User talk:ජපස

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Totally disputed notice

I've put a totally disputed notice on the page Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared. I did this because Ungtss has started reformatting the page to be in the form fact, viewpoint, viewpoint. This will result in POV. Here is why:

Facts should the main point of an argument. We can divide the facts on this page into several categories. Facts about viewpoints, facts about natural phenonomen, facts about deductions from theories, facts about mathematical principles. By introducing the style given above Ungtss is letting only facts about natural phenonomen and facts about viewpoints into the article. If theory A predicts X but theory B does not the article could say that:

• Theory A predicts X. Adherents of theory B say it predicts X but many disagree.

Wereas in the new format this could only be written:

• Adherents of theory A believe it predicts X. Adherents of theory B believe it predicts X.

I would ask that you help remedy this problem with the article. I shall not have the time I'm afraid (See my User page). I notice that you are a new user. I'm just asking you because you've expressed an interest in this article before. Barnaby dawson 14:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

views

hey man, i would really like to work together with you on this, but twisting and distorting creationist ideas out of recognition is not the way to go. please, josh, let's try and do this right. Ungtss 01:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i honestly don't know how you can live with yourself. you've become just like those religious dogmatics you hate -- censoring everything you're afraid of, instead of defeating it with facts. it makes me very, very sad to see you content with your ignorance. your attitude will be the downfall of your worldview. Ungtss 13:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I moved the commentary from your User:Joshuaschroeder page to here

I hope that was all right. If not tell me, and I will put it all back like it was. I also entered a draft personal statement for you on your User:Joshuaschroeder page--which I hope you will edit freely as you wish. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared

Hi Joshua.. I took a look at those articles you mentioned on my talk page, but it seems that 3 of the 4 have been deleted since you left your message, whilst the 4th, Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology, is now a redirect to Creationist cosmologies. So I guess that's all OK now? —Stormie 09:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! —Stormie 19:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Words of support

I fully support your effort and that of the rest to keep the wikipedia as factual as possible, especially regarding to the distinction of scientific methodology vs irrational thinking (Which is very legit as long as it doesn't cross the line to rational thinking areas). --LexCorp 05:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much appreciated. You might try helping us out in some of the more volatile areas of the creationist world. For example, creation biology. Flood geology is also in pretty bad shape. Creation beliefs needs work as does creation science. Joshuaschroeder 07:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fortunately for you, some people don't yet know what you are. Ungtss 01:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but we know what Ungtss is: Someone whose sole purpose here is to slip disinformation and religious beliefs into articles here. DreamGuy 03:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

and then there's dreamguy ... another one stupid enough to think the interchangeable use of "religion" and "disinformation" is npov. but no worries. i've quit. i wish you all well in your cesspool of ignorance. Ungtss 22:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gee, Ungtss, nothing like posting a message that proves our points for us. But then better for you to leave than get kicked off. DreamGuy 01:38, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

anyone reading Talk:Myth right now will see Hyacinth writing, in reference to your unjustified deletion of my cited material: "I find it distressing that a contributor who has provided a source would now be required to provide three more regarding the first while being personally attacked by someone who has contributed no sources to the dispute." Hyacinth 01:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC). that's you, personally attacking without contributing any sources to the dispute. that's why i'm leaving. Ungtss 01:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, anyone reading Talk:Myth will see that Hyacinth was confused because of your false claims and now supports my side after it was discussed further. And he repeatedly warned you several times about viscious personal attacks that you had to edit out later whereas my supposed "personal attacks" were simply explaining your past history. (Hyacinth has a rather unique view that those are basically minor personal attacks because he originally didn't consider them relevant to other article discussions, a view unsupported by most other editors here). He has since apologized to me for those comments. It's funny though that you are desperately clinging to a supportive statement that has since been rescinded to try to justify yourself. (Sorry, Joshua, for continuing the discussion here, but since it's directly relevant to the topic you are discussing here about Ungtss' bad behavior I figured it was probably OK.) DreamGuy 03:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly clear, dreamguy. after you deleted the cited text without comment, i added this to the talkpage. no personal attack, just a section titled "here we go again." you responded with this, in which you detail my "sheer incompetence," my "church's approved reading list," accuse me "spreading my nonsense," and note the importance of "damage control." hmm. who is involved in the personal attacks again? And this over a cited section from a book on myth and literature by an oxford/cambridge lit professor. Yes, that is when i began defending myself at your expense, and i apologize for that. but please don't pretend you're an innocent victim here. Ungtss 00:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy

Hi, I'd like to be your advocate, but I need some directions of the problem (e.g. some diffs) before I can decide to help you or not. Answer me in my talk page (Warning: I'll be absent till Sunday 20th. If your problem is too urgent to wait till then, I'm not the right man). --Neigel von Teighen 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm in

This User:Ungtss is making too many personal attacks. I'll be your advocate in this matter. I'm not an expert on Creationism, but I don't tolerate such attacks...If you can send me a complete list of the talk pages it will be really helpful.

