User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

why do you want to gut creationists objection to those evolutionists time periods?

re: Jurassic - why do you want to gut creationists objection to those evolutionists time periods? I included many lines of argumentation. Conservative 09:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I don't want to gut objections. But as I said on your talk page, there's no point in repeating those same arguments on every article that we have and will have about different parts of the geologic system. The article should describe what the Jurassic is (i.e. is supposed to be), not be a platform to make general arguments against the secular timescale. I made it quite clear that the dates were evolutionary and that creationists rejected them, without that overpowering the article.
And at least half the references you provided were not primarily about the geologic system, let alone the Jurassic.
And I don't believe that your argument was really an argument anyway. You didn't supply reasons why they believed the geologic timescale is wrong. You merely asserted what they believe in four different ways. If you have something specific to the Jurassic that creationists believe, then that could/should go in the article. But your version doesn't explain why creationist disagree with it, so it doesn't really say any more than what my version says. In other words, I "argued" the case as much as you did, but more concisely.
Was what I put so useless that it wasn't worth keeping any of it??
Philip J. Rayment 09:52, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Before this discussion goes much further: has anyone considered whether certain kinds of content, that one still might classify as a matter of opinion (considered opinion, certainly, but still opinion), would be better placed in an essay instead of a conventional article?--TerryHTalk 09:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
An essay is a good idea, but I don't see that it is applicable in this case. Do you think otherwise? Philip J. Rayment 09:52, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Not necessarily. I speak only to the general case of fact v. opinion.--TerryHTalk 10:06, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think that saying creationist reject the geologic timescale is enough. It is important to know why they do. Conservative 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Of course it is important to know why they do. But ...
  1. ...your version of Jurassic doesn't do that, so how was mine any worse? (Your version says that creationists reject the timescale, and that they have lots of reasons and lots of evidence, but doesn't actually say what any of those reasons are or what any of that evidence is.)
  2. ...Jurassic is not the place to do that. If you want to explain why they reject it in Jurassic, you will be giving the same explanation about 100 times (no, I don't think I'm exaggerating, but I am thinking of the future). It should be explained in an article about creationism, or about the geologic timescale, or similar, not in Jurassic.
By the way, I don't think it should be explained in geologic system either, as that article is about the naming of the various rock formations, names that creationists use, not about the timescale associated with it (although that does get a mention). Philip J. Rayment 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think it is appropriate for creationist to give their evidence merely in one or two main articles and then for the evolutionists to go uncontested throoughout the rest of Conservapedia. Thus, I think my Jurassic material was entirely appropriate. I don't know why you want to be so passive in the defense of creationism and let the evolutionist have free reign in most of the articles. I don't think such a strategy makes sense. Conservative 22:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
You haven't directly addressed the specific points I made, and you have grossly misrepresented what I'm proposing. I'm not suggesting that the evolutionists "go uncontested" elsewhere, and I'm not suggesting that they have free reign. My version of the article said that creationists disagreed, i.e. the claim was contested. And there was no argument in there in support of the evolutionary view. Philip J. Rayment 22:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I really don't understand why you are making such a big deal about the Jurassic and associated articles. Also, I don't think it is inappropriate to use footnotes to do a lot of the contesting in regards to information. Conservative 22:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
It's hard for me to describe any further why I'm making such a big deal out of it, other than to point out that it is my judgement that the approach you are taking is not the best one to take. I've had over 30 years' experience debating this issue with non-creationist Christians and non-Christians and even longer with discussing apologetics in general, and in the process I've earned the respect of some anti-creationists, despite not being prepared to compromise the Bible whilst doing that.
I didn't mention footnotes. I would still like you to answer my specific points above.
Philip J. Rayment 23:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I really don't what big points you are making above other than information will be repeated. I also don't know where you want my information to be exactly. Conservative 23:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not just that it will be repeated, but that it will be repeated a ridiculous number of times. And I also made the point that your version didn't actually refute the evolutionary view any more than my version anyway. I guess another point I haven't explicitly spelt out is that creationists object to the entire geological timescale, not just to the Jurassic section of it, so putting objections to the entire timescale in an article about the Jurassic is simply not appropriate—it's not what the article is about. If you have some creationist objections to the Jurassic in particular, they would be entirely appropriate to go in. Philip J. Rayment 23:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Comment What User:Conservative objects to, (and I agree with him) is that your version states the old earth/evolutionary model as fact, and then puts a "young earth creationists disagee" at the bottom. this makes it sound like YECs are denying established fact, when it is really nothing of the sort. --CPAdmin1 23:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure you're not getting me mixed up with someone else? How does my version state it as fact? More to the point, how could it be read that way, because there's no way that I would ever state it as fact. Philip J. Rayment 23:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't want to spend much time debating the Jurassic issuu which I think is a minor issue. I think we should be spending our time on History of creationism and Lists of Creationists which we do a poor job of. Also there are a number of categories which could be filled in at Intelligent design. Also, we should have a Origin of life article. Conservative 23:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
It's important because it's not just this article affected, but potentially very many articles. If you don't want to debate it, then presumably you would have no objection to me reinstating my version? Philip J. Rayment 23:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
You are not stating where the objections to the time scales are to be in your opinion. I don't see why you want to remove my material and then say well the material should be ??????????? Conservative 23:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
True, I haven't said where they should be. I haven't looked around for what existing articles would be suitable, but Young Earth Creationism is an obvious possibility. Perhaps a better choice would be an article specially on the Age of the Earth. But note, as I've said before, that your version doesn't state the objections to the timescale either; it simply says (several times) that creationists have objections. Would you agree to reinstating my version of Jurassic after we've produced a good article explaining the problems with the secular timescale, so that we can link to that? Philip J. Rayment 00:04, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think that merely having the information in Young earth creationism is sufficient. Conservative 00:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
And I don't think repeating the same information in potentially 100 articles is the right way to go. So how are we going to solve this? Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Lacking any further response from Conservative on how to break this deadlock, I've sought an outside opinion. I printed out three versions of the article (mine, Conservative's, and for good measure, Jeremiah4-22's). I obliterated the line saying who's version it was, and showed all three versions to a senior creationary scientist with a major creationist organisation, and asked him for his professional judgement as to which the best version. Not only did I not tell him which one was mine, I didn't even tell him that I had written one of them. Naturally he rejected Jeremiah4-22's article as assuming the truth of the evolutionary viewpoint. He said that the best of the three was this one (i.e. mine). His further comments were that mine could be expanded a bit, and that the Young earth creationist scientists view section of Conservative's should not be there, as it would mean repeating that bit on lots of articles. Only after he said all this did I tell him that I wrote one of them.

