User talk:Christian Skeptic/Archive 1

You really don't seem to have got the hang of WP:NPOV/FAQ policy, and are advised to follow it carefully. Oh, and blanking your talk page is your right but it isn't impressive. . dave souza, talk 18:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I blanked the page because there was a lot of unnecessary old stuff on it.

I know the NPOV extremely well and I'm always fighting against the EXTREME POV of Evolutionists. The stuff I changed on Flood Geology is an example of extreme evolutionary POV. I changed it to reflect reality. Problem is, most Eovlutionists are completely unable to see their own POV. And most of the editors of Flood Geology are not geologists. I am an undergrad paleontologist.

Stop edit warring please
Stop edit warring on Flood geology to insert fringe claims, or you will be blocked. Please read WP:3RR, too. Bishonen | talk 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC).


 * This topic is about a fringe belief so it ought to accurately reflect what flood geologists actually say. But it is nonsense and full of misinformation and outright lies.  Not one of the editors defending the Evolutionary faith are geologists.  They just keep repeating the same nonsense debunked by creationists ages ago.   Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic is about a fringe belief, so it ought to be written from a fringe point of view..? No, that's a mistake. For the amount of attention, and kind of attention, that is appropriate to what creationists have or have not "debunked", see WP:UNDUE. Try to take Wikipedia policies on board, or you will find yourself blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC).
 * I didn't say "written from a fringe POV" I said it should reflect what flood geologists actually say, not what enemies says they say. There is a big difference.  If critics wish to comment on what flood geologists actually say, fine.  But at least the actual position of flood geologists should be accurately presented.  As written, the page is deeply flawed and pushes a single POV.  The problem is that most evolutionists are totally ignorant of and blind to their POV pushing.  They actually think that they have no bias!! I am very familiar with WP policies, which I why I'm trying to get fair hearing instead of the deeply biased presentations currently on WP.   Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting your edits.The reason I warn you against edit warring is that you have recently reverted three times, within a short period of time, to insert one and the same change to the article: from "This was interpreted as being the result of massive flooding, though it is now known that they are the product of ice age glaciations (an unknown phenomenon at that time)" to "This was interpreted as being the result of massive flooding, though it is now interpreted as the product of ice age glaciations (an unknown phenomenon at that time)." And you say that change is about "the actual position of flood geologists"? No it isn't. You're changing, over and over, the description of the position of mainstream science. That's the exact opposite of what you claim to be doing. If you're "very familiar with WP policies", I have to suppose you simply don't like them. I'm afraid I'm going to enforce them just the same: don't edit war any more, on this or any other article, or I will block you. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC).
 * And you honestly don't see the POV in "known" versus "interpreted"? Good grief.  You could say "generally interpreted", "almost always interepreted" or possibly someting like "the current consensus is that it is" and they would all probably be acceptable.  Consensus is an opinion.  Present it as fact and you are pushing POV.  Unfortunately majority POV is generally accepted as no POV on WP.  That is a serious flaw, and a significant hit to WP's credibility.  Also, it take at least two to edit war.  It does no good to cry "foul" when another editor is as determined as you are over a differnce.LowKey (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Flood Geology Request for Comment
There is a RfC on Talk:Flood geology regarding a statement in the lead of the article. I don't know if you watchlist this article, but your input would be appreciated.LowKey (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Weight
I know you think the scientific community is wrong, but please read WP:DUE, part of WP:NPOV. Creationism is a WP:FRINGE view in science and thus it's claims will be presented that way on wikipedia. If you have a problem with this http://www.conservapedia.com is willing to present creationism as fact, science be damned. We66er (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Conflict of interest
Not only have you violated WP:NPOV, but you have violated Conflict of interest. COI "involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups."

In August 2002, you wrote: you have an AA, are a member of Creation Research Society and have published in their journal ("Fountains of the Great Deep: The Primary Cause of the Flood" CRSQ Volume 33, June 1996, pp. 18-22.) Then you editted on the article claiming the creationist publication is "peer reviewed", despite the fact that scientists don't consider creationist publications peer reviewed. Moreover, creationists admit scientists don't consider it peer reviewed. Then you say, "The peer-review process is done in Creationary journals, I know because I have published a few articles in two of them, and have been through the peer-review process." But you don't mention that you published in the particular one you edit warred over nor did you admit its not recognized by scientists.