A suggestion, let's use e-mail from now. You can send me one using a this link. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 14:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm glad to see you were trying to add some critical information to the article on the pseudo-scientific theory known as 'creationism'. I have added a new section 'criticisms of creationism' to the article, and I would appreciate any put you have on this matter. If the changes I've made have been edited out by the time you check the article out, feel free to add them again and to add your own. I will be asking other people to help me put this right too. Aaarrrggh 21:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joshuaschroeder. Regarding your comments about Ungtss on my talk page, I'm not really sure what to do with him. I had thought that if enough people stood up to him he'd get the clue that his way of doing things wasn't going to fly. I've been running into problems with him mostly on Deluge (mythology), and now Myth. Unfortunately he has another person (Phil Rayment or something like that) who is nearly as bad or worse helping him out, and he managed to confuse some editors without a background in mythology into thinking his sources were valid, so it's been a struggle. Of course he's been warned repeatedly to act responsibly by even those people (except Phil, who supports him and tries to outdo him at times). We could try to do a Request for Comment on him, but those appear to be fairly useless from my experience... Especially since someone harassing me decided he'd try to get me back by doing one on me a while ago, and then a collection of like-minded people slammed the heck out of me because I changfed what they wrote and stood up to their bullying in the past. I really think this is just an unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia lets any old person off the street on. Articles get patrolled by rabid wwolves wwith distinct agendas, and there's very little we can do about it other than constantly revert or fix their shenanigans until we give up in frustration. They know this. I wouldn;t be surprised if political action committees start having full time paid Wikipedia and other website handlers soon. DreamGuy 03:31, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Do we make a WP:RfC?

I'm thinking to do a request for comment on Ungtss as a first step on the dispute resolution system we've got. Although RfC has proved not to be very efficient, it's a requisite if we need to do further moves like a request for mediation or for arbitration. I've been collecting evidence and I think we can do this. What is your opinion? --Neigel von Teighen 17:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no need to worry about it. i'm quitting. schroeder + dreamguy will be free to develop their atheistic intellectual paradise without any interference from me. i do, suggest, tho, that before dealing further with these two, you look deeper into some page histories, including Joshua's creation of Ungtss vs. Mainstream science and Dreamguy's absolute insistence on the exclusion of religious views from pages on mythology. The attacks your seeing from me are the result of nearly 3 months of battling deliberate censorship and vandalism, and they've selected you as advocate because you are not aware of the things they have done, or the dozens of evolutionists and atheists who have supported my edits against theirs. People who have been involved in these battles for any period of time would support me.

but rather than waste your time or anyone else's time in this matter, I will simply withdraw, and allow wikipedia to maintain its systemic bias. i will just be sure to warn those i know that wikipedia as an entity is fantastically reliable for issues not involving religion, spirituality, or ideology, but will never be reliable on those topics, because of the fundamentalist anti-religious ethos carried on by men such as those with whom you are communicating. Ungtss 23:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"People who have been involved in these battles for any period of time would support me." Actually, that's patently false, as you are losing your battles left and right as more people see through to your agenda. But, OK, leave, works for me. 01:40, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, I wasn't elected to be Schroeder's advocate: I accepted the case...You're quitting and that's not very common on Wikipedia's disputes: the majority of the long disputes get quickly into Arbitration cases. But, if you say you're quitting only for creating a sockpuppet account and restart your attacks, you'll get problems. --Neigel von Teighen 21:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets? Quite simply, I have better things to do than skank around wikipedia with sockpuppets ... and i certainly have better things to do than endless edit wars and arbitration. if the system wants biased creationism articles, it can have them. if it ever wants npov ones, it can call on me to take part. Ungtss 23:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If "the system" wanted biased creationism articles it would have just let your changes stand unedited. DreamGuy 14:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Request for Comment, I don't think the version as there now will cut it. You need to point directly to cases where we tried to work with him and he refused, expecting people to read through every talk page in existence isn't going to happen. Worse than that, one of the other recent RfCs was about someone with a Creationism bias, and it backfired because a number of other creationist posters showed up to support him.

