User talk:MickWest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] userpage cleanup

Thanks for reverting my user page - and such a civilized vandal too! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Algorithms

How about:

An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing an end, especially by a computer.

In computer science an algorithm is a well-defined computational procedure that takes some value, or set of values as input and produces some value, or set of values as output.

[edit] to: MIckwest

You wrote:

There seem to be rather a lot of external links in the "Little Tyke" section. Nearly all of them are Christian or Vegetarian websites that contain a paraphrasing of the original children's book Little Tyke (which should also be linked). The story seems to be based entirely on this book, with NO sources of verification of aspect of the story regarding not eating meat. Unless some other source is found, I would consider the vegeterian part of the story too suspect to be included as fact. I'll edit it appropiately in a few days, pending comments. MickWest 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I replied:


to: Mickwest Entirely wrong. You didn't mention the swami's vegetarian lion. Second, you failed to mention the domestic cat experiment and observations. Third, if you wish to assert the Little Tyke book is a lie you need to demonstrate this matter.


Furthermore, I have a admin on my side now. If you want to arbitrarily remove info you will be held accountable.

sincerely, kdbuffalo

[edit] 3 Reverts

Please see Wikipedia:Three revert rule, which you are currently in violation of due to your edits at the Biblical scientific foreknowledge article. Please discuss changes at that article's talk page. --Scimitar parley 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised. I just didn't want to get dragged into the fight, earlier. Guettarda 19:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tilde test

The preview button is good for trying out things like that :) Guettarda 23:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Doh! ~~~~~~~```tildetilde~~~~ (MickWest 23:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] To: mickwest

I appreciate your last comments in the talk page at BSF.

Secondly, I did update the CreationWiki article so if you are interested in BSF you might want to look at. Here it is: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge

Lastly, the OT is not very pro-rat. There are numerous examples. Rats and swine are kind of lumped together. You might want to take a look at rat urine and rats and toxoplasmosis.

ken 17:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to: mickwest

There may to be a wide variety of opinion about rat urine and toxoplasmosis. But maybe not. I checked out a religious site, a animal lover site, and a more science oriented site. I am not sure when I will get around to the rat issue. I think I have quite a bit already. If memory serves counted about 100 footnotes in my CreationWiki article on BSF. In the not too distant future I will do one on global warming and seas and a gospel passage.

ken 00:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] to mickWest

Please send me no more private messages. I believe you are trying to pick out splinters in my eye while having a log in your own.

Here is something I wrote:

TO: MickWest, regarding your very low credibility with me:

You wrote:

"Regarding "Little Tyke" (which is the only subject I was addressing, the swami lion and domestic cats are seperate topics), surely the burden of proof lies with the claimant? For you to use Little Tyke as evidence, you need to establish the veracity of the Little Tyke story."

You said this despite the reported pictures, filming, and the book. I tire of your petty and unreasonable exclusionary tactics.


I think you try to supress information unreasonably and are a boorish egotist who rather than justify deletions of my material via a talk page (which I don't think you can do) acted like a self centered clod who imperiously deleted material.

Please no more private messages from you. I don't want them at this time although perhaps things may hopefully change in the future. I will let you know if and when I want private messages from you. Again, I do hope things change.

ken 20:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to:mickwest

Please do not send me any messages to my userpage. Again, perhaps things may change in the future and I hope they do. I don't want the messages now and said why before. Please use any pertinent talkpages. Thank you.

ken 21:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Kdbuffalo

I have seen ken being rude to you, thus I have warned him. However, its not a one way street. Do not provoke him. That would be a terrible misjustice, eh? So you two, try and get along. Wikipedia is, afterall, a collaborative project. Good luck. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] to: mickwest

I have politely asked you to refrain from mailing me. Yet you insist on doing so. I know you are not sincere given your approval of the "gossip column". I believe I know why the gossip column was started and I find it no better than National Enquierer type material.

ken 18:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

by the way, if you think I need to spend a lot of time formatting a response to gossip I think you are kidding yourself.


ken 18:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I have told you to not send mail to my userpage. You persist. Stop it.

ken 19:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] to: mickwest

Mark encouraged me to make attempts at reconciliation.