Unless you (Conservative) can offer a good objection to me reinstating my version, I intend to reinstate it.

Philip J. Rayment 21:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Dear Philip, at this point in time, I am not for giving all the reasons why young earth creationists (YECs) reject the evolutionary/long ager time period in a absolutely huge amount of articles. For example, if the evolutionists do not big deal of their view of "time" in the Dog article or Cat article I see no reason to give a whole lot of information for the YEC view in these articles. On the other hand, I see it being imprudent to just have the YEC info solely in the Young earth creationist article. I think putting the YEC view in the geological time period articles is a good idea as the evolutionist will refer to these time periods in other articles when the speak of the origin of various plants and animals. I also believe the evolutionists may expand their talk about these time periods in these geological time period articles so it is a good idea to give the YEC view. I think at this time period, we need to reach some compromise and not have the YEC view in a absolute ton of articles but not have it be solely restricted to the YEC article. So far the only article you have said the YEC view belongs is the YEC article and having the YEC view in only this article would be a bad idea in my estimation Conservative 22:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for agreeing that there shouldn't be YEC arguments over and over. I've never suggested having YEC info in only the YEC article; my version of Jurassic had YEC info, and it had about as much (in information, not words) as you did. If the evolutionists expand their comments, we can do one of two things. We can remove their comments (if they are nor appropriate for that article) or we can expand the YEC comments to counter the information they add. To repeat, I have not said that the YEC view should only be in the YEC article. It should be mentioned in all articles that it is related to, but only argued in articles that discuss arguments for the evolutionary view. I mentioned it in the Jurassic article, and expanded on the relevant points in the linked Geologic system article. I also suggested doing and Age of the Earth article. Given that you've offered no "good" objection to me reinstating my version, I will do so as soon as I can, but I have to go out now (to a creation meeting). I will expand my version a bit though. Philip J. Rayment 01:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I think we achieved a compromise version. I will let you be the judge. Conservative 21:54, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I made a few very minor edits to geologic system and Jurassic. Just style/writing changes. Nothing worth looking at. Conservative 02:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Editorial and more

I think I've posted a pretty strong argument against some liberal wackiness at Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?. I'd love a little feedback, i.e. validation, if you or a friend wants to check in and see if it should be pulled on an article page (Freedom of Religion for example).