Don't not edit claims to support your own publications, especially when it goes against the scientific process-mainstream. You have a clear WP:COI, in promoting this publication as something its not as you are a member and contributor.

Further, you published "A fossil is a fossil is a fossil. Right?" in which you said, "we do not accept the evolutionary definition that a fossil is a biological remnant of a past geologic age before the history of mankind." Now the pseudoscience and misunderstandings in the article aside, above you wrote your name is "Cecil A. R." (signed it "Allen R.") but in the CMI you wrote your name is "Cecil Allen." A serious academic journal would not let someone with an AA publish an article that goes against scientific consensus, especially under a misleading name. Maybe you know that which is why you omitted your last name from the publication?

In sum, you don't even understand the basic idea of peer review. Publishing silly anti-science claims in fringe journals while excluding your last name on your own work, does not make you an expert. Nonetheless, you came on wikipedia and attempt to insert WP:POV to make yourself feel better about your own publications and memberships. That is in violation of WP:COI. When the entire scientific community concludes your ideas are wrong that makes you wrong, not the scientific community. We66er (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudonyms are not illegal and authors get published that way all the time. Besides, you have never published and haven't a clue about reality.  Many Creationists have to use them, to protect their job and family.  "Expelled" just barely touched the surface.  The fanatics of the Evolution religion are frantic over the continued rise of Creationism.  And they haven't a clue what is really going on.  The issue is not and has never been about science.  It is all about which philosophy you choose.  The general public knows this.  That's why Evolutionism and Naturalism is loosing ground everyday.  As long as Evolutionists focus on science they will loose.