I think if you respect that minority views which are not hateful can "receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia." then I have no problem with you. I frankly do not want to see a tremendously larger article than is at Wikipedia or here: BSF -CreationWiki.

I do not want to see another edit war. I think if both of us and others express the BSF and non-BSF views and do it responsibly then we should have no problem. I don't think either of us should editorialize in a Encylopedia. Also, I did incorporate the Seventh Day Adventist article at the CreationWiki article. I also mentioned that ancient Egyptians were circumcised although I am not certain how widespread it was and when it appeared to be more widespread. I guess I don't know enough about the Egyptian washing issue yet to intelligently comment on it.

I don't think either of us need to create some big introduction which prejudices readers. For example, I don't need to say how various scholars think Christianity advanced the practice of science and you don't need to take the opposite approach. I think we both agree this isn't a history of science article.

After all is said and done, I think we both did work on this and there is an opportunity to educate people and let them make the decision based on seeing both views responsibly expressed.


[edit] to: mickwest

I got your letter. Thanks for writing it.

You wrote:

"So, I'd like to cut back on the "evidence" war, and try to collaborate with you on describing the known facts."

I don't see it as a war. I think the evidence/non-evidence is the central issue though. In short, I think a prophecy article should focus on prophecy and a BSF article should mainly focus on the issue of BSF. I do think both parties cannot editorialize here but "just the facts" Ma'am and cite supporters/expert opinion/detractors which encyclopedias do.


You next wrote:

What is BSF?

I think we agree on this largely and it should take one sentence.


You next wrote:


What types of claims does BSF make?


I think this will take care of itself. Just bring them up.


You next wrote:

What are the earliest examples of BSF?


I know this is important to you. If you want to include it, it doesn't matter to me. A lot of people are interested in history.


You next wrote:


Who promotes BSF now?


I think 99.9% people already know this and we don't have to belabor the point but I have no problem with it being mentioned. We needn't say Buddhist don't generally promote it etc. etc. I think Wikipedia generally belabors this point whereas other encyclopedias do not.

I think the following people mainly promote it: People who believe the Bible is inspired and scientifically accurate. I guess if you wanted to belabor the point you could say a good God who wanted to offer preventative medicine or evidence of his existence but this could go on and on.


You then wrote:


Who has opposed BSF and why?


I think most people know the scoop here as well as far as main opposers. People who don't think the Bible is inspired and people who think it is scientifically inaccurate. I don't think we need to belabor the point here as well. Otherwise, we start getting into radiometric dating versus young earth dating etc etc etc etc. I will add though that you are not "parallel". You wrote: "Who promotes BSF now?" You then wrote: "Who has opposed BSF and why?" As far as the "why" I don't think we should get into the "dogmatic right wing fundamentalist in a pickup truck" versus the "militant atheist, etc etc etc drama. It is just unnecessary. Logicians call this a genetic fallacy. There is no reason to start WWIII here.



You then wrote:


Where can I find out more?


I think we do the job for the most part here via our links.


You then wrote:

I'd like to do this without arguing for or against the validity of the claims of BSF, but in a way that simply describes the topics in a way that is not contended. And where there is contention, we describe the nature of the contention rather than arguing for one side or another.


I don't think we need to argue. Just present the info and let people decide for themselves. I desire no arm twisting or carnival barking.


