User talk:TerryH/Archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You're right. I look forward to seeing your edits. The more, the better.--Aschlafly 18:33, 5 March 2007 (EST)

The musical notes image

Do you mind if I resize your music image? It seems to effectively dominate the page. --<<-David R->> 22:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Go ahead, if you can. When I tried to upload a downsized version of the image, it blew up--and when I put in an internal link, I can't seem to specify a pixel size in the article, as I'm used to doing in CreationWiki. All I wanted was something 290 pixels wide, and in the upper right-hand corner. Please do what you can, and then show me how for future reference.--TerryH 22:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok it is resized to 290px in width, keeping the same dimensions in height. Do you have Paint Shop Pro? If not, what image editing software did you use the first time? --<<-David R->> 22:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Oh, I got it. The Wiki software did not exactly "blow up", but you probably tried to upload it using the same name as the original. If you just change the name, it will upload. Then you can delete the original. --<<-David R->> 22:56, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I used "The GIMP", which stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program." I can produce an image of just about any size. The problem was that I tried to exercise the option to "upload a newer version of this file," and when I did, the MediaWiki software blew up and scrawled an error message across the page. The gist of it is that overwrites are not allowed. I noticed that when you uploaded a resized image, you had to:

  1. Change the image's name.
  2. Change the link in my new article.

In CreationWiki, if I were to specify, say, [[Image:Musical notes.jpg|right|290px]], then I would get an automatically produced resized image of the original file. Here, when I do that, I get an error message.

Actually, I just figured out the proper way to put in a resized image. Here is the code:


And the result you can see at the right:


Now if I could just figure out how to write a template with a conditional statement...!--TerryH 23:05, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Use of material from Creation Wiki

Since Conservapedia is not under a GFDL and Andrew has made it very clear that Conservapedia reserves the right to prevent people from copying its work, adopting material from CreationWiki is very problematic. I suggest that you wait to do so until after you discuss the matter with Andrew. JoshuaZ 23:53, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Terry, in addition to Joshua's good point, I have reservations about copying from any other site. We have always created our own material, while of course using other references. The material that you're posting is good but let's hold off on the direct copying and heavy promotion of another site.
Can you put this material in your own words and cite the Creation Wiki as references?--Aschlafly 00:26, 6 March 2007 (EST)
If it's material that I did not write originally, I certainly can--and will. I was in too big a hurry when I copied some of that material (Logical fallacy, for example), and--well, let's say that some other writers have their styles, and I have mine.
But if it's something I wrote originally, and submitted to Conservapedia and CreationWiki--well, how should I proceed? That is, how extensively should/must I change my own words?--TerryH 07:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)
As I understand it, you're free to re-use your own material under any license you please, even after you've published it under the GFDL elsewhere. So there shouldn't be a copyright issue there, at least. Anything you've published at CreationWiki will remain free to others under the terms of the GFDL, however, so if Andrew wants material here to be unique, that will remain a problem. Tsumetai 08:06, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Update: I invite anyone here, who has commented on this thread, to review my latest edits on the article on Propaganda. You will notice a great many changes. Will these do?--TerryH 00:40, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Loaded question example

Is there a reason you removed my example? While strictly speaking the example I gave could be arguably a "complex question" rather than a "loaded questions" they are very related. Also, I would note that loaded and complex questions are not logical fallacies per se but bad rhetoric. JoshuaZ 13:15, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually, the example you gave reminded me of an example I had seen in the version of the Logical fallacy article that was also present on CreationWiki. I did not know that you had put in that example independently.
What makes a loaded question fallacious is the assumption of facts not in evidence.--TerryH 14:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Um, yes, but my example is a bit more clear cut since it could be pretty strongly in evidence. Also, the case is a bit simpler, since in your case someone might point out that it is often in evidence, whereas the wife-beating example is easy to follow and is much simpler. In general, when illustrating fallacies, simpler examplers are better. JoshuaZ 14:15, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Infinite regression

Infinite regression is a logical fallacy. It is a special case of "manufacturing facts to support a theory." I'll set you another example: Francis H. Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, had a logical problem with abiogenesis as an explanation for the origin of life on earth. He reasoned as follows:

  1. Abiogenesis requires the spontaneous generation of new information, in quantities that no reasonable theory of the origin of information would allow.
  2. Therefore life did not originate on earth.
  3. I (that is, Crick) refuse to accept the proposition that God created life.
  4. Therefore, life was deposited on the earth and originated outside of the earth.