 * The WP articles I've been working on reek of fanatical Evolutionism POV. I am trying to neutralize the religious dogma and lies that appear there with what creationists actually have to say.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. We66er (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
 * Specifically, Christian Skeptic, this is an unacceptable personal attack. WP:NPOV requires us to show proportionately views verified from published sources, so provide verifiable published evidence rather than just asserting something you know personally. Responding by accusing others of "bigoted religious beliefs and blind opinions" will not be tolerated. . . dave souza, talk 08:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Noah's ark
Please don't start a revert war over me putting information in from an article titled "Did Noah really build the ark". The scientific view on this story IS relevant. Otherwise pretty much none of the content in the article is relevant. The wording is such that it addresses the article topic. NathanLee (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Flood Geology webpage is the place to post about the science or non-science of the Flood and geology, not this page. This has been argued over and over before in the discussion pages of the Noah's Ark article. And the BBC is not a reliable source it has no references to back up any of its assertions. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The BBC is not a reliable source? Do you know what the BBC is? Are you aware of the wikipedia policies on references by any chance? You put in this completely POV unreferenced material and you're saying that the BBC article (a very referenceable source) is not allowed???. Also: I've made an attempt to discuss this and you're simply reverting? Use the discussion page and join in the existing discussion on the matter or reply via chat. The article is titled specifically about Noah's ark. Flood geology etc may have a place elsewhere, but this is hardly overstepping the bounds of relevant information to the article I put it in. NathanLee (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC is a biased news agency that has a vested interest in anything Anti-Christian. AND it provides NO SOURCES.  We are just supposed to believe them because they are the BBC.  What arrogance.  With out sources it qualifies as WP:OR (original research)which is not allowed on WP.  Anyone who believes any New Agency at face value is a fool.   Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think you've identified yourself sufficiently as having questionable motivations which may be somewhat blinding you in this topic. Combine this with your "earth sciences" career and I think you really should disqualify yourself from participating in articles on this matter. The BBC has no vested interest in being pro or anti-christianity, do you have any reference on that?
 * It's pretty obvious that you've either not visited their site or ever watched/listened to their programmes. They give quite a large amount of programming time on the radio and TV to religious programming. They have journalists, editors etc who are bound by ethical standards and their job is to do research on these matters. News articles don't generally give sources, they're the source and do the direct investigation. What newspapers/news sources can you point to that puts references after each article? The new york times? fox news? The guardian? Sydney morning Herald? Can you point me to the policies that back up what you're saying: e.g. that an article produced by the BBC (or guardian, SMH, NYT etc) would be excluded because it doesn't have references?
 * On that topic: why did you insert text that had no references, while in the next edit removing my edit which DID have references. I added another reference that had lots and lots of references, so please revert your edit and participate in the discussion page if you have any suggestions on how to improve it. That science says the story could not have been factual because of geological evidence IS relevant, it's certainly worth the one sentence with references to make that clear in the lead, much as it must irk someone of your particular beliefs/career to have it shown to be just a story. I think you're pushing what you say on your user page "Both the creation and the Flood are established fact within which science is done. They are not hypotheses to be falsified by the scientific method.". This is not correct as per the current view of science, your beliefs on the matter do not change this. NathanLee (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Creationism is not an hypothesis, just as Naturalism is not an hypothesis. They are both assumed facts.  Noah's Flood is not an hypothesis, it is a fact of Creationism.  Therefore it is not subject to science.  Rather science is subordinate to it.  The same goes for Abiogenesis and Evolutionism.  They are assumed facts of Methodological Naturalism. and contrary to lies heard everywhere, they are not scientific hypothesis.
 * You are as biased in your faith, if not more so than I.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alarm bells are ringing loudly. May I ask whether you work for or are involved with any group that seeks to further the public exposure to creationist theories. By the looks of your user page that seems to be a safe assumption. Looking above in earlier chat on your talk page: someone else has pointed out that you have a conflict of interest. Please undo your changes to Noah's ark and adhere to the wikipedia policies on conflict of interest (namely: staying away from related topics). I'd also point out that your fringe theory also does not warrant any sort of significant treatment in wikipedia. NathanLee (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I do or do not do is none of your business. And I am not going to standby while evolutionary liars distort the truth with their fanatical POV.   Copnflict of interest?  Do you really claim that you are an ignoramuses about the creation/evolution debate?  Cause that's the only kind of editors you think should write about it.  And in fact, most Evolutionists are ignoramuses about the whole thing.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you do or do not do outside wikipedia is relevant as per the policy on conflict of interest. That's why people who are in a company aren't allowed to post on their company's article. What you're doing is pushing a very niche view. I am not involved in any group on the pro or anti-religion side of the fence. I do however know that scientifically there are certain areas that have shown certain old stories (like Noah's ark) to be false. Your "proof" on your views is applicable to any religious belief, "the bible says so", "the qur'an says so": there's no way to determine which of those are true by that standard. They're all equally true and false because they provide identical reasoning. Scientifically however: the complete lack of a global flood geologically, the historical signature of mankind did not just vanish, biologically the species indicate that they have been separated as per the current models of the continental shifts etc etc etc. That view I see as having some proof (referenceable proof)worth inserting into articles without too many dramas.
 * In terms of who should write articles: I'd love to say that everyone's viewpoint is valid and worthwhile for insertion, but if a viewpoint is (as yours sounds) so completely bereft of any sort of evidence and so poisoned that you think that the BBC is not a referenceable source then it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. If you want a collection of religious teachings, myths, stories, parables etc: pick up a bible/qur'an etc. That's what they're for. NathanLee (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is impossible for science to prove that the story of Noah's Ark is false. Science cannot do any such thing.  It is your religion that causes you to interpret scientific data as against the flood.  That is your conflict of interest.  You our POV.  None of your proofs against the flood are extremely flawed. and based upon total ignorance of what Creationists are actually saying, but based upon BBC bigoted hearsay.
 * Unless the BBC sites it sources it is useless. Any new service that does not site sources is useless.  They are just giving their opinions, not facts. you need to take the time to read articles on Answers and Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society.  That way you would read what they actually say, not what others say they say.  I don't expect you to believe the creationists, but at least you would know what they really say first hand, not second fiddle.  You will find that what I've been saying echos what creationists are saying.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC can be used as a source. There may be a minor issue over the wording, but under normal conditions we can use the BBC and any reputable news source. See WP:RS for a few caveats
 * Unless they cite their sources they are just so much crap.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)