User talk:Scott484

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Please discuss your concerns at Talk:Flood geology rather than continuing to revert the article. Your edits need to be based on reliable sources and follow WP:NPOV. Vsmith (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at this discussion, and I see that many other people have raised essentially the same points I'm raising regarding the biased nature of the synopsis of Flood Geology, but to no avail... not sure that it's really worth spending the time here if those "in charge" are predisposed to the evolutionary worldview. Scott484 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on what specifically needs to be sourced in what I wrote... again, I was trying to preseve the content already there relating to those who want to hold the view that Flood Geology has been "refuted" but at the same time show the difference in world view that a refuter would hold to "uniformitarianism" vs the opposite... "catastrophism". One worldview is already included in this article without any problem... to be unbiased I would expect that the other should be included as well. Reliable sources for catastrophism as a presupposition for Young Earth Creationists? Essentially every work done in support of this holds to that view. Scott484 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the frustration evident on the talk page. But, as the topic relates to science it must be discussed in light of the relevant science as well as the theology. I avoid most religious articles, but when those religions try to interpret (or dictate) science, then science is involved and the scientific aspects must be articulated based on the science. Your inclusion of the sentence The Young Earth Creationists are not bothered by this rejection, as they recognize that many in science and academia have a deeply held religious belief in uniformitarianism and evolution in spite of all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction. at the end of the lead section and just before four references was a problem. Was that sentence supported by those four references? I'd say likely not ... and that is one example of the referencing problem. What is the source for that sentence? That was just the most glaring problem with your edit -- especially the "deeply held religious belief in uniformitarianism and evolution" bit. I'm not here to argue religion or anything, just pointing out a couple of problems as I see it. Vsmith (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for the graciousness that you've demonstrated to me in your response to my original edit (you've been very kind to a newbie who doesn't know correct editting protocol yet), as well as the time you've taken to answer my questions... much appreciated!Scott484 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand and agree with your point above. I guess what I was trying to address in my original edit is that the young earth creationists don't agree that their beliefs are "contrary to emperical scientific evidence".  Rather, in all the reading I've done on this, they always argue they are using the same facts, but interpreting them differently using different starting presuppositions, to arrive at a different conclusion.  So, in this regard the current statement in this wikipedia article is not accurate (even if we don't agree with the presuppositions or conclusions of the young earth creationists).Scott484 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding my "most glaring problem"... thanks for clarifying what was most problematic (upon re-reading I can see how some could get excited by this statement). The term "religious" in this sense is used rather loosely (i.e. does not require the person to believe in God in order to be religious; in the same manner that my buddy at work religiously believes that the Miami Dolphins are the best team in the NFL ;-). However, I do believe that my problematic statement is accurate and is supported by many statements I've seen made by those in the "scientific community" who adhere to a strictly uniformitarian presuppositional viewpoint.  I know I've heard Richard Dawkins comment on this, but I can't put my hands on the exact quote right now... (maybe it was in a video).  Anyway, here is something that I believe qualifies as a legitimate reference/source for my problematic statement... let me know what you think.... thanks!:
 * "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
 * It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
 * The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen." Reference Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.Scott484 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR as your continued reverting without discussion will lead to a block from editing. Vsmith (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up... new to this ;-) Scott484 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply "shouting" THIS ARTI won't work. This article is not a source for edits to this article. You need reliable external sources to support your edits. Vsmith (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This was accidental... meant to type more and hit enter by accident, and then couldn't figure out how to fix the comment ;-( (and I knew everyone would think I was shouting... ugh! Scott484 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those things happen, no problem - I've been guilty of similar gafs. I just try to slow down and not get in a hurry to post ... there's no rush. Vsmith (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)