User talk:Robert Stevens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Biblical Inerrency

Hi Robert, I can't help but notice your frustration on the talk page of Biblical inerrency and that frustration spilling out into the main page. You've argued everything from the reliablillity of Dallas Theological Seminary, to what the majority of Conservative Christians believe to the definition of "Establish". You re entitled to your opinion, but please leave your personal views of the subject outside. Let's list what the defintion is and who teaches it in friendly logical manner. It's not tha place to argue whether or not we like what is taught. Peace. --Home Computer 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

...And, as explained on the Discussion page, that is my aim. But isn't it rather ironic to refer to "the majority of Conservative Christians", when "Conservative Christians" (by which you apparently mean "inerrantists") is itself a minority, even among Christians? --Robert Stevens 23:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Concerning what you seem to be accepting as definitions of those terms, I challenge your choice to consider your own beliefs more valid than written documentation on the subject. I don't think it's an effective way to wiki. For more info check out the Chicago Statement. It should clear up the matter. --Home Computer 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're getting at. "My beliefs" regarding the key issue of inerrancy (i.e. that the Bible is errant) are of course backed up by plenty of "written documentation" from genuine "experts". Furthermore, those "conservative Christians" who signed up to the Chicago Statement don't have a monopoly on the phrase "conservative Christian", many Christians who consider themselves to be religious conservatives aren't inerrantists. You seem rather fixated on the notion that those people are "experts" of some sort. Of course they're experts on what inerrantists believe... --Robert Stevens 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support...

... on Bible scientific foreknowledge through the ongoing assault against anything criticizing inerrantism. It was getting a little lonely there. The Crow 12:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help! I'm also involved in a long-running revert war with Kdbuffalo on the Biblical prophecy page. And on Peter Stoner, though now he seems to have relented a little there, resorting to posting apologetic excuses rather than deleting all criticism. I'll prepare more material for that page soon. --Robert Stevens 16:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto on Book of Daniel: "most?". I did what I could. Thomasmeeks 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medcab case

If you want to stop vandalism, you need to go to WP:AN and complain. If he has vandalized a page he will be blocked. Best Regards Geo. 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He was just blocked for 3rr for 24c hrs. Geo. 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CENSORSHIP

What they don't want you to know:

Hugh Ross (creationist) likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers[1][2][3], a singularly authored paper[4], all published between 1975 and 1977 plus a 1970 commentary[5] to a paper by M.A. Stull[6].

  1. ^ Ross, Hugh N., and E. R. Seaquist. "The High Frequency Radio Spectra of Secondary Standard Sources." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 170 (January 1975): pp. 115-119. NASA ADS
  2. ^ Lo, K. Y., R. T. Schilizzi, M. H. Cohen, and H. N. Ross. "VLBI Observations of the Compact Radio Source in the Center of the Galaxy." The Astrophysical Journal 202 (1 December 1975): pp. L63-L65. NASA ADS
  3. ^ Lo, K. Y., M. H. Cohen, R. T. Schilizzi, and H. N. Ross. "An Angular Size for the Compact Radio Source at the Galactic Center." The Astrophysical Journal 218 (15 December 1977): pp. 668-670. NASA ADS
  4. ^ Ross, Hugh N. "Variable Radio Source Structure on a Scale of Several Minutes of Arc." The Astrophysical Journal 200 (15 September 1975): pp. 790-802. NASA ADS
  5. ^ Ross, Hugh N. "Verification of Radio Variability of the Galaxy PKS 0048-09." Nature 226 (2 May 1970): p. 431. NASA ADS, PubMed
  6. ^ Stull, M.A., 1970, "PK 0048-09: a possible radio variable galaxy." Nature. 1970 Feb 28;225(5235):832-3. PubMed

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by General Nolledge (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Mediation Case Notification

You have been listed as an involved party in a mediation case here involving Bible prophesy and Peter Stoner, and I have accepted the case. Please check out the page and let us hear your side. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if I can be of assistance on the mediation case. If I had the time and optimism for wiki process I would have gone straight to arbitration; I think you hit the nail on the head when you said this would probably not be resolved by "mere discussion". Also worth noting Ken's charming habit of wiping all warnings and criticisms from his talk page. The Crow 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll mention you as an "interested party". You've obviously been very busy with Kdbuffalo on Bible scientific foreknowledge! --Robert Stevens 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kdbuffalo RfC

FYI, since you've shown some interest in the past: [Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2] The Crow 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

...Thanks, I've now added my contribution. --Robert Stevens 10:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Ratso, you don't seem to understand that you have been lied to.

"Creationism is trying to cure stupidity among billions of other things. Your statement that Intelligent Design was a "beautiful disaster" is an absolutely false statement; much scientific evidence supports it."" - Incorrect. Indeed, that's why ID was found to be unscientific in a court of law (Kitzmiller vs Dover case).

"I don't know why you're using nylon-digesting bacteria as an example; the gene for digesting nylon was already in the bacteria, it just expressed itself when the bacteria needed to digest nylon. You're just repeating an old, worn-out argument that has been disproven." Incorrect, it was caused by a mutation (scientists have identified the gene involved) and the argument certainly hasn't been "disproven".

Never did I say that it wasn't a mutation. It certainly was a mutation, but it didn't produce new information. That's what I said.