On an unrelated note, is this site a proponent of the view that evolution is wrong / evil? Am I in an outgroup because I think the theory should be presented plainly and without editiorial comment? I'm a bit frustrated and disillusioned because the Evolution page on Conservapedia is a mirror-image of the Intelligent Design page on Wikipedia. I thought Conservapedia was going to be something better than Wikipedia. I'm not so much looking for the same thing only different.

I can't understand why it's so difficult for others to understand that religious and philosophical debates will never be settled in this forum. For this reason its best to just state the theory, state the controversy and move on. I like the Intelligent Design page on this site. I just don't like the fact that the Evolution page doesn't have the same fair approach. Everwill 08:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I've posted my viewpoint on the religion being morally wrong question.
I haven't yet figured out myself exactly what the evolutionary viewpoint of this site officially is. Certainly there are a number of influential people who are anti-evolution (I'm not including myself, because I don't consider myself that influential). I haven't bothered having a really close look at the Theory of Evolution article myself, but I'd likely be inclined to agree with you about it being a mirror image of Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. Unfortunately, it is now effectively locked up, and I'm not referring to editorial protection (as a sysop that doesn't stop me), but to it being subject to a ruling by the governing body of Conservapedia. I don't know why they decided what they did, but it may have partly been due to the available alternative version being put together mainly by editors who don't see eye-to-eye with Conservapedia's way of doing things. As with anti-ID editors at Wikipedia, the pro-evolution editors here, whilst probably genuinely trying to work within the rules here, simply can't see that their point of view is not a neutral one. (None of that, however, is meant to imply that the fault was only on their side.)
This site is very young and appears to me to be still finding its way. Perhaps we should just be patient and trust that as it matures, that article and the restrictions on it might be changed.
Philip J. Rayment 09:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

the wales removal

Dear Phillip,

I know this is bad excuse but I was extremely tired when I removed the Wales info. Thanks for catching my mistake. Conservative 23:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative


Hi, I'm new around here, so I don't want to cause a problem, so if you have a minute could you help me? I made some needed changes to the Scientology page, and I understand that it is not your area, but people keep changing it back, not looking at the citations I have, or just ignoring them. I think I made constructive additions, but since you seem to be around a lot from my reading around here, could you see if maybe I am overstepping my bounds? Thanks --JoyousOne 09:46, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm having a look. Philip J. Rayment 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you.--JoyousOne 10:20, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I was having a look for a while before I put that, thinking I might be a while longer. But I think I've seen enough for now.
It appears that Terryo is a Scientologist who is fighting to keep anything negative to Scientology out of the article. And it appears that you are a Christian who wants to show Scientology for the false religion that it is. I hope you succeed.
However, I think that Terryo has a point in that what you have put there is not properly stated or documented. To take two points that appear to be points particularly at issue...
  • You claim that Scientology admits to an anti-Christian bias. Sorry, but your reference doesn't explicitly do that. What it does do is outline their worldview. Now that view is clearly inconsistent with a Christian worldview, but their site doesn't "admit" that their worldview is anti-Christian. As a suggestion, the section should be headed "The Worldview of Scientology" or something equivalent, and it should say something like, "Scientology claims to not accept anything on faith. This contrasts with Christianity's view that we must have faith.", with the reference to their site as you had. That shows how their view is opposed to the Christian view without claiming that they acknowledge that incompatibility.
  • The section about the rumours has two problems. First, Conservapedia is opposed to gossip, even with attribution. Second, I think it avoids personal websites. Personally, I don't think the latter should be a problem if the person is an expert. You could solve the first problem with rewording. According to the reference (actually, here is the "original", you referenced a copy), there are/were rumours, but he has investigated the rumours (i.e. done research) and concluded that the events did happen. That is, it is no longer in the realm of rumour, but reasonably-well-documented fact. So if you worded that section accordingly ("There is considerable evidence that..." instead of "It has been widely rumored that ..."), there should not be the same objection. However, there might still be an attempt to refute the person who did the research (Don Lindsay), and it remains to be seen how well his research might stand up.
How's all that sound?
Philip J. Rayment 10:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Dear Philip, I am a scientologist. I do not intend the article to do anything but follow Conservapeida's commandments. Thank you for carefully reading through and saving a good deal of trouble by talking with Joyous. As a small point of information, please allow me to respond to the implication within your statement, "you are a Christian who wants to show Scientology for the false religion that it is". Scientology does not propose that its followers have faith that Jesus died for their sins. Nor does it deny that such faith might be desireable. It simply does not address the area of "what should a person believe?" So then, what is a religion if it is not faith that Christ died for one's sins? It is impossible to answer the question in a single line, the question is more complicated than a single paragraph. Scientology foresaw this problem and asked experts to present their professional opinion. Those individual, highly educated, professional answers are here. Thank you for allowing me to present information. Terryeo 12:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not really certain just what points you are trying to make here, but here's an attempt at a response:
You say that Scientology does not deny that faith that Jesus died for their sins is desirable, yet it says here that it doesn't ask anyone to accept anything on faith. (Incidentally, where is evidence that "Man is an immortal, spiritual being"? I consider "certain fundamental truths" a euphemism for things accepted on faith.)
I don't follow your question, "...what is a religion...". I think you might be saying that a religion is a view held by faith. I would disagree with that as a definition and also point out (as I did just above) that Scientology holds some thing by faith also.
Philip J. Rayment 22:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
That is very helpful, and seems quite reasonable. I will try to get to it today, unless another editor gets to it first. Thanks for taking all the time to help out with this.--JoyousOne 11:07, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