On consideration, at this point if he's really not making any edits to any pages related to creationism in any way, I'm not sure there's anything to accomplish by a RfC anyway. What behavior out of him should we expect different than no longer editing the pages. If he wasnts to harass us on our talk pages, fine, I don't care, as anyone reading them can see right away that he's not someone worth taking seriously, based upon his rants and insults. DreamGuy 17:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Boycott warning by Ungtss

JS, I'm thinking we should do the RfC now. Ungtss has recognize to have boycotted the creationism pages, but doesn't show any will to stop doing that (see [1]). I can't do the request because it seems that the current system requires the RfC to be started by a direct participant of the dispute (I'm an indirect one). I can show some evidence and defend you if this gets worse. I'll also ask DreamGuy about this. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 19:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh? i haven't edited creationism at all. i was encouraged by DanielCD (see this link) and RednBlue (see this link) to simply avoid this area, rather than quit entirely, because wikipedia does not yet have adequate standards for npov in creationism. also consider this. i apologize for getting overly frustrated with these two, but it is not a pattern. it is a personal conflict between me and them going back months. Dreamguy has also been known to flagrantly insult other creationists, such as this gem to philip rayment, in which philip was informed, "To sum up, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and it's obvious. You should leave articles about mythology to the people who know the topic.[2]" I also found it interesting how he used "religious-motived mind" as an insult against mr. rayment. there's also this gem on his talkpage with somebody i don't even know. [3]Unfortunately, the evidence on Schroeder disappeared with the articles he got deleted (including, may i remind you, 4 articles titled Ungtss vs. mainstream science in geology, Ungtss vs. mainstream science in biology, etc. what seems to be the problem, sir? Ungtss 23:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, only in your head is "To sum up, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and it's obvious. You should leave articles about mythology to the people who know the topic." a "flagrant insult" -- That editor was making patently (and proven) false statements about mythology as justification for removal of a section about what mythologists think about the myths so he could put more focus on the religious viewpoint. Pointing out that he is wrong and obviously has no business making edits to a page about mythology is not an insult, it's a simple, practical and necessary statement. In fact, it's trying to explain Wiki NPOV rules: people with obvious bias and no knowledge of the topic at hand should get the heck away from the article. And now you whine and moan about it? And that's especially hypocritical because you routinely make insults that go clear off the scale of acceptability. Get a grip. You're only proving our case that you are so biased that people supporting your agenda can do no wrong and anyone trying to follow Wiki rules are somehow intellectually inferior and morally corrupt. DreamGuy

1) religious views are part of npov, particularly views of religious scholars on religious issues. presenting only secular views on religious issues is inherently pov.

2) you routinely delete cited scholarly opinions because they are "religious," and therefore unacceptable in your view. (here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deluge_%28mythology%29&diff=8471163&oldid=8471006 here). in the process, you personally attack me in the edit summaries, wondering "where i get off" and contemplating my "blatant religious bias."

3) you have routinely described religious views as a "bias" rather than a "pov," lining up your apparently npov views with all others, which are apparently mere "bias," whether held by cited scholars in the field or not.

4) you and your friend schroeder are in the minority in your opinion of me, and CERTAINLY in the minority in your opinion of Mr. Rayment, as illustrated above.

5) the views you censor are held by a number of high-grade academics, and present an alternative viewpoint that deserves representation on a page on the topic.

6) no creationist here has EVER suggested deleting the secular pov from these pages as long as i've been here. we've simply requested a fair and accurate representation of our viewpoint, and have been routinely censored and personally attacked, as illustrated above.

7) you have attacked not only creationists, but also people with views different than yours on the jack the ripper article -- to the point where the other person continually requested that you cool down, only to be repeatedly slammed by you.

8) schroeder has renamed PAGES to vandalize and mock me.

9) and now you're on me. right. Ungtss 17:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) Considering that the disputes I have had with you are not on articles about "religious issues," your claims that I only allow secular views of religious issues is nonsense.

2) I routinely remove opinions that are not scholarly or that are irrelevant to the pages in question. Your claim to the contrary is merely your bias showing itself again.

