Thank you.--Aschlafly 23:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


I came across the Cat article randomly and it appeared to have been vandalised, so I reverted it to an earlier version, although that was apparently itself a vandalism.

As for the Earth article you have changed, without discussion, a consensus document worked on by many editors in the site. If you do this you must first submit your changes or ideas on the talk page, rather than unilaterally deciding to do this. I'm putting it back to the old version again. If you wish to discuss how to make the article better I'd be happy to see you at the talk page :)!Orlenzia

Okay, I can see now that it was not vandalism, but apparent POV-pushing. As per your request, I'll continue this on the appropriate talk page. Philip J. Rayment 23:37, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Hello to you too

I'm so glad someone forwarded me a link to this site. I really look forward to watching this grow. Check out (and perhaps edit) my contribution at Oriental. Everwill 07:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Congratulations and ....

Congratulations on being named a Sysop. Now use your influence to remove the American flag logo! I used my influence to help get rid of the American spelling rule. LOL Conservative 23:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative


Standard modern English usage for billion is 109 (this is standard for most English speaking countries). Though billion can mean a million million, that usage is becoming increasingly rare. Thus, 4,500 million (4,500 x 106) is 4.5 x 109 or 4.5 billion. ColinRtalk 06:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Concerning Revilo314


Now I can address you as "from one Sysop to another." I have looked at the contributions from user Revilo314. If the above comes up in red, then you'll see that he hasn't even made a user page yet. But he has a talk page. I have asked him again whether he is genuine or not, and he has not, thus far, deigned to answer--this although I have set a watch on his pages.

I suggest that you do the same, and that we both watch him and watch his contributions. He has already done something silly on the Dinosaur page--check the history, and you'll see.

Bottom line: I strongly suspect that he's a "parody user."

Let me explain what I meant by "seminar post." Here in the States we have two "kings" of radio--we call it "talk radio" here in the States; what do you call them down under, mate? Anyhow, we have these two guys, and maybe you've heard their names: Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They're quite controversial, and they're both conservative.

So in the past few years, they began to get calls all beginning the same way: "I'm a conservative, and I voted for George W. Bush, but..." And the "but" introduces a point at such variance with conservatism that very likely they didn't vote for Bush at all; they're just saying that to make it look as though Bush has just lost a vote. (Does your John Howard have that sort of strife?)

After a few such calls, Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hannity each concluded independently that the Democratic Party in the States must be running seminars to teach people how to call into their radio programs and get on the air. Mr. Hannity came up with a name for such a participant: "seminar caller."

So I think that Revilo314 is a "seminar editor." He's acting as if he went to a seminar to publish asinine commentary and behave like the seminar leader's idea of a creationist.

But--I can't prove that, not without a much longer record.

All the same--I'm not so sure that his posts on a Talk page are worth replying to. He can't be serious.

Hence my suggestion: perhaps we both ought to watch his contributions for awhile--not just to Talk:Theory of evolution but to other articles, too.

G'day.--TerryHTalk 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

G'day to you too.
Congratulations on the sysop role.
I see that he has now answered you. But I'll still watch.
We call it talk radio too. I've heard Limbaugh's name, but don't know anything about the bloke. I can't say that I've heard of Hannity. But we do have the same sorts of callers, although I hadn't heard the term. I can't say that I've noticed them favouring any particular party though, but maybe they do. They tend to get short shrift from the announcers.
One value in replying is to show the anti-creationists that we don't endorse what he's saying.
Philip J. Rayment 12:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

It was an accident

Sorry, I hit the wrong button. [2] --Ed Poor 12:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


Feel free to unlock it at any time. MountainDew 14:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


If you could be so kind, please give me an email address for you. If you are afraid of getting spam then please create a new email address at or If you would prefer not to briefly correspond, no offense taken. Conservative 22:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Click the E-mail this user link in the toolbox on the left. Philip J. Rayment 22:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you another email

I just sent you another email. Conservative 00:28, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative


I would have responded to you on the Conservapedia:Sysops page but it has now been locked so that lowly non-sysop editors cannot use it.

Nice to see another Aussie online here. I noticed another Australian (I think), Niandra, but I believe she has now left.