Lastly, I do see over and over the dung issue being raised by BSF people. Dung is buried. Dung is not promoted in medicine etc etc Dung is "hot" to BSF people. LOL I do think though that you added something with your early sewers info which you will sadly not hear most BSF people mention probably cause they do not know. They just assume people dump their dung out the window or in some kind of outhouse. I think they assume the worst in most cases and picture third world conditions.




ken 00:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] by the way

When did the Egyptians first start to think that cleanliness was close to godliness? LOL


ken 00:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


[edit] addendum

I do realize that Egyptian chronology is something that is increasing being debated.

ken 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] one last quick thing

I am speculating that Grant Jeffrey made the dung/medicine issue more popular since "Signature of God" was a best seller. But I could be wrong. The Pastor and the other guy made no allusions to Jeffrey.

My guess is that in the 20th Century: Morris, Grant Jeffrey, and Alan Hayward (but probably not Hayward) made it more prominent. It seems a new push may be on (look at CreationWiki the 101 BSF advertisement for the pamphlet). I heard they printed up something like 100,000 of them or some big number I cannot recall.

128.205.191.58 01:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] I fogot to mention

I think BSF is really hard to track down as far as origins.

128.205.191.58 01:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] to: mickwest

I wanted to say something before I took my possible (not sure yet of how much time I will have) vacation from the article. Pwrhaps it won't matter as the article might be locked for a while.

Take a look at my new response to Ramm. I was tired last night and did not read your Ramm commnent as closely as I could have.

ken 17:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] take a look! You are a good guesser!

Dear MickWest,

You guessed right! The CreationWiki BSF article was linked to JP Holding's website. How did you guess right?

It is linked to it in four places and here are a few:

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html (Genesis)

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-E.html (Evolution)

So far the article has gotten over 1,000 hits and those are only the internal hits at CreationWiki and do not include JP Holding's (part of those hits were created in the article's creation).

I think as CreationWiki gets bigger in size of material it will gain more internet hits and it might snowball. So far CreationWiki only has about 10,000 google hits for the topic "CreationWiki".

ken 20:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] BSF scientific studies citations

I might be able work with you only a little on this but I don't know yet. I think the hyssop connection might be tenuous as the Bible plant might not be hyssop. I think I deleted that from the article already though although the hyssop footnote is still there.

All the other studies are relevant to the question of BSF. You cannot have BSF without science studies helping to establish it unless it is something very obvious like gravity.

ken 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] I underestimated

My first message about condensing was errant. Please see subsequent message.

ken 02:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Very interested in

You quoted this earlier:

"I can't remember if I mentioned this before, but in History of Medicine, Lois Magner, 1992, Magner says "Cleanliness of body was even more valued by the Egyptian than by the Greeks. Rules for the disinfection of dwellings and proper burial of the dead sprang from a combination of hygienic and religious motives. Fear of exacerbating intestinal putrefaction by the ingestion of impure foods and drink encouraged protective food inspection and dietary restrictions" (I've bolded the sections that have Levitical counterparts). Unfortunately he does not give sources here - and might just be refering the the account of Herodotus from c. 450BC."

I would be very interested in details and I know it is frustrating that Magner offered no sources.

I wish Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies had a Bibliography here [1] and I wrote them but got no response so far.


What works do you think these citations came from (You guessed for Reeves before but I cannot recall):

There was also personal hygiene (Reeves, 18) and disposal of impurities by burying, washing, or burning (Wright 1987, 258-259). [2]


ken 00:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Addendum

As you know I believe the Torah was written in the 15th century B.C.

If you find out when the Egyptians started being very cleanliness oriented I would appreciate knowing this. Also, I am interested in knowing when and if the ancient Jews might have been very cleanliness oriented.

ken 01:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


[edit] Be cautious about "Herodotus" and Egyptians

Here something I wrote at CreationWiki at: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge

It appears as if the ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision although it appears not to be clear when they first began this practice and the origins of it and if it ever was widespread (The ancient historian Herodotus is one of the sources, but it appears as if Herodotus's value as a historical source has been questioned due to the possible existence of a pseudo Herodotus who mistakenly refers to the Egyptians as "black skinned, wooly-haired and circumcised" according to Jim Reilly author of Nebuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile. [3][4] See also: O. Kimball Armayor, "Did Herodotus Ever Go to Egypt?" Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 15 (1980) 59-71).[5][6][7]. In short, skeptics cannot show the Jews adopted circumcision as a result of Egyptian influence (circumcision appears to be benefical medically overall which will be commented on later).


ken 16:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] I Revised my last post and made it more concise

Look at my revised post up above.

ken 17:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] got your message and ......