3) No, I don't call religious views bias, I call an orchestrated agenda to insert religion into articles that have nothing to do with it and to remove what experts much more qualified and numerous than the people you falsely claim to be experts from articles because it makes your side look bad is a bias. Complaining about how awful changes are that take a small step toward nuetrality but still are full of your POV when more drastic changes to get them into the middle are necessary is a bias.

4) Yes, yes, yes, you always try to back up your side with spurious claims to a majority. Funny, I don't see anyone other than the Rayment guy (who is perhaps just as abusive and biased as you) taking your side in the articles I edit. If you actually had a majority, you wouldn't be here complaining because you would have been able to keep your POV edits in the affected articles. You can't, because consensus is consistently reached that you are doing your changes for bad motives.

5) High grade academics? LOL, yet more unsupported statements. Creationists are consistently among the least educated and least skilled in the field, and we already know you lost your argument that CS Lewis was an expert on mythology.

6) That's either an outright lie or the result of an incredibly reality-impaired bias. Happens constantly, they just try to call the deletions "balance" when it's no such thing. The recent blow up came from Rayment wanting to remove the only section in the Deluge (mythology) article about what the experts on mythology use to explain their origin, with the hopes of leaving more space for more religious campaigning.

7) You call it attacked, I call it standing up to bullies. It's amazing how some people will call foul and make accusations when someone dares to change something they wrote, even when you can prove that it's factually incorrect or that the consensus of the editors on the page overwhelmingly disagrees with them. The people working on the actual pages end up siding with me, so I'm obviously doing things the right way.

8) Not my issue, and certainly a lot less damaging than the things you;ve routinely done here.

Here's the deal: If you stay off the page you agreed to and stop butting in on other people's conversations on talk pages to toss out insults and false accusations, then there isn't a reason for the RfC to proceed, and you can feel free to do all those alleged solid contributions to wikipedia that you claim to want to make. I have the feeling though that you are only here to bang one drum, and that's to put your religious views into articles in a highly biased and unencyclopedic way. Prove me wrong and we won;t have anything to complain about. DreamGuy 19:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

given the choice between banishment and inquisition, i choose the former. I agree to your terms. Ungtss 18:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You could chose a third option that of being judge by your wikipedia peers for your free willed actions and accepting their judgement. --LexCorp 18:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

my "peers" are free to do all the judging they want. the rfc they put up is devoid of any substantive evidence against me that doesn't fall to the doctrine of unclean hands, and fails utterly to demonstrate "failed efforts to resolve the conflict," even 72 hours after its posting, meaning it is in violation of policy. that rfc has nowhere to go. but perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence of how uncivilly i've treated you?

but more importantly, wikipedia is my hobby, not my life. i have better things to do than allow myself to be judged by the likes of schroeder. i've recognized that there is too much systemic bias here for wikipedia to be a valid forum for describing creationism. i'm gonna stop wasting my time, and let you all do as you please. Ungtss 20:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By 'peers", Lex evidently means only atheistic peers like himself, Schroeder or that bigoted sysop Duncharris who is unfit for the role. They want to turn NPOV to APOV (atheistic point of view). 220.244.224.9 14:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well something should be done about the superstition, vandalism, and censorship of the evolutionists on Wikipedia--and what could be a better thing to do about it than for the evolutionists to exorcise another proven witch? 8)) Who will file the RfC to get the fire started? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL, yeah... Because it's the scientists who always burn witches and not the anti-science religionist types. You might have picked a metaphor that doesn't so immediately display that you are on the wrong side of the argument. "Superstition, vandalism and censorship" is pretty much the standard operating procedure for Ungtss here. All we are trying to do is put an end to highly biased people going through Wikipedia and adding their views without any attempt to try to NPOV. Of course when the slightest effort to move the article to a little bit more towards NPOV instead of pure-Creationism dogma happens, the creationists start heaping insults and acting like neutrailty is somehow bias. I haven't seen you on any pages I actively edit, Rednblu, but you are either wholly bamboozled by Ungtss or soming from such a strong bias that your view of what is happening on these pages bears no resemblenmce to reality. DreamGuy 07:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, yeah. The evolutionists in this case are the religionist types. You got it! 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 14:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but then if that clear bias of yours is affecting articles in any way here, it's no wonder other editors are making changes. DreamGuy 14:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, atheism is a religion, and evolution is the pseudo-scientific justification for it. And atheistic regimes have done their fair share of persecution, including the French Revolution chopping off Lavoisier's head, saying "The Republic has no need for scientists" (not to mention the millions butchered under atheistic communism last century).