I suspect that we may cross swords from time to time (notwithstanding shared nationality). I look forward to future editing with you. --Horace 10:21, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Niandra was an Aussie too (she had the {{Aussie}} template on her user page), as was the user who created the template, and who soon after got himself banned. Philip J. Rayment 10:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


Say, Philip, if you're interested in the history and current state of Prohibition in Australia, I'd welcome your contribution to that article. Originally Prohibition discussed only Prohibition in the United States--but as you can see, I've moved that to a separate article. Now the article simply titled Prohibition covers prohibition throughout the world--and I've left an empty section in it for Australia. I'd rather a real Aussie, who knows what he's talking about, fill that in.--TerryHTalk 17:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

That's a fantastic article, Terry (the U.S. one). I've never thought of even looking for information on this on Wikipedia (or here), let alone writing something on it, but it is a topic close to my heart, being raised as (and remaining to this day) a teetotaller with a mother and grandmother with life memberships in the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and Mum being a former national vice president and state president of the WCTU (and me being an associate member for a short time).
Many years ago (decades ago) I read a couple of books about the prohibition in the U.S. (they were borrowed; I don't have them). Your sources seem to all be recent; It would be good if you could get hold of copies of the books I read, but unfortunately I can't even tell you the titles.
Information I remember or seem to remember from them (or in some cases other sources) that you don't appear to have includes the following:
  • About half the U.S. states already had prohibition before it went national. It was at least some of these states that remained dry afterwards, as the statutes were still on the books.
  • I'm not sure about your claim that crime went up (although I don't doubt that it did in some areas), because the book/s claimed that crime dropped so much that they were closing prisons down from a lack of inmates!
  • Sales of items like children's shoes went up (because the fathers were not spending the money on grog).
  • Patronage at hotels increased, as it was safer to take families there.
  • It wasn't just the women's groups; the churches got behind the push for prohibition.
  • Prohibition meant that the U.S. suffered less from post-war unemployment (caused by returning soldiers looking for work) than other countries.
  • The presidential election following the introduction of prohibition was fought with prohibition being one of the main issues, and the pro-prohibition candidates saw increased support.
Unfortunately, I can't supply references for any of this.
Something else that you could perhaps highlight more (as part of the persisting misinformation) is that prohibition was something that the people wanted (they voted for it), rather than it being something imposed on them by politicians, as many seem to assume.
Alas, I'm not sure that I can help you much; I don't have any real resources to use, and most of what I know is fading memories of things I heard in my younger days. Australia never had prohibition as such, although there have been and still are some restrictions beyond simply selling alcohol to minors.
Philip J. Rayment 05:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, anyway, for the points you made. Now we both have to find those books. I'll try to recruit some other researchers I know.
Actually, the Wikipedia article Prohibition has a vast "Further Reading" section. Would you mind browsing that, to see whether your two titles might have been among the references they list? It's a long shot, considering their liberal/libertarian bent, but it's worth a try.--TerryHTalk 13:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Except for three titles, none of which would be the ones I read, the dates of all are later than when I read the books I'm referring to. Philip J. Rayment 18:12, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Prohibition meant that the U.S. suffered less from post-war unemployment (caused by returning soldiers looking for work) than other countries. care to explain the logical connection here? Because I'm not seeing it. --Gulik2 00:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
What makes you think that I know the logical connection? I wasn't proposing a logical connection; I was simply relating something that I had read. However, my vague memory combined with a bit of common sense would suggest that it might be a case of the money that would otherwise have been spent on grog was instead spent on things that generated more employment than spending it on grog would have. Perhaps it was also a case of the people who weren't drinking (alcohol) were more productive and thereby earned more money, so having more money to spend, which provided for more employment. I don't have the answer, but it's not hard to imagine that it could be true. Philip J. Rayment 10:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Category:Australians on Conservapedia

For your consideration.Peter Ellis 16:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

  • thanks for the formatting on the Australia page - I still have to figure out the wiki language (I'm an oldfashioned HTMLer myself.) Is there a page that has the basics of wiki on it? For instance how would I align a graphic so that there is text running next to it? Or centre a graphic? cheers --Bilby 23:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
The best (most comprehensive) explanations of such things is (ironically) on Wikipedia (although much of it is actually on the MediaWiki site and copied to Wikipedia; we should look at doing similar here). Off the top of my head now I can't answer your specific questions, but have a look at the editing help on Wikipedia and you will be able to find it there. Sometimes you have to resort to HTML, and in fact the template I included on the Australia article simply uses some HTML/CSS markup to achieve that effect. Philip J. Rayment 23:46, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