This theory is called panspermia and is a little-known dodge of the too-much-information problem in biology. Crick's particular theory is that an advanced civilization fired a brace of missiles, each laden with bacteria and blue-green algae, in all directions from their home system. One such missile crashed to earth, and we are its by-products. But most panspermia adherents insist that life came to earth when the earth brushed through a comet's tail.

The problem: where did life originate, if not on earth? Who or what seeded the world in which living materials grew to infiltrate a comet's tail, or in which an advanced civilization grew to build and launch a brace of intergalactic missiles? The answer can only be that a comet's tail brushed past yet another world, or the missile builders are themselves the by-product of another such guided missile. And now who or what seeded this other world? And the other? And the other?

Sooner or later, you have to get to a First Cause. That Cause is God. But all too many scientists refuse to admit a First Cause--just as they refuse to admit that life has an intelligent design, because they know perfectly well that where you have design, you have a Design-er.--TerryH 14:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

No, this is completely incorrect. There are problems with infinite regression in some circumstances, but they are more subtle than this. Crick argued panspermia not because he couldn't conceive of how life would arise but because what he considered to be likely circumstances where it would arise did not occur on Earth. Thus, the hypothesis that those conditions existed elsewhere. And no, the first cause argument isn't a decent one either and suffers from a variety of flaws. JoshuaZ 14:17, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I reject your defense of infinite regression. The problem with infinite regression is that it assumes infinite passage of time. Einstein showed that to be impossible--his General Theory of Relativity led him to conclude, inescapably, that the universe was "open" and that the matter in it had proceeded from an initial cataclysmic event--in short, an explosion. Something had to set that explosion off--and before that explosion went off, time qua time did not flow, because it did not exist. And if time had a beginning, then all cyclic processes had a beginning, and therefore infinite regression is impossible.
What circumstances do you identify in Dr. Crick's thesis, that did not exist on earth but "might have" existed elsewhere?
I'll have a lot more to say about "directed panspermia" when I publish an article on that subject.--TerryH 14:26, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Ok, first one doesn't need infinite past to have infinite regression (obvious examples, consider a cyclic universe or an event where step 0 takes 1 minute is caused by step 1 which takes 1/2 minute which is caused by step 2 which takes 1/4 of a minute and so on). Furthermore, any problems related to the nature of the universe's structure as a whole are not fallacies but contracitions given empirical data (and incidentally, Einstein did not reach that conclusion- among other problems, you merely get that a steady state is not a stable configuration, and the description of the initial big bang expansion as an "explosion" is inaccurate.). As to the matter of Crick, I'd haven't read him in a while so I'll have to reread what he wrote before commenting. JoshuaZ 14:32, 6 March 2007 (EST)
If a process did not exist in Time T1 but now does exist in Time T2, then something had to cause it. That cause must have been a first cause.--TerryH 14:37, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Um, what? Why? JoshuaZ 14:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Because otherwise, the process would always have been happening since the "beginning" of time.--TerryH 14:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Um, why would it be? And even if it were, so what? And I note that you didn't respond to the distinction betweem logical fallacies and matters which contradict our empirical observations. JoshuaZ 14:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Because beyond a certain point, your distinction becomes a distinction without a difference. When people present empirical evidence that contradicts a proposition, and the proponent then manufactures yet another proposition (and another, and another, and another) to explain the contradiction, that's fallacious behavior.--TerryH 14:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)
No, it is likely to be poor reasoning and run afoul of Occam's razor among other issues, but it isn't a logical fallacy per se. JoshuaZ 14:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Even if GR did prevent infinite regression (which it patently doesn't), that would make it false, not fallacious. Tsumetai 15:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Thanks for summarzing well what I was attempting to say above. JoshuaZ 15:39, 6 March 2007 (EST)