Hey man I kind of agree with you on the US-centric. I wish they'd remove the "US Flag" from the site logo. I'm from the US myself, but I've traveled around the world (due to my profession as a Merchant Mariner), and tend to view the world from an "Earthican" standpoint. Hengineer 11:30, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The logo is apparently not final. I'm hoping—and there's been inferences along these lines—that the final logo will not be US-centric. Philip J. Rayment 11:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the blocking of Cdarwin

The user should learn that if he wants to make a point then reasoning with people is a much better method.--TimS 11:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for reverting. Not only was it vandalism, but it was copying Wikipedia's articles here.

I sent you an email

Dear Philip,

I sent you an email regarding some good news to your personal email account. Did you get it? Conservative 06:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, thank you. Philip J. Rayment 08:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
By the way, Conservapedia's Baraminology article is ranked by as their 8th top article out of 12,000 plus articles. Conservative 08:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Democratic party

Thanks for the note, I'll go fix it up. I must admit, I didn't check the history before making an edit. But I do think part of the vandalism has merit; I think it's reasonable to say that D's favor higher taxes for the wealthy, and government welfare for the poor. --Hojimachongtalk 23:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Jurassic - I like your edit

I really like your version and I hope you end up arguing for it.-AmesGyo! 00:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I already have been. See further up this page. Philip J. Rayment 00:25, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Flood geology

I kindly ask you to footnote your contributions to Flood Geology. I would like to see this article climb up the google ranks and footnotes certainly help. If I am not mistaken, some of your contributions did not use footnotes. Conservative 21:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

TO: Mr. Raymont

I am involved in this effort: Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive. Please hold down the Creationism fort and do occasional patrols. Also, you might want to change the other geological time periods to what we agreed on in regards to Jurassic. Lastly, I get involved in a mini edit war with a unreasonable evolutionist or OEC and I had to protect the Geology article to avoid a edit war. Conservative 23:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Any articles that I have edited (and a very few others) I have on my watch list, so I will notice anything going on there. I plan on doing the other geological "time" periods. Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

to: Mr. Raymont, a suggestion

Dear Mr. Rayment,

If you find any time to work on Conservapedia I think two major points we did not cover with sufficient depth or any depth are these two matters:



Here are some resources on paraconformaties that are quite interesting:

Conservative 18:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

What areas do you think should be improved as far as creationism?