[comment added by unregistered user 220.244.224.9]

Sorry, but A) atheism is not a religion, B) evolution has nothing to do with atheism, C) communism is not atheism, and D) you seriously need to get out into the real world. DreamGuy 16:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where is that Frenchman Le Pierrot when we need him? 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 16:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

likely he's "out in the real world." schroeder -- consider -- it's not my sockpuppet, as clearly demonstrated on the RfC. i understand that i've become the embodiment of evil to you, but i suggest the application of some Reason here. Let it die. Ungtss 17:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss RFC

Joshuaschroeder, I have added evidence and endorsed the summary against Ungtss. I provided some diffs that show the bad faith editing of him and some other things. I hope someone else endorse the summary too.

If this happens not to work, I'll request mediation (which, in my opinion, won't work) as the dispute resolution system points out. If that doesn't work, arbitration will.

Yours, Neigel von Teighen 20:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is not a "fact"?

To take another example, [by your line of reasoning] it would be impossible to call "gravity" a fact. One could point to any observation and claim that gravity is the "cause" for the fact rather than the fact itself. However, this isn't the way physicists refer to gravity at all. Rather, gravity is the collection of observations and models that describe said observations that allow for physical predictions. Gravity is a "fact" because it is observed. Likewise with evolution.

Joshuaschroeder 23:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• In my arguments with creationists I have not gotten very far in arguing that evolution is fact. 8)) In contrast, I have no problem in getting agreement from the creationists that gravitation is fact. What convinces the creationists about the "fact" of gravitation is the Torsion bar experiment--in the modern versions you can see the laser beam deflect to a greater angle as one mass is moved toward the other! It is dramatically convincing. I have tried to design an equivalent demonstration of evolution, but none of the ideas I have come up with so far have the same inescapable quality of demonstrating evolution as "fact." Let me give you a short list of the designs that do not have the convincing quality of the Torsion bar experiment.
  1. Cancer. Observe the cancer cells mutate and become a different species altogether. <<What is missing from this "demonstration" is mutation to become something "better" that becomes able to fend and multiply for itself in the wild--outside the host. Let's not turn this experiment loose on high-school students I hope!>>
  2. Drosophila mutations and speciation. <<Again the mutations I know about are still Drosophila.>>
  3. Genome comparisons of S. cerevisiae, A. thaliana, C. elegans, D. melanogaster, M. musculus, P. troglodytes, P. paniscus, H. sapiens . . . This would convince me. But it does not have that crucial convincing quality of the Torsion bar experiment--of making the laser beam deflect dramatically to a greater angle when you bring the second mass closer to the first.
  4. So I am still looking for a demonstration of evolution that would have the "watch it happen in real-time" convincing quality of the Torsion bar experiment. 8)) Wish me luck! 8))
• If we had a "watch it happen in real-time" demonstration of evolution, then I think we could claim that evolution is "fact." We could then say, "Look numbskull. Don't you believe your eyes? What you see there has all the qualities of every valuable fact that you see in your everyday life! If you see it happen, what you see is fact. You might balk at agreeing to explanations for what you see--but at least what you see must be fact. You saw what you saw--that is fact."
• Even so, even for the X processes, such as gravitation, for which we have "watch it happen in real-time" demonstrations, it seems to me to be a bad idea to beat somebody over the head with "X is fact." After all, there is something wrong with how we are looking at gravitation--because, if we looked at it right, we likely would see the unified theoretical relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. And somebody will win the Nobel Prize in the future by uniting the field theories of gravity and electromagnetism--by disproving some "fact" that you and I hold today about gravity.
• Since the scientific method is inductive, it is wise for us to play down the conclusion of "THIS is fact." That is, I would much rather have a clear falsifiable hypothesis than I would a master "fact" that explained all the little facts of induction. Let me give you an example. Rather than the master "fact" of F=ma, I would rather have the hypothesis in falsifiable form, such as "To falsify, find some situation in which, applying a constant force to an object over time will produce a steadily decreasing acceleration." For, if I keep formulating falsifiable hypotheses instead of a master "fact" that explains all the little facts of induction, I get clues, such as suggestions about high velocity conditions, for constructing the experiment that will give me the data--the real "facts"--the little facts of induction--that will inform me how to improve my falsifiable hypothesis. Does that make sense?
• I appreciated your essay. And I hope that my reply has made it worth your time to write the probing essay that you left for me. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The problem here is that there is substantively nothing different between macroevolution and microevolution except for the scales involved. Thus, to claim that evolution is not a fact is really a claim that macroevolution is not a fact, which is a basic denial of universality once again.