I believe Egyptians were practicing circumcision. I just don't know exactly when (not too keen on consensus's dating methods) and how widespread. Needless to say I question the "Herodotus" (or pseudo Herodotus) accounts of the Egyptians. I have some stuff accessible at Holding's site regarding Egyptian chronology which goes into more detail and will be updated in 2006.

ken 17:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Where do you think the Reeves citation came from again, I cannot remember.

Here it is:

What works do you think these citations came from (You guessed for Reeves before but I cannot recall):

There was also personal hygiene (Reeves, 18) and disposal of impurities by burying, washing, or burning (Wright 1987, 258-259). [8]

ken 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Sources for List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions

Hello, good work on List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions? You can simply add links, preferably as the inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of phytopharmacology

Replied to your comment on Talk:David_Macht#Accuracy_of_phytopharmacology, will decide what to do according to your response or lack of response. The Crow 15:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible exegesis

Bible exegesis is done in groups (Bible translating teams, churches, denominations, etc.) and done personally. I don't think it is a one or the other type thing.

Secondly, I think it should be done prayefully and with the help of the Holy Spirit.

ken 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Bible exegesis further thoughts

Dear Mick,

I have thought about your question more. I really don't think there is much demand in the marketplace for a line by line exegetical work done by single scholars or many scholars. The only Bible commentary that I can think of that does many verses of Bible exegesis that was done by a team of scholars was the Bible commentary done by Jamieson, Fausett & Brown. And they don't do very detailed exegesis looking at all of the factors. By all the factors I mean:

"The rules of exegesis:

Gordon D. Fee, in his New Testament Exegesis, p 27, states simply, “Exegesis…answers the question, What did the biblical author mean? It has to do both with what he said (the content itself) and why he said it at any given point (the literary context). Furthermore, exegesis is primarily concerned with intentionality: What did the author intend his original readers to understand?”

Before we can determine what a given text might mean for us today, we must establish what it meant for its original audience.

This is the process of exegesis. In this article, we will lay out the fundamental rules, of which there are eight. In future articles, we will elaborate on each one from a nuts & bolts perspective. The rules listed are taken directly from Prof. Fee’s excellent book (p. 32), mentioned in the paragraph above.

Rules of Bible exegesis

Rule No. 1: Survey the historical context in general.

Rule No. 2: Confirm the limits of the passage.

Rule No. 3: Become thoroughly acquainted with your paragraph or pericope

Rule No. 4: Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships.

Rule No. 5: Establish the text.

Rule No. 6: Analyze the grammar.

Rule No. 7: Analyze significant words.

Rule No. 8: Research the historical-cultural background."

taken from: http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm


Mick as you can see Bible exegesis looks at many factors and I don't think there is much demand in the marketplace for a line by line Bible exegetical work done by a team of scholars or single scholars.

I think most people like Bible commentaries rather than detailed Bible exegetical works.

ken 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Bible exegesis - followup

You wrote:

"It does trouble me though that there is substantial focus in individual exegesis, this seems to imply that each person can have an individual personal understanding of the text. Does this suggest that for each person the Bible might mean something different?"

I am hoping you see given the work that is involved that there would not be much of a market for a line by line Bible exegetical work but if you disagree with me that is fine.

Second, each person does bring something different in their life experiences but at the same time the Bible says what is says and I do believe in "the original audience" approach cited above. In short, I don't think you can take the verse, "Jesus wept" and make it mean whatever you want it to say.


Next you wrote:


"Or does it just mean that the nobody actually had the correct meaning of the whole of the Bible, and can only hope to gain a partial understanding of God's message?"