What areas do you think should be improved as far as creationism? Conservative 23:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't have any plans as such, but I'm going to have a go at Ice Age next, and anything else I come across that has a secular viewpoint presented as truth. I mainly intend to stick to what I'm pretty familiar with, and catastrophism, for example, is borderline on that. Philip J. Rayment 08:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)


I added my own, self-written and researched, article about labia. I will probably also add "clitoris," "mons pubis," "sexual arousal." These are family-friendly articles-- clinical language, no pictures/diagrams. (One could say, in fact, these are the things one has to know _in order_ to have a family to be friendly with! :) ) As a Christian, I note that God has provided us all with sexuality as a great gift. --Emerson 12:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Your edit comment said that it was "seeded" from Wikipedia, and it did appear, from a quick look, to be a copy of Wikipedia's article (sans pictures). I agree that God has provided us with sexuality as a great gift, but "family friendly" in this context means something that we are happy for all members of a family, including young children, to be reading.
If you can explain how the article is not copied from Wikipedia (although we do allow articles from Wikipedia if you are the author of the Wikipedia article and it is copied here as you wrote it, not with the edits of others), I will ask the other sysops if they consider the article (which still exists and can be undeleted) to be suitable material for Conservapedia.
Philip J. Rayment 18:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Potato Chips - arghhhh!!!!

Phillip Please stop what you are doing. You are confusing the British Term 'Chips' wwith the American term 'Potato Chip". These are two entirely different things. Battered Fish, Mushy Peas shouls all link to Chips which are the British verson of French Fries. We Brits have worked long and hard to get these right, and I know there are some Wikifikations to be amended here; however, you are undoing days of good work!!!!--Felix 07:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think you'll find that I'm actually correcting the links. Some of the articles had links [[Potato chips|chips]], where the [[Potato chips]] article is the American chips, but should have been to the British [[chips]]. I'm an Aussie; I do understand the difference. Philip J. Rayment 07:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I'll go and check. If you are right I apologise.--Felix 07:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Now we need articles on woodchips and Chips Rafferty and everyone should be confused! I haven't looked to see if anyone has done Chip and Dale. --Bilby 18:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Coelacanth Issue

The creationist site in question assumes that scientists thought the Coelacanths were the direct ancestors of land-living vertebrates and then tries to debunk evolution as a whole, based on this.

The paragraph in the Dinosaur article clearly mentioned relatives of the Coelacanth, these relatives were lungfish (one order of lungfish still exists today) or tetrapod fish, these animals were the ancestors of land-living vertebrates, not the Coelacanth.

I too do not see why this piece about relatives of the Coelacanth was relevant in the dinosaur article, but I didn't remove it, because strictly speaking it's not wrong.

I hope this clears out any misunderstandings.

Middle Man

You've provided no evidence that the site in question "assumes" what it says. And it's far to strong a statement to say that it "tries to debunk evolution as a whole".
You might be right about the relevance, though. I will try and remember to have another look at it from that point of view. I suspect, however, that it was a minor supporting point that has been inflated out of proportion by the attempts to debunk it.
Philip J. Rayment 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

"Before the discovery of living coelacanths, evolutionists assumed that the fish's internal organs would be “part way” evolving from those of ordinary fish to those of amphibians. But the living coelacanths showed no evidence that their soft parts were starting to adapt for use on land. So it was conceded that the coelacanth was obviously not the ancestor of amphibians after all."

This seems to imply that Coelacanths were thought to have been the ancestor of amphibians. This website has misinterpreted the meaning of "a group to which the Coelacanth belonged", it means there was a group of fish related to the Coelacanth, but not all members of this group were Coelacanths themselves, a bit like how spiders, scorpions and lobsters all belong to the Arachnids.

The current theory [1] [2] is that Coelacanths, Lungfish (fish with lungs and 4 fins) and a group of fish called tetrapods (fish with lungs and 4 legs rather than fins) are closely related, and amphibians evolved from at least one species of tetrapods. The exact relationship between Lungfish and tetrapods is still unknown, tetrapods may have evolved from some kind of Lungfish, but there is no scientific consensus on this yet.

Middle Man

I don't think it is appropriate to present stories about "sightings" of mythological animals as evidence for creation. By the same reasoning one could start to present UFO sightings in the exotheology article as evidence for the existence of intelligent alien life.

We don't want schoolchildren to think that dragons, unicorns and fairies are scientific fact, do we?

neither do we want to present T-rex tissue as evidence against an old Earth: everyone who has ever heard about the Chinese mummies, or the frozen Mammoths in Siberia knows tissue can be preserved indefinitely with the right conservation methods, all that has to be done is to create conditions in which bacteria cannot survive, a completely dehydrated and completely isolated bone, inside a rock, comes very close to this definition, don't you think?