To extend the analogy of gravity further, it would be like someone accepting the Eötvös experiment you listed on my talkpage as evidence for "microgravity", but rejecting "gravity" (or "macrogravity", if you will) as the reason for orbits because they disbelieve those scales (both in time and space).

Joshuaschroeder 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe. We are hypothesizing here about how people think.
• I think you mean "uniformitarianism" rather than universality. Am I right?
• Uniformitarianism seems to come quite easily to a person who spends a lot of time doing science. And uniformitarianism in space seems to come quite easily to educated people generally, even non-scientists.
• But uniformitarianism in time seems to be hard for creationists to grasp. Creationists generally see "modern times" as different from "barbaric" times--the "state of grace" times as radically different from the "sinner" times. So the Bush Administration cannot see that, from uniformitarianism principles, Bush II is little different from the other Holy Christian Crusader tyrants that whipped the Muslim world for the glory of God. 8))
• Accordingly, I would hypothesize that you could convince the creationists of the "fact" of evolution for any "fact" that you could demonstrate over and over today whether it is microevolution or macroevolution--including whatever uniformitarianism extensions you may require for your "fact" in space.
• But uniformitarianism in time runs counter to non-scientific nature and human common sense. Thus, to the non-scientist, it is unfair for you to claim something as fact that you cannot demonstrate in real-time. If you have evidence in real-time, that evidence is fact. You and I understand that uniformitarianism in time implies that we evolved from the ancestors of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, given the known mutation patterns in the known genomes and proteomes. However, non-scientists have a problem with uniformitarianism in time. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

So, to come back to the analogy, why should the creationist believe that gravity existed before they were born? If there is no universality of physical laws to imply that observed mechanisms today acting in the past account for the state of the universe today, what replaces this? How can such a replacement be used to define "fact" independent of empiricism?

In other words, how can we say it is wrong to call evolution a "fact" if there exists no "facts" at all?

Joshuaschroeder 22:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Here is an analogy I use when arguing with creationists. In the 1930s, Enrico Fermi and others did some experiments that showed that incredible amounts of energy could be released by bombarding U-235 with neutrons. Einstein alerted President Roosevelt to the "fact" that you could make a bomb of tremendous destructive force by squeezing enough U-235 into a tight space to produce a chain reaction. Now was it a "fact" that you could make a bomb of tremendous destructive force by squeezing enough U-235 into a tight space to produce a chain reaction? Well, it wasn't yet the kind of "fact" that you could introduce into evidence in any court of law--because no one had witnessed it yet so that they could testify to it. What were "facts" were the data from the experiments that Enrico Fermi, Otto Hahn, and Fritz Strassmann had done. Among the next steps were the discoveries of "cause" that Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch did in figuring out why Enrico Fermi observed the "facts" that he did.
• Likewise evolution is the "cause" for the "facts." And the "facts" consist of the observations on genomes and proteomes of everything from bacteria to humans, including many "facts" of shifts in genomes, proteomes, and phenotypes in creatures that have been observed in our lifetimes.
• Is there anything wrong with you and me treating evolution as a "fact"? Nope--as long as you and I are willing to adjust our certain "facts" to conform to the new findings of empirical observations. 8)) But it is best that you and I not talk about "evolution as fact" to the creationists--because they have enough intelligence to distinguish between "facts" and the "conclusions" derived from the "facts." Our difficult job is to get the creationists to deal with reality. And using the phrase "evolution is fact" clutters the intellectual landscape by being wrong, wrong, wrong. The creationists are willing to deal with the "facts," and the "facts" are exactly what would be admissible in any court of law--the testimonial accounts of what happened. Is a fossil or a genome a testimonial account of what happened? Yes. A fossil or a genome would be "facts"--but neither a fossil nor a genome is evolution. Evolution is the "cause" for the "facts." ---Rednblu | Talk 01:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I need to keep refering back to gravity because I think to be consistent you would have to conclude that the statement "gravity is a fact" would also have to be "wrong wrong wrong" in your formulation of "fact" as above. If you can find me a creationist who will agree that by the criteria for claiming that evolution is not a "fact", gravity is also not a "fact", then I will concede the point. But creationists are fond of selectively culling certain parts of science they find controversial when real "criticism" is leveled against science in general not on, for example, evolution in particular.