I think that each person can understand the Bible although not exhaustively given the limitations of the human brain (You would have to have the whole thing memorized along with cross references).

However, from experience I can say that I believe the Holy Spirit helps tremendously in understanding the Bible (I am a pentocostal/charasmatic Christian).

ken 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo



TO: Mickwest, re: Unity

Mick, I believe each Christian gets the same Holy Spirit to listen to. I also believe in the baptism and infilling of the Holy Spirit as I am a pentocostal/charismatic. I believe the Holy Spirit can lead men to truth. I believe that is sufficient.

Secondly, I am not sure and I am not accusing you of anything but I am getting the feeling you want to debate me on Bible exegesis or deconvert me. I am also guessing you are an athiest who wishes to make other people atheist. I am not into debating you or having an attempted deconversion done on me.

ken 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] to: mickwest, from kdbuffalo

re: not logging in

Sometimes I don't log in because I am lazy.

At other times, I don't want to be hassled by a certain athiest moderator who recently had a lot of complaints against him in a RFC (Duncharris).

I am logging in more though.

Re: exegesis

If you read Professor Fee cited above and understand what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit guiding men into all truth you understand my Bible exegesis position. I really don't want to talk about this anymore. You did make me think more about this in regards to commentaries/translations though. It seems group effort is done more for translations (which also involve exegesis) than for commentaries. It is probably because translating the whole Bible is no small task.

ken 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

No doing proxy edits. I make my edits different. So reverts are minimally necessary. ken 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] SAB and Talk Origins

I just wanted to explain why the talk origins link is cited in the article. If you notice the old article pages and talk pages have fundamentalists claim scholarly sources do not cited the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. The line with link It has been cited by scholarly articles and is considered a useful resource for finding biblical error.[9] shows otherwise. Talk.origins is very notable in academic and scientific circles (there is others on the talk page that address it.) By removing evidence that it is sourced you will see a phrase on that page attacking the SAB merits. The link is not for vanity, but to demonstrate that serious academic-related groups do cite SAB. Arbustoo 04:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Greek

I believe you regarding the Greek/Hebrew comment. I put a note in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible talk page.

By the way, if you want to read some Christian apologetics and haven't done much reading in this regard, here are some books which would make a good start:

Historical Apologetics:

  • On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kenneth Kitchen, Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. ISBN 0802849601
  • The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ Gary Habermas, College Press: Joplin, MI, 1996
  • The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas, Gary Licona, Kregel, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994. ISBN 0825427886
  • The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998. ISBN 0310209307
  • New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson, Inc, Publishers, 1999. ISBN 0785242198


Creationism apologetics:

  • Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Duane Gish, El Cajon: ICR, 1995. [10]
  • Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1991. [11]
  • The Creation-Evolution Controversy. R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, by Dr. R. L. Wysong. Available from the Wysong Library Catalog, 1880 N. Eastman, Midland, MI 48640, 1984 (455 pages) [12]


ken 16:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] re: Apologetics

Actually, I mentioned New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and not Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Anyways, McDowell and Strobel are very introductory and mainly preach to the choir. I would recommend reading Kitchen and Habermas if you haven't done so. I have been reading this book: Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003). If memory serves all five philosophers voted Habermas the winner and the debate judges panel voted Habermas the winner too. I thought Flew was very evasive and didn't address Habermas's evidence and arguments. You will also note that Habermas has lots of footnotes and Flew does not. I would recommend reading this book which goes into Habermas's evidence more in detail: Habermas, Gary, Licona, Gary The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel, 1994 ken 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Here is a review of the book: Mike Licona and Gary Habermas' The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus ken 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I also wanted to add this. Both McDowell and Strobel are designed to give an outline of material and point believers to other sources. Josh McDowell has said this explicitly regarding his "Evidence that Demands a Verdict".