Middle Man

According to another editor, being myth does not make it untrue. What's wrong with wanting school children thinking that dragons, unicorns, and fairies are scientific fact if they are? (I'm not saying they all are, but the point is that your argument is begging the question.)
Tissue cannot be preserved indefinitely. "The maximum possible time assumed for collagen to be preserved under the most favourable preservation conditions at 0°C was 2.7 million years"[3]. This is why scientists expressed so much surprise at finding the T-rex tissue, and why some anti-creationists have tried arguing that what was found was not what it seemed to be.
Philip J. Rayment 09:52, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The age of things

At Astronomy claims are being made that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old. That can't possibly be right. Perhaps you could add the correct date. I don't have it handy at the minute. While you're at it sun need sorting (4.57 billion years is claimed there). Auld Nick 06:52, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'll have a look. By the way, what's your view on this? Can I assume from these requests that you are a young-Earth creationist? Philip J. Rayment 07:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I Just want to make sure the articles don't end up full of liberal bias. You seem to be knowledgable about science and the ages of things so whenever I come across an article that uses Secular Science dating I point it out to you so you can remove the bias. Auld Nick 12:03, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
In the article Scotland it is claimed that Scotland has been inhabited since at least 8500BC. Were people around so early? Is that date correct? Auld Nick 05:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

At Hubble Ultra Deep Field it is claimed that a picture contains images of the farthest back in history ever seen, over 13 billion years ago.

At Sun it is claimed the sun began to form around 4.57 billion years ago.

Those ages can't be right. Auld Nick 07:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No, they aren't right. I'll try and get around to doing something about them. Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I've has a go at the sun. Philip J. Rayment 12:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
At Andromeda galaxy there's talk of light having travelled for 2.5 million years. Auld Nick 06:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Fixed. Philip J. Rayment 07:43, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
It's not YEC criticism; it's the definition of velocity ( = distance / time). Removing it is very dishonest.--Mackronking2 07:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
The time taken was mentioned as the basis for the linked article about the supposed starlight problem, which is an anti-YEC argument. It was not explaining the definition of velocity. What you mean is that the time is based on the velocity formula, which is true, but that's not what it was doing in the article. Philip J. Rayment 07:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

The article Homo neanderthalensis claims that these creatures lived 80,000 to 30,000 years ago. That can't be right. Auld Nick 12:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

User:Darwindude seems to be up to no good here and here. Auld Nick 16:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

At Global Warming, the claim is made of a 2 million year history of ice ages. Human 16:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I've advised DarwinDude of Conservapedia's stance on these things, reverted his change to Homo habilis, and made some changes to Prehistory, but that's all I've got time for at the moment; it's time to go to church. Philip J. Rayment 20:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I've fixed up Homo neanderthalensis and Global warming. Philip J. Rayment 10:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

New Article

I've created a new article Secular Science. I'm not too hot on science so haven't done much. Perhaps you could add examples of where secularal scientists got things wrong and how their reasoning is flawed. Auld Nick 11:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure that's the best place for that topic (perhaps should be under the history of science or something), but I'll have a think about it. Meanwhile, I asked you a question above; I'd be interested in your answer. Philip J. Rayment 11:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Followed Your Link to Wikipedia

And I quote:

"There's no need for me to tell you anything about me, I'm not the one running around making "contributions" everywhere. Are we to assume from your refusal to describe your formal qualifications that you do not have any formal qualifications? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

No more than we are to assume from you refusal to tell us anything about yourself that you don't exist. Philip J. Rayment 15:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"

That's both a) hilarious and b) logically brilliant. I literally Laughed Out Loud. Well done. :) And great writing, in general, throughout the years. -Aziraphale 15:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

<blush>Thanks.</blush> Philip J. Rayment 05:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Party of Australia

Hi there, I've created an article on the Liberals. I'll try to rewrite the John (Winston) Howard article soon. Hannibal ad portas 07:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Good job! I recommend that in future you make use of a spelling-checker, though. :-)   Philip J. Rayment 09:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually I recommend I re-read what I write. Too many thumbs on the key board. Thanks for fixing things up. Hannibal ad portas 10:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Both are good. A spelling checker won't pick the wrong word spelled correctly, let alone bad grammar, etc. And I find that my rereading is not infallible and I sometimes miss a spelling fault. Philip J. Rayment 10:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

courtesy post

Dear Mr. Rayment,

I realized via my review of YEC material that creationists do not merely reject the various geological periods and dates attached to them due to their adherence to catastrophism but it is much more than that. They see anomolies in the geological system of uniformatarian geology and various other matters. Thus, I added material to Jurassic and other time periods. I am writing to you as I see you as like minded to me in many matters and you have displayed a gentlemanly manner towards me. Conservative 17:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


