User talk:CanadianLinuxUser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Invitation to RfC[edit]

You are invited to comment on a second RfC at evolution-creation controversyGodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hate Speech[edit]

That "Church" has been classified as a hate group! Stop reverting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.155.221 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't of said it better myself. :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Political Revert?[edit]

Hey, new to editing on Wikipedia and you've reverted my post edit on Kenyatta Johnson. I went back and took out whatever words I thought could maybe be puffery before resubmitting. Everything else was taken from a government website. What am I still doing wrong? Thanks for your help. Kayfeel (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Changes to scasd[edit]

http://www.scasd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=4629&ViewID=7b97f7ed-8e5e-4120-848f-a8b4987d588f&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=40321&PageID=622

Check out feb 2 and mar 4 on the above site, and the weather at http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/state-college-pa/16801/march-weather/335315?monyr=3/1/2015&view=table

And you can see them closing at .1 inch, so 1 inch is a neutral term i would suggest. Can you revert this edit? Perhaps making it sound more neutreal? But, fair and noting the other feature of the phone system? I'm on a mobile right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.106.50 (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind, Unscientific?[edit]

CanadianLinuxUser Why do you say that Kent Hovind provides no scientific evidence when he does throughout every one of his videos. I do not personally agree with "The Hovind Theory" as you mentioned in your last comment but I do agree with most of what kent hovind says. If you got all of your information from the Kent Hovind Wiki article then you are definitely deceived on who Kent Hovind really is. The people only use criticism toward Kent Hovind from most of the people that Kent himself debated. They only use people who are opposed to Kent Hovind and use one of the few quotes from Answers in Genesis that are against Kent Hovind teaches. Even in the first paragraph they claim that his ideas are unscientific and they do not even cite their claim. If havent seen his videos check out his youtube channel here <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxiEtqPja47nnqsJNrdOIQQ>. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Jacob to address you question, in the Ken Hovind article itself, here:Kent_Hovind#Criticism_from_creationists and here:Kent_Hovind#Criticism_from_creationists are all the claims with citations and reliable sources and there is no scientific evidence to any of his claims. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Jacob, have you read ANY of the other warnings on your talk page? You are engaging in an edit war. You have been warned MULTIPLE times. If you wish to make an edit on Kent Hovind's page, you MUST discuss it on Kent Hovind's talk page BEFORE. End of story. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
CanadianLinuxUser you do know that most of the people on this page that criticize Kent Hoivind have debated him right? They are clearly going to be against him.

Anyways, I was just kind of overwhelmed by the fact that you can't see that he provides scientific evidence in his videos so I decided to take the liberty to write down all the times he uses evidence in his videos. I did not do this because I want to prove you wrong just so I can get some satisfaction out of it (I got more grief than anything). But I did this because I want you to know the truth and I don't want you to be deceived. FYI: I don't want a debate.

Here is most of the science and evidences he uses on his first video alone:

Video: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0&index=1&list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqKeqAklhYfFFmmAdvwcnCT>