I cite:

ken 18:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] to: MickWest, re: Evidence question

Gary Habermas bases his position on Jesus on Biblical and extrabiblical material (including a verse in the Bible that points to Paul receiving a very early extrabiblical creed).[13] Read the Habermas book I recommended and the Flew/Habermas book if you are more ambitious. If you are interested in extrabiblical masterial too I would recommend reading "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press: Joplin, MI 1996)."

I would recommend reading something that is written to be a intermediate/advanced Christian apologetic work. I would read the material from Dr. Habermas and Kitchen I recommended. I think that Strobel and McDowell have their place though and recommend good books for further investigation for their readers.

Here are the books again:

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas, Gary Licona, Kregel, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994. ISBN 0825427886

On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kenneth Kitchen, Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. ISBN 0802849601

If you want to read more about various apologetic evidences/subjects, I would read the books by the scholars in the Christian apologetics section.


Next, I would go to a Pentecostal/charasmatic church like I did when I was a unbeliever. I experienced one leg becoming as long as the other at an altar when I was prayed for at a Charasmatic church when the Pastor prayed for me (they were different before). The supernatural did not end in the Bible. I have experienced the supernatural as well as my pentecostal/charasmatic friends and acquaintances. I would recommend going to a trinitarian Pentecostal church where miracles may be common. I say this because Christianity should be lived/experienced and not just studied.

By the way, I may be away from the internet for a while due to doing taxwork (I have been self employed). ken 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I thought about your emails to me and I wanted to say something before my vacation.

You wrote:

"I think there is something of a disconnect between the way people view the world - in some people this disconnect is very large, so it become impossible to genuinely communicate. If you WANT to believe, then you are far more likely to be swayed by certain arguments."

I think if you are applying this to Christianity in general then you are practising what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism".

Here is what Bulverism is:

"In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century." [14]

I think bulverism is a two edged sword and Christians can say atheist are atheist because they want to believe it rather than because it has validity.[15]

Next you wrote:

"Again it seems to be basing all the arguments on "evidence" that is in the Bible. It is, as you say, preaching to the choir."

I don't think using the Bible as evidence is preaching to the choir. The Bible has been corroborated by external sources and sometimes shows signs of coming from very immediate sources (see previous post about creed).[16][17]

Next you wrote:

"Where there is external evidence, it's highly circumstantial - saying the Bible is likely more valid because the early Christians were persecuted is like saying the book of Mormon is more valid because the early Mormons were persecuted."

I don't think that just stating things is convincing. You never showed that all the external evidence for the Bible is merely circumstancial. Also you never showed the Mormon persecution/martyr situation is analogous to the Christian one in terms of evidential value. ken 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Your limb comment

You wrote:

"I wonder how you feel about the question of why God never heals people who have lost a limb?"

You never demonstrated this. Did you even search to see if your assertion was true or did you assume? Please no more unsupported assertions. Second, if God doesn't heal with lost limbs I would assume it is because of the benefits of divine hiddenness. [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39feef8024b4.htm]

ken 22:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] An apology and your leg problem and misc.

Sorry for the hard line I took in the last post. Unsupported assertions and just assuming are a pet peeve of mine. :)

You wrote:

"Hi Ken, thank you for your thoughtful response. I was interested to hear about your supernatural experience - I imagine that would have been quite convincing to you!"

I messed up my back helping to unload a tractor trailor of peat moss bags. I went up to the altar for prayer. My former Pastor, Dr. Burgio, told me my one leg was longer than another. I triple checked to make sure what he said was true. Then I decided to "Go for it" and believe that God would heal it. After the prayer the legs were the same length. Later a chiropractor told me if your back is messed up one of the symptoms is differing leg lengths.

Second, you wrote:

"I also suffer slightly from functional leg length asymmetry, probably from spending too much time sitting at the computer :)"

I think you should become a Christian and go to a pentocostal/charasmatic church to get it prayed for! A chiropractor might help too. There is more science behind chiropractic than you might think.