I have a concern about an issue taking place sort of outside of can i contact you?Livingston 23:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Use the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox in the left column of this page. Philip J. Rayment 23:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


I don't like it when Sysops interfere regarding my actions. I have therefore reconsidered. You gave Middleman a punishment you thought was just and I am not going to pile on and second guess you. However, I do think he is bad news and I am reluctantly going along with you on this one. Feel free to unban him.Conservative 23:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree about other sysops "interfering". I would never normally override the decision of another sysop, but in this case that is effectively what you did to me. I presume that you did so innocently (not realising that I had already dealt with the matter), so I'm not criticising you for that, but nevertheless, the result was that you were "interfering" with my actions, which is why I felt that this was a legitimate exception. Philip J. Rayment 00:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Battlestar Gallactica

There's nothing wrong with that category. I was jsut reverting a couple dozen edits by a blocked troll, and some of the early edits in science fiction had some questionable content, so I just reverted or deleted everything. RobS 13:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

WP Templates....

Yes, sorry to be so tardy, but you surmised the reason for removing them. Andy has pronounced WP is never an acceptable source or citation, and I could only see it being a trouble for newer editors. Sorry for my daze in not communicating with you directly, but the sad fact is, I thought I had, lol. Your adding the clarification that it is only for discussion pages is fine by me, although I do wonder if it will still lead to someone getting a warning unnecessarily. Would you please help, as you go through them, and lock them down, Philip? Once created, they should be treated like our photos to guard against potential vandalism. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I didn't surmise it actually. I simply noticed that Ed had already put such an instruction on the Template page itself, so put a similar one on the template list page, without twigging as to what your motive was.
I think that protecting all templates is an over-reaction. Wikipedia suffers much more vandalism than us (in absolute amounts; probably less per editor), and they don't see the need to protect all their templates. Certain critical ones are protected, and should be here to, but I'd rather leave most unprotected, if for no other reason than to allow non-sysops with suitable know-how to improve them. Pictures are a bit different, because I don't think that changing pictures shows up in the list of recent changes (although I may be wrong), but at least wouldn't show up in watchlists unless the picture itself is being watched, which is probably not very likely. Templates are more likely to be on watchlists, and any vandalism of templates would be noticed as readily as vandalism of articles.
Philip J. Rayment 22:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your work


Thanks for your work on the Creation-evolution controversy. HeartOfGold 09:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Opps, I just noticed that you're adding some wikilinks that do not yet have articles. Do we want this in an effort to encourage others to begin those articles? Thanks again. HeartOfGold 09:57, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I often add links to articles that don't exist, a common practice that I picked up at Wikipedia. Yes, it is to some extent an invite to others to create them (one of the "Special pages") in the toolbox in the left column of every page is Wanted pages, which is a list of red links, ordered by how many there are for each subject), but also just a link waiting for whenever such an article is created (when someone creates article X, for example, they don't need to go and find all the places that X is listed and turn them into links, the links are already there waiting). Also, before anyone does create them, they should check that there's not already an article under a slightly different name, and if so, alter the link rather than create the article. Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

To: Mr. Raymont, request for collaboration

Dear Mr. Raymont,

Here is an article I would like to work with you and others in regards to creating a new article: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution Here is some preliminary material I created to put in the article:

Perhaps, we could put a condensed version of the article in the Theory of evolution article itself with a small tag pointing to the bigger article. Conservative 22:31, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Good job

Good job defending the faith on Conservapedia:Listing_the_Earth's_most_pressing_needs_in_urgent_order_of_fixing. HeartOfGold 02:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Tony Hancock

Hi Phillip sorry I undid your edits, in doing thhe Tony Hancock typos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeanTheSheep (talk)

Yeah, those edit conflicts are a nuisance, aren't they? Philip J. Rayment 05:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I was surprised to find that there was no entry on Tony Hancock, especially as his series was so influential in British Comedy. I am intending to improve this, and find some nice pics. --SeanTheSheep 05:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the copyedits. I left it for a while to avoid conflicts. There is a whole section here that I think is missing in CP; The Goons, Beyond Our Ken, Round the Horne, I'm Sorry I'll read that again and the Goodies all predecessors of Monty Python --SeanTheSheep 06:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I left it for a while too, then figured that it was safe to have another go whilst you were checking out the ratings. :-) Conservapedia's still very new; there's a lot "missing". Philip J. Rayment 06:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Archive links...