IRC invitation

Good morning, Philip. Would you like to join me on IRC? I find that instant messaging facilitates sysop cooperation. --Ed Poor 06:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Good evening, Ed. Please tell me how; I've never used it. Philip J. Rayment 06:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I've downloaded Trillian and gone through the setup as per TK's page, but got stuck on joining the channel. I can't see a silver ball, and I'm not sure which the "main window" is. Philip J. Rayment 07:42, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
It can be tricky - I sent you my phone number by email. --Ed Poor 07:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I've found the silver ball (it was almost the same colour as the background, and wasn't where I was expecting), and I don't really plan on telephoning the U.S. (is that where the number is?) for this.
I think I might actually be on. Can you see me? Philip J. Rayment 07:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

I don't think that it would be appropriate. For one thing, it is debatable that vandalism is a violation of the commandments. It is mentioned on the commandments page as a blockable offence, but is not one of the numbered commandments.
And I think that illustrates the point, really. For one thing, the commandments aren't going to anticipate all circumstances, and some leeway needs to be allowed for offences that have not been anticipated (used judiciously of course). And for another, some things (such as vandalism) as so obvious that they shouldn't need to be spelled out. As a sysop I will act within the bounds of my authority, but do not intend to arbitrarily tie myself up in this way.
Philip J. Rayment 05:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism and collaboration

Hey, Philip, it was great talking with you and NSmyth today (or last night? ;-) via IRC. We really got to get together and write some articles on Progressive creationism and so on. Hope to hear from you soon. --Ed Poor 11:56, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


I have proudly posted a version of the "Pledge" on my user page, that I can acccept. It includes the Admin guidelines Andy approved, and does not ignore them. --~ TK MyTalk 07:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will never arbitrarily block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and related CP Guidelines.


Phillip J. Raymont, please see this information regarding the Macroevolution article:


Thanks for your help with organizing them. CP:UBX and its subpages look vastly better now. --Hacker(Write some code) 09:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

You're welcome. And thanks for your work on them also. Philip J. Rayment 09:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip, I noticed and admired your "missed the donut war" UXB so I copied it into a template. It's called "donut missed" if you want to simplify your user page code. Human 13:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Please look here

Dear Phillip,

I am engaged in some projects right now. If you want to take a look at this material and incorporate it in the article that would be great:

Conservative 23:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Reading your posts...

Oftentimes brings me great fun. Please know I wasn't saying you were "nattering" in the least! --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't take it that way. :-) Philip J. Rayment 06:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ph.D. debate

Thanks for helping me fix the page, I lost some of the text after an edit conflict. --Ed Poor 08:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

question regarding pro evolutionary books being added to TOE article

I have a question regarding pro evolutionary books being added to Theory of evolution article as per panel's decision by yourself. I cannot find anywhere where the panel ruled on this. Can you show me where? Conservative 18:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

First, let me clarify that the edit comment "as per Panel's decision" may not have been the best wording, but unfortunately, edit comments can't be changed once "Save page" has been pressed. It might have been better for me to say "in line with the Panel's decision", or "consistent with the Panel's decision".
  • The Panel decided that the article should include an "adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution". In other words, it should actually describe evolution better than it does, rather than (for example) it being only about what is wrong with evolution (which I'm not suggesting it is currently).
  • So if people are going to learn about evolution, and if we are going to list books for further reading, it is quite appropriate to list books which will teach them more about evolution (as opposed to teaching about what's wrong with evolution). I don't like listing Dawkins (given his bigotry), but his listed book probably is relevant to this article. We can discuss/argue which books are appropriate to list, but to not list any is silly. Origin of Species is an obvious choice.
  • Origin of Species was already listed there when the Panel said that the article would remain much as it is, so clearly they had no problem with pro-evolution books being listed.
  • The Panel also said that your edits "simply added a book and a website for further reading. Such changes are acceptable, as they do not affect the body of the article." Two things are quite clear from this:
    • The Panel are happy for other references to be added.
    • The Panel are happy for edits that do not affect the body of the article, which is the case here.
That's what I meant by "as per Panel's decision". I hope that clarifies it, but I'll add a few further comments:
  • I also changed the heading of the section so that we weren't actually recommending the books listed.
  • I broke the list up into "against evolution" and "for evolution" so that nobody will be misled as to what point of view the books are written.
  • As Christians we have no reason to be afraid of the truth, and therefore no reason to suppress points of view that we don't agree with. Certainly we should explain the problems with evolution, but we should have nothing to fear from a fair and balanced treatment of any subject. And with the popularity of evolution in modern society, students and others need to know about evolution (including its problems) in order to be able to properly critique it when challenged by evolutionists.
Philip J. Rayment 22:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
The panel had no problem with me deleting the Darwin book as recommended and the panel didn't want a pro-evo direction. I deleted the pro-evo recommended books. Conservative 23:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, you have relied on your opinion on what the Panel want, instead of what they actually said.
You asked me a question, and I gave a comprehensive answer. You have not given a comprehensive reply before reverting my changes, so please do me the courtesy, as I did for you, of replying to these questions:
  1. Where did the Panel say that they had no problem with you deleting Darwin's book? (The only reference I saw was that they had no problem with you or anyone else adding books.)
  2. Where did the Panel indicate that they had a problem with any pro-evolution books being there, given that one was there when they approved the article?
  3. Who should interpret the Panel's decisions?
Philip J. Rayment 08:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I re-inserted them, Conservative. They are the most relevant books regarding the actual subject of the article. And Andy has made it very clear that he is against censorship. --Hojimachongtalk 23:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
The panel said the article will not be changed in any major way and adding those recommended books is a major change. Conservative 23:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Read Philip's last few points. The books do not change the article in a major way; indeed, they were supported by the panel. --Hojimachongtalk 23:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Hojimachong is correct there. The Panel specifically said that changes in that section were okay. Philip J. Rayment 08:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The Panel also requested a concise definition of what evolution is, right? What else would a reference to THE BOOK describing it be?-AmesGyo! 23:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