"Besides, it's still the same bacteria. And if you think that science contradicts the Bible, just you wait and see how it contradicts evolution. Evolution depends upon "good mutations" occuring repeatedly, in every organism on earth nonetheless! You are ignoring this because it contradicts your wishful thinking that evolution is true." - Have you honestly never heard of natural selection? It preserves the "good" and tosses out the "bad". Over time, beneficial changes inevitably tend to accumulate, and harmful ones inevitably have a tendency to drop out of the population. Each generation builds on the best of what has gone before.

"In addition to this, evolutionists claim that organisms are getting more complex and that the world is changing for the better, which is far from the truth. Organisms are breaking down and deteriorating, as is our planet, solar system and universe. Entropy contradicts evolution; you've probably heard this before and ignored it or come up with some silly attempt to counter it, which can't be done." - Natural selection counters it. It doesn't represent any reversal of entropy, because only some survive to reproduce: harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones, but natural selection ensures that this doesn't matter.

"In addition to these things, there are no "missing links"; every "ape-man" that has been found has simply been discovered to be either just an ape, just a human or just a hoax. Archaeopteryx, which is supposed to be the link between birds and reptiles, is simply a bird. So it had teeth! Some birds around that time had teeth! And scales? Birds around today have scales! And the Tiktaalik, which is the supposed link between sea and land animals, has also been found to simply be a fish." - A pack of cretionist lies. It is unfortunate that you have allowed yourself to be so misled. There is an unbroken set of human transitionals going back as far as the australopithecines (basically upright chimps, considered "apes" by creationists), archaeopteryx is only one of about thirty dinosaur/bird transitionals in various stages (like Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis and Ichthyornis), tiktaalik is likewise only one link in a whole chain of transitionals (like Panderichthys, Sauripterus, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Densignathus rowei, Ichthyostega, Acanthostega and Pederpes finneyae, Tulerpeton, Elpistostege), and so on.

These "transitionals" are either one animal or the other; they're not a cross.

"Like I've pointed out before, a gill cannot become a lung; even if this were possible the organism would die because it could not breathe in either environment. I'm sure you'll find some silly, blind way to contradict what I'm saying but you must acknowledge what I've pointed out." - Lungs did not evolve from gills, they are swim-bladders. And are you really unaware of the existence of amphibious fish today that have both lungs AND gills?

It is unfortunate that few people will see this, because educating ignorant creationists one at a time is not a very efficient use of my time. But hopefully this will be enough to get you started, or maybe enough to at least dent your dogmatic certainty that these falsehoods must be correct. --Robert Stevens 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who's been lied to, Robert Stevens. Frankly, educating ignorant evolutionists isn't an extremely beneficial use of my time, and since you're so blind it's going to be impossible to change your view that these dogmatic falsehoods must be correct. Your calling these truths a "pack of creationist lies" is the absolutely most false comment I've ever heard. You're so biased, so prejudiced, against creationism that you make all sorts of inflammatory comments against it in hopes of changing people's views. Well, you haven't changed mine. And it's obvious that I can't change yours, since you have been misled by these dogmatic falsehoods. I'm through. Ratso 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The falsehood of Biblical creationism was discovered by a scientific community which was initially composed almost exclusively of creationists: the Bible was once considered true by default. Scientists abandoned it when they discovered otherwise. Nowadays, it is the creationists, not the scientists, who must pledge allegiance to dogmatic "statements of faith" on joining creationist organisations: they must decide not to accept evidence that would contradict their belief in the literal truth of the Bible. Whereas evolution is accepted by people of all religions (including most Christians) who are open-minded enough to evaluate the evidence. Obviously, you have made up your mind not to join them - and that is your loss. --Robert Stevens 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution2

It does seem rather strange to be having this discussion on another user's talk-page (I hope you don't mind, Roland), but... Ratso, why are you so dogmatically certain that mutations cannot produce new information? There is absolutely no scientific basis for such a view. Mutations CAN and DO produce new information: there is no natural law or principle that would prevent this, and we can see it happening. To extend the "letters of the alphabet" analogy already mentioned: do you wish to deny that "AAAA" could be transformed into "I shall go shopping this afternoon" by an appropriate combination of duplication-mutations (to make it long enough) and point-mutations (to change individual letters)? Both of these mutations occur to DNA in nature. So, where's the problem? The filtering-out of detrimental "noise" and the accumulation of "appropriate" mutations is achieved by natural selection. --Robert Stevens 09:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RS, you're forgetting one important little thing: you can rearrange the letters in the alphabet, but since when can you create new letters? Plus, a simple code like AAAA cannot be changed to "I shall go shopping this afternoon" by a few little point mutations. More likely, this is what will happen: "AUGHEISDFNSIFGE". Can you see what I'm saying? That's a rhetorical question; of course you can't. Ratso 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are only four "letters" in the genetic code, and point mutations can replace any of those four letters with any other. And it's natural selection which transforms "gibberish" into "information". Natural selection is like having a team of monkeys typing random letters into a word-processor which accepts only valid words which fit into meaningful sentences. All the garbage gets thrown out (or marked as garbage and ignored: that's what "junk DNA" is). You would get something meaningful from that, given time. --Robert Stevens 09:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/User_talk%7ERobert_Stevens_916d.html"