It would probably be best to adjust your preference to let you know of minor changes. I have blocked user ILOVEJESUS for two weeks. ~ SharonS 07:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)

4004 BC

Fair edit. Thanks.--Dave3172 16:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Music article

Could you elaborate on how classical music is used during wartime on the battlefield? I deleted it because I could not think of a particular example. Also, we may want to add a section on traditional/folk music, which doesn't fit into "classical" or "pop". ColemanFrancis 19:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Think of all the military marches written over the centuries. Do you really think that none of those marches were performed by military bands on an actual march?
I like your idea of a section on traditional/folk music. If you have any information along that line, then add it, by all means.
Let's trade information on musical backgrounds. I played classical piano beginning at the age of five. My music education was mostly extracurricular, and consisted of learning by doing--that is, playing. I've also sung in college operetta productions (specifically, Gilbert and Sullivan). Today I mostly sing traditional church music. But I also own a collection that stretches from Bach to Grofe (think "Grand Canyon Suite") and beyond, with some good doses of George Gershwin and Stephen Sondheim. (And Rogers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe, Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, Alfred Newman, and other famous soundtrack names.) None of this is meant for bragging rights, but only to show how much music I've sampled, and how I came to determine what sort of music I like and would advise others to get a steady diet of.
You've taken a special interest in music; that much is clear. I'm genuinely interested in your background, whether in applied music, music appreciation, or both. If enough users with enough expertise in music get together, then perhaps we can start a comprehensive project on music to rival the one on Wikipedia.--TerryHTalk 19:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Good point on the military marches - I wasn't thinking of that (I was envisioning some guy pushing along a Steinway grand and simultaneously banging out Chopin's "Military Polonaise"). I've been playing classical piano for the last 13+ years, used to also play violin, and have recently found a job as an accompanist for some vocalists. I listen mainly to Western Classical music (primarily that for my instrument) although I will admit that there are a few composers that I don't "get" (Mahler probably being the most notable). I also have a good deal of knowledge on some of the classic rock bands, particularly those from the 1970s, and I listen to a fair amount of jazz. I don't know too much about folk music, so hopefully I will hear a lot more of that in the future.
Also, regarding Grofe, not too many people have heard of him (I've only heard one of the movements of the "Grand Canyon Suite", and I think he and not Gershwin actually orchestrated Rhapsody in Blue), so we should start cracking on that article. ColemanFrancis 19:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
This is just to let you know that I got your message. Regarding Grofe, I have his entire "Grand Canyon Suite" on a CD. Let me guess which movement you've heard: "Cloudburst." (It's the last, and when you hear it, you want to look outside to make sure that you're not in a severe thunderstorm.) I also have Ravel's Bolero, and when you hear that, you will understand why that, in addition to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, started a riot at its premiere. (Today it would be relatively tame.)--TerryHTalk 19:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You guessed wrong; I've actually heard "On the Trail" (first heard it in an elementary school music class, and it pops up every so often on our local classical station's Saturday morning kids' show). The Bolero is a great piece, although I prefer some of Ravel's other works (there is an anecdote in which a woman described the "Bolero" as "not music", and Ravel said that she completely understood the work, but I can't find a source for it). ColemanFrancis 01:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


Hey there, you wouldn't happen to be the user named Temlakos from CreationWiki, would you? I looked up "TerryH" on CreationWiki and couldn't find it. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I am the user--and administrator--named Temlakos on CreationWiki. At your service.--TerryHTalk 22:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Scorpionman aka Sherlock Holmes here. Certain you're familiar with me on CreationWiki! Nice to see you! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 09:39, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I see you've given up on the fight over at Talk:TOE. Don't back down in the face of those brood of vipers; all they know how to do is hiss and spit. I haven't seen a worthy argument escape the lips of any of them! Probably because it doesn't exist. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 12:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)