And Conservative, you can try to discredit Darwin's work, but the fact is that there would be no theory for you to dispute without Darwin's works. His contributions to evolutionary theory are indisputable. --Hojimachongtalk 23:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Age of the earth

I enjoyed our brief moment of collaboration. [3] --Ed Poor 09:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The article Loch Ness makes claims about the age of stuff that can't possibly be correct. I'm not too hot on ages. Perhaps you could correct things. Auld Nick 10:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. I didn't see a problem with the ages other than it quoting uniformitarian ages as fact. Is that what you were referring to? Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Uniformitarian ages aren't facts are they? I thought they were Liberal Falsehoods. Auld Nick 11:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure where you are coming from, but no, uniformitarian ages are not facts, which is why I referred to them as being the problem (I said that I didn't see a problem other than that).Philip J. Rayment 11:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The article Geology is biased towards old-earth geology. Perhaps you could sort it and get young earth geology in there. Auld Nick 11:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


This must have taken a lot of courage to post on your part. Thank you for being fair and rational there; you're the first YEC to earn my respect. --Hojimachongtalk 23:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

removed templates and went back to code

Did Ed remember to explain my thoughts on that? I was in hopes you might get on IRC. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:39, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I haven't had a chance to get on IRC yet. I might briefly tonight (in about seven to ten hours from now), else it will be tomorrow. So I haven't had an explanation yet. (I can't get on it at work, where I am now.) Philip J. Rayment 22:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

panel and definition of evolution.

Please see: User talk:CPanel Conservative 23:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Thanks. I can see why you said what you did, although the way I read it, it was nothing more than one member of the panel foreshadowing that the Panel might say that it is okay now. But as they haven't subsequently said so, I would think that the previous ruling (that it needs a good explanation) still stands. Philip J. Rayment 09:11, 20 April 2007 (EDT)


Thank You. I am not sure of protocol here. It was clear that Anarchypower was a vandal from the start. Without 'telling tales' I flagged this early on, and was abused after the first edit.

--Felix 08:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, reverted one vandalism, deleted the other page (yours, because there was nothing to revert to), and blocked him indefinitely. Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
In response to your comment, I was pointing out to him that I am not a religious dork, and if he (or she) looked at my edits, eg. my conversations with you, he would have realised that I do not hold the postion that he claimed. While (as you know) I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the stuff on this site, I don't think the way to deal with it is to vandalize articles eg the Noah one. That is just pointless. --Felix 09:22, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will uprotect but please watch it - jurassic

I will uprotect but please watch it - jurassic. Conservative 20:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 20:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Beefed up YEC geology

See: Geology and geological periods. Conservative 21:11, 20 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I don't particularly like the wording that appears in so many articles, "Young earth creationist scientists ... have multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young". I'll have a go at some better wording myself as soon as I get a chance. Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I beefed up flood geology and Noah's ark Articles

I beefed up Flood Geology and Noah's Ark from creationist point of view. Is there anything I missed? Conservative 05:06, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I saw that you had made some changes. I plan on having a closer look, but I'm having trouble keeping up with everything at the moment. Philip J. Rayment 05:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Conservative is working like a dervish! Go! --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)