User talk:OoZeus

Deleted - see difference

Speedy deletion nomination of User:OoZeus/YouvanExcerpt


A tag has been placed on User:OoZeus/YouvanExcerpt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crowsnest (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to delete Youvan's ebook in my "sandbox" that is ok with me at this time. I thought the copyright release to the United Methodist Church and Wikipedia was sufficient. http://www.youvan.org says: "Public Domain use of this ebook is granted to the United Methodist Church and to Wikipedia". OoZeus (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)OoZeus (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Please be sure you are not looking at some cached copy. It appears near the top of the page. Could you please explain to me why you have targeted Youvan so much? Why are you referenced on www.gewp.com by him? Did you guys have some falling out in a business venture for ocean wave power? OoZeus (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is the problem, i.e., Youvan's content in "Questions of a Christian Biophysicist":

1.Do you find the following quotes and comment from Darwin, Crick, and Jukes to be troubling?


 * 1."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin


 * 2."The lectures will be concerned with the impact of biological ideas, both present and future, on our concept of the world. They will not be militantly anti-Christian, but nevertheless will be directed against the sort of ideas at present held by many religious people." - Francis Crick


 * 3.Jukes was one of the founders of the Journal of Molecular Evolution; his subsequent work with molecular evolution focused especially on the origin and evolution of the genetic code. After returning to Berkeley, he also became heavily involved in a number of public scientific controversies, and was a gifted polemicist. In the 1960s, he fought against the introduction of creationism into the California public schools. -Wikipedia

2.Are these Four Postulates consistent with Biblical Creation as per Genesis 1-2?


 * 1.Humans can not observe the origin of life on Earth.


 * 2.The information content of the DNA in a living cell or organism is insufficient to encode life.


 * 3.The information for bootstrapping life into existence is not present in DNA.


 * 4.The information required to bootstrap life into existence came from an NP process.

22.Do you agree with Søren Kierkegaard that Christianity seems to be offensive before it can be understood?

32.Is Hawking the current God of the scientific secularists?

40.Sometime in the future, will valid scientific challenges to Darwinism be considered "hate speech"?

48.Do religious writings make you hate the writer or the religion or God?

73.Can a Prigogine Dissipative Structure store information like a cell stores DNA?

79.Do scientist really believe they become immortal and god-like when they win a Nobel Prize?

87.Do offensive questions written by a Believer keep you from moving closer to Christ?

93.What's' worse: Pushing Dawkins', "The God Delusion", or pushing drugs?

102.Given Romans 13, as of 2010, has God given Wikipedia the authority to establish "consensus truth"?

128.Why are Wikipedia articles usually ranked first on any search of anything?

148.Does the Strong Anthropic Principle explain why you evolved to read this question despite astronomical improbabilities for our existence?

150.10,000 years after Creation and 1,900 years after Christ, why did people begin to believe that Young Earth Creationists were stupid?

160.Will Darwin fall like Haeckel?

180.Why would anyone, including myself, believe that I am a Christian Apologist for the Book of Genesis?

181.When referring to science as authority, why isn't the term "faith in science"?

186.Does the "equals sign" (=) become inexact when moving from pure mathematics to physics?

200.Do you believe science has a sufficient vocabulary to define what is and what is not alive?

208.What possible benefit can there be for betting against God's existence in Pascal's Wager?

209.How could chirality arise from a Big Bang?

212.What is the smallest change in the position of matter that is of any consequence to your life?

213.Are your ancestors bacteria?

218.Not all mathematics is embodied in physical phenomena, and vice-versa, correct?

227.Did you know the consensus truth on Wikipedia is that evolution is fact, not just a theory?

228.Did you know that according to Wikipedia (Godwin's Law) just mentioning Hitler causes you to lose the debate?

250.Is the term "secular fascist" hate speech?

256.Did you know that an attempt to list the Amish as Young Earth Creationists on Wikipedia was quashed?

266.What is the driving force behind the synergism we see in the biosphere?

271.How much clearer could it be that the genetic code could not "evolve" to an optimized design before evolution purportedly even began?

278.If a pattern was discovered in the genetic code, it would not be of Earthly origin - correct?

282.Is it not abundantly clear from the sequencing of various genomes that the information content of DNA is insufficient to reconstitute life?

302.When you write, do you frequently visualize a specific type of reader who may have views entirely different from yours?

312.Why was Thomas Jukes given an unprecedented amount of freedom as an editor and columnist for Nature magazine in the 1970's?

316.Do you believe that God's unique design of a person is complete at the time they become diploid with union of ovum and sperm?

317.How can a partially evolved biochemical cycle, that is nonfunctional during evolution, convey fitness for the host organism to be selected?

322.Why are scientists one of the most difficult groups of people to reach with the Word of God?

329.Could the maturity of a scientist be gauged on how many caveats they have found to the idea that science can solve anything?

331.Is physical infinity the same as mathematical infinity?

344.Are scientists constantly tempted to conclude doctrines of causation when observations supports only correlation?

346.Why would I debate a Darwinist if their best evidence that time moves forward is the Boltzmann H-theorem?

351.Have I convinced you that it is reasonable for an intelligent man to believe in Creation?

356.Has a cosmologist ever shown that the mathematics underlying a physical phenomenon is related to one of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems?

380.As pre-biotic and Darwinian evolution comprise a nihilistic version of Creation, how can it be taught to children in public school?

398.In Heaven's library, will The First Three Minutes be in the fiction section?

399.Will The God Delusion be on the bookshelves in Hell?

419.How do you reconcile Kierkegaard's leap of faith with Calvin's TULIP?

420.Are Wikipedia editors trying to rewrite history by removing from my biography the fact that I am a signator to Dissent from Darwin?

423.Do you think more like a Turing machine or a Domino computer?

427.Does truth that is determined by a consensus vote of men necessarily imply some injustice?

430.Is the Shannon information content stored by a Prigogine dissipative structure, such as a tornado, just debris and increased entropy?

440.Do you think Darwin and Hawking will be overturned in a matter of years or will it be centuries?

444.Why can God's design of formal logic be reduced to one simple operation: NAND, i.e., "Not And"?

451.Will man ever discover anything more basic than mathematics and logic?

466.Can these four postulates be disproved by science?


 * 1.Humans can not observe the origin of the universe or life on Earth.


 * 2.Without cause, intelligence, god, or a Big Bang, (etc.), the universe and man came into existence about 10,000 years ago in a state similar to the conditions we observe now (as is).


 * 3.This "no intelligence event" was caused by a spontaneous physical event analogous to NP or non-algorithmic mathematics.


 * 4.Optionally, postulate (2) can be biased by a process that can not be proved correct, such as intelligent design, god-driven, or Big Bang-theorized (etc.) mechanisms.

== Crowsnest - Please talk to me as person to person. What in this list of questions upsets you so much that you would take so much time to expunge every little thing Youvan has done, anywhere? OoZeus (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC) ==

I think Crowsnest is conflicted through http://web.mit.edu/fluids-modules/www/ where Youvan was an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He should know the consequences of digging up old MIT politics. It is very clear he is conflicted on for-profit ocean wave power money, where Youvan works pro bono. Some phone calls will be made tomorrow. MIT had egg on their face over Youvan, and that is a possible reason Crowsnest seems not to be able to add up Youvan's patent references (into the hundreds) by a simple search of the uspto website for issued and pending patents (see Roger Tsien's bio, it's no big deal to search and add those changing numbers). Youvan's signature on Discent from Darwin has also been removed. Nasty, unethical, academic back stabbing. OoZeus (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC) OoZeus (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)