If creationists would just accept that these arguments that you outline are applicable to any scientific model be it atomic physics, chemical principles, gravity, electromagnetism, physiology, etc. then they would at least be honest. Right now they (and somehow have convinced you to as well) tread on shaky groud of selectively choosing certain criteria for parts of science and other criteria for other parts of science.

Joshuaschroeder 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• We are just trading ideas. I would not want to convince you. 8))
• It seems to me that gravity would be quite easy to introduce as "fact" into a courtroom. For example, you might ask me to testify what I had seen in the Torsion bar experiment. Better yet, I could bring the whole Torsion bar experiment, with permission of the court, into the courtroom as a demonstration. 8)) I would enclose the whole apparatus in plexiglass to keep the courtroom air-conditioning from swaying the suspended apparatus. I would project the 1) laser beam onto the wall opposite the jury box, I would mark the 2) first position of the laser beam dot on the wall with white tape, and I would mark the 3) second position of the laser beam dot after I moved the second mass half the distance to the first all the while the jury watched. "There, you see ladies and gentlemen, the two masses attract each other and twist the torsion bar and make the laser beam deflect to dot two when I move the two masses closer together."
• What could I introduce as "fact" about evolution? You could get my friend to testify to what he has seen in the progressive mutations of skin cells in creating a cancer colony--together with progressive "genomes" of the mutating "species." The trouble with that series of "facts" is that there is no indication of increasing capability. What I mean by "evolution" is the 5 million year process by which the ancestors of the chimpanzees would speciate into the three different species--modern chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans. What I mean by "evolution" is the development of increasing capability to deal with the environmental niche. I could introduce lots of "facts" that make "evolution" a plausible "cause" for the "facts." But I could not introduce evolution as a "fact" into the courtroom--because what every available witness has seen is "facts" that strongly indicate that humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees; no one has seen it happen.
• However, I argue at this stage, that just because the atomic bomb was not a "fact" when Einstein told Roosevelt about it does not lessen the impact; the "facts" strongly indicated that there was a tremendous atomic energy "cause" for the "facts" from Enrico Fermi's experiments. And the real question is "Where will you place your bets?" ---Rednblu | Talk 03:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I understand that you think the emphasis is incorrectly placed when scientists refer to framework arguments as facts, but I fail to see what harm it does since there isn't a consistent alternative being offered (except, if you will accept my idea that facts don't exist at all and everything is up to interpretation).

Joshuaschroeder 00:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 8))
• I personally do not object to you claiming that "evolution is fact"--if it helps you understand and engineer your world for a good cause. But when you assert to creationists that "evolution is fact" when clearly they are right that you are using "fact" to give something a little more legitimacy than it deserves, then I object. I object because claiming that "evolution is fact" makes it more difficult for creationists to look at the actual "facts"--which are the observables and the underlying evolutionary "cause" for those "facts."
• Of course, scientists deal with framework "facts" all the time. And scientists deal with "facts" in a very malleable fashion. "Facts" are not a catechism that we learn as conclusory "facts." Framework "facts" are provisional. For example, without thinking much about it, you or I would easily call Newton's law of gravitation a framework "fact" when we both know that it is wrong--and just a caricature of what is really happening. For example, we both know that the singularity at r=0 is nonsense. Besides for small r, we both know that even more powerful strong forces take over and, hence, Newton's law of gravitation is wrong by not describing the appropriate force field for small r. So with all of those provisional disclaimers in operation, scientists have a very malleable but very practical understanding for "facts."
• So what makes me curious is why scientists would assert in public that "evolution is fact." It is a really embarrassing thing to do--to claim that "evolution is fact" when the audience is right in jeering. Treating "evolution as fact" has never assisted science or assisted the scientists' understanding of what evolution is. Scientists just understand "evolution" like they understand geometry. When you understand geometry, you can make up your own theorems about it, and you can prove for yourself which theorems are right and which are wrong. It is a waste of time to approach Geometry with the attitude "geometry is fact." "Evolution is fact" makes it sound like the genetics students have to learn the catechism of facts. It is not that way. It is a matter of coming to understand the "causes" so that you are creative enough to design your own experiments to generate the "facts" that you need to discover to progress. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

rfc

you're up. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JoshuaSchroeder -- Ungtss 16:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)