  • Provides quotes showing that science is not always right (51:40)
  • Provides quotes stating what the people writing the textbooks believe (57:37)
  • Shows that Red Giants did not turn into White Dwarfs over billions of years through the claims of ancient astronomers. (1:12:30)
  • Shows article from ICR September, 1998 that states, “Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a super nova.” Then he states that “If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than 300 super nova (dead stars)? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?” (1:12:02)
  • Uses a quote from “R.A. Littleton, Mysteries of the Solar System” that “Short period comet are losing material and have a life expectancy of less than 10,000 years”. He uses this quote to show that the universe cannot be billions of years old, and that a comet has never been seen before. (1:15:05)
  • Provides a quote from Carl Sagan saying that people try and explain the origin, evolution, and properties of an Oort cloud even though an Oort cloud has never had a shred of observational evidence proving its existence.
  • Kent uses a source showing that the earth has lost 10% of its strength in the last 150 years. He uses this to show that the earth cannot be billions of years old.(1:21:31)
  • Kent uses multiple sources of carbon dates and shows how carbon dating is inaccurate because multiple parts of a mammoth have about a 10,000-20,000 years difference. (1:22:00)
  • Kent uses an article that says that the world slows down by around a second each year. So he says that if the world was billions of years old then no life could exist from the Coriolis effect (1:24:20)
  • Kent talks about an event know as desertification. He then quotes the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany’s study of the Sahara desert and how they had determined that the Sahara desert in about 4,000 years old. He says this shows that this is evidence that the bible is right.
  • Kent Hovind has a cite from Creation Ex Nihilo Vol 12 that the rocks can only take 20,000 psi for around 10,000 years. He uses this to show that oil could not have formed millions of years ago.
  • Kent Hovind shows multiple images of petrified trees in the upright position connecting rock and coal layers. He shows that rock layers do not show billions of years of age. (1:32:46)
  • Kent Hovind cites some research of how there are tons of sediments flowing into the Louisiana delta. What the researchers found is that the delta has 30,000 years of sediment in it. Kent theorizes that the flood of Genesis swept half of the sediment in to area in 20 minutes. (1:33:46)
  • Kent uses a quote from a textbook saying that the oldest tree in the world is a maximum of 4300 years old. He says this is more evidence that the bible is true.
  • Kent says that there were environmentalists that watched the great barrier reef grow for 20 years. He says they determined that the reef is less than 4200 years old. (1:35:19)
  • Kent uses a quote from Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology about niagra falls saying that it formed 10,000 years ago and counteracted it with claims from the locals saying that “it erodes much faster than that.” And Kent shows that Niagra falls has eroded quite a ways since Charles Lyell’s time. (1:37:15)
  • Provides the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum and asks the question if planets came from the sun then “Why does Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto spin backwards from the other 6 planets? Why do 8 of the 91 moons known moons spin backwards? Why do Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions? If we come from a big bang then why are the planets so different? Why do some whole galaxies spin backwards? Says this, shows that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) (31:15)
  • Says that if the “If the Big Bang was true matter would be evenly distributed, but its not” (35:28)
  • Provides the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Says this shows that the Big Bang couldn’t not produce any complex systems like what we have in the universe by itself. Kent provides the counterclaim, “If you add energy you can overcome the second law of thermodynamics”, responds saying “energy only makes order if you have something to harness that energy” he uses secondary examples such as how we added a lot of energy to Pearl Harbor but we didn’t organize a thing, and shows that the sun will destroy your roof. (35:50)
  • Says that if the world was billions of years old the population of the earth would be much higher. (1:06:55)
  • Provides statistics of how SIDs were linked to vaccines (1:10:20)
  • Says that galaxies are proof the universe is not billions of years old because the stars in the middle go faster than the stars on the outside.
  • Shows that Jupiter is cooling off rapidly, claims that it should be cooled off by now if its taken billions of years.
  • Shows that Saturn’s rings are expanding away from the planet, says it cannot be billions of years old or the rings would be gone by now.
  • Uses the Inverse Square Law to show that the Earth and the moon would be almost together 1.4 billion years ago (1:13:33)
  • Kent Hovind was encountered by some people who drilled holes in Greenland ice and take giant core out of the ice. They took Kent to a freezer shows him a ice core and claimed that every layer in the ice represented a year and they say that this shows the earth to be 135,000 years old. Kent counters this with the search for the lost squadron. These airplanes were covered in 263 feet of ice from being there for 48 years. (1:28:20)
  • Kent Hovind was encountered by a man that says he got 15 layers of snow on his car in 8 hours. (1:32:19)
  • Kent Hovind shows that if the earth is not billions of years old because the whole ocean would be much saltier than 3.6% salt due to rainfall and erosion. (1:39:11)
  • Kent provides a story of a man names David Clifton who took Black Mollys and slowly added sea salt to their aquarium. After two week they had become salt water fish, and when he put them back into fresh water, they died. (1:39:44)
  • Kent give the scenario or how when you go to caves they say “do not touch the formations, they take millions of years to form”. Kent disproves this by showing multiple cases where gigantic stalactites and stalagmites had formed on modern structures. (1:40:48)
  • Kent provides images of how the whole world looks like it has been flooded at one point. (1:43:10)
  • Kent begs the question why are all historical records less than 6000 years old? (1:44:10)

Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a very nice presentation, NONE of it scientific in any ways. No evidence, a bunch of hypotheses with no testing. A very nice presentation on why all of his stuff is pure pseudo-science and why Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by fellow Young Earth creationist organizations.CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Jacob A. Henderson to give you an example of how Hovind misrepresents or is not intellectually equipped to understand scientific claims have a look at this and this. --NeilN talk to me 00:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
NeilN What are you trying to show me through the link you sent me? None of that contradicts what Kent Hovind said. It seems to me you aren't looking at both sides of the argument. All I did was I put up all the scientific facts he mentions in his first video and he provides both secondary sources and primary sources. The only thing Kent Hovind says that contradicts what the scientists are saying is the theories that the scientist make up for how old the earth is and how it formed. Kent says the universe was created by God 6000 years ago, and the evolutionists say the universe was formed over billions of years from nothing, who's right?

By you saying that Kent Hovind is not intellectually equipped cannot be directed towards Kent Hovind because almost all his cites and sources are from scientists, historians, etc. There is a reason why Kent Hovind has debated all the people that are mentioned as "reliable sources" in the article, its because they do not agree with him. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

All Kent Hovind has is WP:Fringe beliefs. There is no science involved what so ever. Wikipedia is not a forum. WP:FORUM. There is no scientific evidence out there that supports his beliefs. One person's beliefs is not science. This discussion is over. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Access or assess[edit]

The context is one in which the page said that she "[took] a semester off to 'access' and plan her future." In this context, the correct spelling would clearly be "assess." I refer you to the wiktionary pages for both words: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/access https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.253.13 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)