I cite:

"According to a study conducted by Ontario's Ministry of Health "...for the management of low-back pain, chiropractic care is the most effective treatment, and it should be fully integrated into the government's health care system." The same study also found, "...injured workers ... diagnosed with low-back pain returned to work much sooner when treated by chiropractors than by physicians."

According to the British Medical Research Council Study, spinal manipulation performed by chiropractors was found more effective than alternative treatments for low-back pain."[18]

ken 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Amputees continued

I have heard from missionaries about unusual supernatural events which you often do not hear in the West.

Here is statement worth considering:

"I have often wondered if the major miracles: limb restoration, resurections, etc. don't happen in the States because we have become such a complacent and callous society? I hear reports from our missionary affiliates about the miraculous things happening around the world, and it makes me wonder if God did such miracles in the States, would they even garner the attention they should? Your thoughts?"[19]


Here is a take on the amputee issue that takes a God does not heal amputees view and takes a tough view on the ""Why Does God Hate Amputees" view: Summary Points: "Why Does God Hate Amputees" by James Patrick Holding I don't think he should have called him stupid and merely should have said he was errant or foolish at the most. ken 23:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Holding and Marshall Brain

JP Holding did a spoof of "Why does God hate amputees? [20] I liked it except for the parts where he implies he is stupid which I don't think it necessary. ken 22:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I sent a email to Holding regarding incorporating the divine hiddenness material I had earlier posted to you. Second, I think Holding makes a point here: Fallacious Faith, Correcting an All-too-Common Misconception by James Patrick Holding ken 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


I think my leg problem was a symptom of a back problem. I think God healed me of the whole issue.

Second, have you seen my contra atheism resources at CreationWiki located here: Decline of atheism? ken 19:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] decline of atheism

I looked at the decline of atheism not from a parochial view but from a world wide view. It seems to me the biggest "storehouses of atheism" is Europe and China. Christianity is exploding in China and Europe is on the decline and can only keep from declining in population by importing Islamacists. ken 20:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] No religion does not equal atheism

You wrote:


"Hi Ken, I read you article with interest, but I can't help feeling it goes somewhat against the facts - for examples, an AP story reports that "the number of people who said they had no religion rose from 9 percent to nearly 14 percent [between 1993 and 2002]" [21]."

My response:

No religion does not mean atheism. For example, a non church goer or a deist who believes in God but not Christianity can still believe there is a God. In short, they may not have a religion but still believe there is a God.

More importantly, I also cite:

The number of people becoming atheists or agnostics in the USA has not changed in the last ten years according to social researchers. [22][23]


ken 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Weak atheism and agnosticism, any practical difference?

You wrote:

"Are you perhaps employing a strict definition of "Atheism"? Personally I consider myself to be a weak atheist, since I dislike the occasional dogma of the strong atheism position. MickWest 19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"

My response:

I thought some of the best resources in my decline of atheism resource were all the links which had multiple arguments against atheism. I would encourage you to read them.

For example, regarding "weak atheism" here is what one of the articles listed said:

"*Defensive Atheism.* Many sophisticated atheists today are fully aware of the philosophical pitfalls connected to offensive or dogmatic atheism. Prominent atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have admitted that God's existence cannot be disproven. This has led such atheists to advocate what I call defensive atheism. Defensive atheism asserts that while God's existence cannot be logically or empirically disproven, it is nevertheless unproven.

Atheists of this variety have actually redefined atheism to mean "an absence of belief in God" rather than "a denial of God's existence." For this more moderate type of atheism, the concept of "God" is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or elf. While they cannot be disproven, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's existence, and/or the belief that the Christian concept of God (or any other God) lacks logical consistency.