Philip, I believe Geo did the actual repair, just a while ago. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:24, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Would you mind...

...unlocking my talk page. TK has neglected to do so, and I would quite to like to respond to questions posed to me there, particularily the accussation made by TK before he blocked me. Thanks. Nematocyte 06:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 06:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. Nematocyte 06:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Like most things with this user, he never bothered to ask, or message me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution talk

Philip J. Rayment...just in case it was not clear, (judging by another's comment, it might not be clear) I did not think you were sounds like you liked at least part of my contribution to the talk page, and of course, you are always polite. HeartOfGold 01:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

No problem. I didn't think you thought I was being rude. Philip J. Rayment 01:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

Mr. Rayment, do you mind if I move you & Bolly's discussion to the talk page? I'll leave his "list" that started it on the main page, but also copy it as the start of the discussion, and I will insert a "see talk" link after it.

I will only do this if you both say it's ok.

I am not trying to censor at all, I just want to keep the main page a bunch of people's lists.

On another tangent, but from the same page, I am going to copy (not cut) my/your comments about the Extraterrestrial to the talk page, where I will ask you for a brief synopsis of the solutions.

Thanks for your time! Human 12:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Go ahead, I was thinking of doing the same thing myself. Philip J. Rayment 20:01, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I have done it. Human 17:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

"Liberal" userbox

I was not, actually, thanks. Why did you mention it, though? --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 17:05, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Just in case it would bother you that you might be misleading some people. Philip J. Rayment 22:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Conscience isn't taught in schools anymore, Philip. Not even "Down Under", I would think...;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:55, 13 May 2007 (EDT)


If you know someone who can fix up Christian apologetics that would be great. I dont know enough on the topic, and as it stands it's kind of bleak.JoyousOne 22:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Please help!

Hello Phillip, its Bolly Ottihw. I cannot find the talk page that our discussion on the evils (or lack of) caused by religion. Could you please post a link or direct me to the page? Thanks a lot. Bolly Ottihw 22:05, 14 May 2007

Don't bother. Just concede defeat.  :-) If you don't want to do that, is this the page you are meaning? Philip J. Rayment 08:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Haha thanks :P I will continue to enjoy our discussion now that I know where it is! Bolly Ottihw 22:33, 14 May 2007

User:Brainslug is deleting YEC from race. Auld Nick 12:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I see others have been dealing with that. Philip J. Rayment 22:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Crustal displacement theory

Glad that you followed up on this theory Philip. I know that it doesn't fit exactly with most YEC thinking but the 6000 yr timeline could seriously be changed if as is often said the ancients had much longer lifespans. I also know that this theory has not been embraced by mainstream geology but quite honestly geology has changed a lot even in the last thirty years. The beauty of this theory is that it gives credence to the Biblical account, gives a rational explanation for where all the water came from without having to rely on massive vapour clouds, doesn't contradict YEC but could still find support amongst very old-earth supporters. Ian St John 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My concern was that it appeared to be either a crackpot theory that virtually nobody gave any credence to (Google's backward links showed almost no web-sites linking to the site you referenced), or even a parody. But with the follow-up search, I can see that it does appear to have some reasonable following or acceptance, enough to justify it being mentioned.
The flood does not require massive vapour clouds. A vapour canopy (for the rain only; the rest of the flood water was from subterranean sources) was an early flood proposal, but has been largely dropped because of too many problems with it.
Without knowing any details of the crustal displacement theory, I can't comment on whether it contradicts YEC (or, more correctly, the Bible) at all (apart from the date), but from past experience, most stories that claim to explain the Biblical flood contradict it on at least some points.
Philip J. Rayment 22:04, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


Could you please block this user? Thanks. JustineA --(Niandra)--talk 08:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Done by Ed. JustineA --(Niandra)--talk 08:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

And I was just about to do it! Philip J. Rayment 08:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sort of funny

I saw that you reverted one of his edits, but there seems to be a pattern to these edits that is somewhat humorous. HeartOfGold 13:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

You might want to do a checkuser against Psychohistorian. HeartOfGold 13:07, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I see what you mean about the pattern of edits. Anyway, but have been blocked by other sysops. Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 17 May 2007 (EDT)