An appropriate Christian rejoinder at this point is that defensive atheism is using a stipulative or nonstandard definition for the word atheism. Paul Edwards, a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God." Atheism therefore implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief. It should also be stated that defensive atheism's absence of belief sounds very similar to agnosticism (which professes inability to determine whether God exists). The Christian should force the defensive atheist to show just how his (or her) atheism differs from agnosticism. Does he know or not know that there is no God?" [24] ken 20:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Weak atheism or weak desire to truly experience God

The Bible states that God is a rewarder of those who DILIGENTLY seek him. (Hebrews 11:6).

Have you read anything beyond introductory Christian apologetics? Have you read any of Dr. Gary Habermas's books for example? Have you been to a trinitarian charasmatic/pentecostal church to see if there are miracles since I suggested doing so?

ken 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] your last mail to me

You wrote:

A strong atheist absolutely believes there is no God.

A weak atheist (me) believes the evidence indicates there is no God, but is open to new evidence.

My reply:

How open to new evidence are you? If the evidence is there but you have very low motivation to examine it then how truly open are you? Have you read any of Dr. Gary Habermas's books? Have you been to a trinitarian charasmatic/pentecostal church since I suggest going to one to see if there are any miracles?

Second, you have a almost fanatical desire to suppress evidence that does not line up with your view. How many times did you erase the dung evidence and other evidence for the fallability of ancient Egyptian medicine? I think a more noble thing would have been to acknowledge the great fallability of ancient Egyptian medicine (Hearst papyrus, etc. ) while also recognizing its achievements.


Next you wrote:

I feel most people consider an atheist to be someone who does not believe in God, and since belief in God implies some religion, and the number of people who profess to have no religion has doubled in the last decade [1], then it make no sense to speak of "the decline of Atheism", unless you make quite clear that you are referring to a very limited definition of Atheism.

My reply:

Again, I gave two credible citations showing atheism did not grow in the USA. I also showed how you can have no religion but still be a theist and not a atheist. Also, I showed that on the world scene athiesm is decreasing and not increasing. I think you are trying to suppress information again and showing again that you are not truly open. ken 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] I revised my last post to you

I made some revisions to my last post to you as I was in a hurry to post due to time constraints in my last post to you. ken 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] I think you have to acknowledge you are not open

You have not demostrated anything but a introductory knowledge of Christian apologetics. You are not exactly diligent in your efforts to know God. I don't believe you have been to a trinitarian charasmatic church since my suggestion in regards to exploring the surpernatural.

Secondly, the Hearst Papyrus evidence and other evidences you suppress (World wide atheism is on the decline, credible citations showing atheism is not growing in the USA) show you are not truly open.

Here is the Hearst Papyrus evidence again:

For example, according to a paper published in the 10th Annual Proceedings of the History of Medicine Days by Michael D. Parkins, 72% of medical 260 prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no curative elements.


In short, the God of the Torah scoffs at your crocodile dung contraception and fly speck/dung medicine. Bible scientific foreknowledge exist and there is nothing you can do about it.


ken 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Your alleged weak atheism

Your supposed weak atheism which is supposedly different from agnosticism because of its "openness" would be far more convincing if you didn't suppress evidence and if you had displayed more evidence of reading material beyond introductory Christian apologetics. I see no strong evidence of openness or diligence.


Romans 1:18-20 (NASB): For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.


ken 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] I do not believe you are open and suppress evidence.

I do not believe you are open and I believe you suppress evidence. I wish no more messages from you and I am no longer logging into my kdbuffalo account as I want no more messages from you. I will create a new ID if I want to post further messages to Wikipedia. ken 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] I am starting my username back up again but would appreciate no more mail from you

I am starting my username back up again but would appreciate no more mail from you. Please see previous post for reason why I want no more mail from you. ken 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Featured Picture Candidate

Hi, I have just nominated an image you uploaded, Image:EdSmPaPlateVIandVIIPrintsx.jpg, as a featured picture candidate. To comment on this image, go to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edwin Smith surgical papyrus, plate 6-7. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! Jeff Dahl 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

POTD
POTD

Hi Mick,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Edwin Smith Papyrus v2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 17, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-02-17. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)