User talk:Wdanwatts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I scored as a Cultural Creative. I believe that life includes meaning outside of the experimentally verifiable.

Cultural Creative

81%

Romanticist

63%

Fundamentalist

50%

Idealist

50%

Existentialist

44%

Postmodernist

31%

Modernist

13%

Materialist

What is Your World View? (updated)
created with QuizFarm.com

Welcome!

Hello, Wdanwatts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 02:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC / Talk: Flood Geology / Heating of the Atmosphere

RfC = Request-for-Comment

See wikipedia:Request for Comment for instructions if you want to do it. Personally, I'm willing to keep working on it for a day or two in hopes we can get User:Joshuaschroeder to relent. The RfC page also has some options for less-severe breaches.SMesser 18:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Science

You said on my user page:

I believe that a more correct statement would be "As such, they dismiss interpretations of observations that do not fit ...." Dan Watts 17:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me, please be bold and make such edits if you feel they should be made. The article is as much mine as it is yours. -- Ec5618 17:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. I have a tendency to archive things, and sometimes a bit too soon. I find that archiving (and basically removing a lot of redundant commentary) from the Talk page, helps people get over their tendency to ramble.

The cleanest way of responding to an archived discussion (and I apologise again for creating this problem), is to quote it (in part), in a new section. But, to be honest, I don't see why you would want to comment. I would let sleeping dogs lie, in this case. -- Ec5618 07:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look, please

Hi, I have rewritten Scientific Creationism into a separate article. I invite you to come by and make a comment or edit. Phantym 28 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)

[edit] Talk on flood geology

Apologies. I didn't see the edit to the article by our non member friend. I interpreted what he wrote above as just being his opinion stated on the talk page. Something which does happen quite frequently. Barnaby dawson 5 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

I rewrote the passage our anonomous friend wrote to become "Mainstream scientists hold that the evidence available is sufficient to conclusively disprove the notion of a recent global flood." Barnaby dawson 5 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

[edit] Claims about planetary science and space science

Before you go creating pages about these claims, carefully consider the following:

As far as I know, no creationist has ever done an actual stability analysis of extended solar system objects which involves eigenfunctions of the Poisson equation. I'd love to see it, but it also wouldn't say anything about the age of the solar system unless you subscribed to the planetary nebula hypothesis to which creationists obviously don't, so it's relevence to their ideas seems tried.

Actually, it should give an estimate of a maximum age of any Oort cloud (i.e. how long it would take for it to be dispersed) independent of what theory is used for its origin. Dan Watts 02:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I have a colleague who calculates orbital stability of the Kuiper belt over time and does not see dynamical instability, I'm curious to exactly how these people came up with their analysis. Did they use mathematics? Did they do the stability analysis I discuss above? Joshuaschroeder 20:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Oort cloud's stability is much easier to question. It is stated that it is believed to be ~ 3 light years in radius. The gravitational disturbance from the 10 nearest stars (per a calculation that I have been looking at this weekend, only aloows a space ~ -1.4 to 4.2 Light years Solar Z axis, -4.4 to 1.5 LY along the 0-12 Hour RA in the ecliptic, and -1.6 to 1.8 LY along the 6-18 hour RA in the ecliptic. These extents are for the solar gravitational force to be stronger than the force (without other star interferences) at 3LY separation, and that the direction of the resultant force be less than 18 Degrees from the direction to the sun (COS(X) > 0.95). This, of course, is only a static determination. Dynamics are slower to calculate (random directions and tracking orbits, etc.) The elusive bit of information that I am searching for now is the differnce in the Milky Way local density in and between spiral arms. Can you help on that? Thanks for your interest. Dan Watts 21:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the Oort cloud is 3 lyrs in radius is okay, but what you cannot assume is that the Oort cloud is equally stable at 3 lyrs as it is at 1000-10000 AU. The bulk of the Oort Cloud comets that we'll ever see are probably in there anyway. Joshuaschroeder 20:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I will gladly only concentrate on the inner 10000 AU.

Comet-cosmic ray observations+theory are not well understood from either end. So what exactly is your point? Joshuaschroeder 00:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Your dismissal of the talkorigins discussion is pretty mealy-mouthed. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate about what you think the evidence is?

--Joshuaschroeder 00:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

See [1] for an outline of lunar crater flow. There is more give-and-take after that, but it should give you a sense of the effect (not to mention that most relaxation of any sizable lunar crater would be from a depth substantially deeper than a few meters, so it would be warmer and have a lower viscosity). Dan Watts 01:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Using fluid models for a solid is never a good idea. Basalt is not a fluid when it is frozen. Joshuaschroeder 20:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Try telling that to mining engineers. You may actually learn something from Kumagai and Ito's paper in which they detail measured flow of a granite bar (over ten years) at room temperature and small loading (less than 10X the bar's mass). What is your theory on serpentine striae of rocks? Must it always be done before the rocks solidify? Dan Watts 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Measuring the "flow" (which is not what was measured, by the way, but rather crystalline deformation and amorphous solid mixture deformation) is not an indication that fluid models can be applied. Mining engineers do not use fluid models in their work with solid basalt, neither do planetary scientists that work on surfaces. If you want to learn more about planetary surfaces, there are plenty of texts available including well-documented work on crater dating. I personally don't have nor do I need any theories on any geological processes. They are well explained in the field itself. Joshuaschroeder 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Try a Google search on "site:www.lpi.usra.edu Lunar Viscosity" and then tell me that planetary scientists do not use fluid dynamics when modeling surface features, even basalt. Dan Watts 15:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

They don't. Provide a quote to the contrary from that website. Joshuaschroeder 16:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Not that I agree with their results but:

1) "The stress differences created in the lunar mantle by the density perturbations ... suggesting that the initially large surface loads have probably decayed through viscous deformation." [[2]]

viscous deformation applies to amorphous solids that aren't treated with fluid mechanics just as much as it does to fluids.

2) "We find that for a dry olivine rheology, ... Earth-like planets can only support long-wavelength non-isostatic topography anomalies for about 1 myr before the crust reaches approximately an isostatic state." [[3]]

Wave dynamics in solids are not the same as surface waves in fluids, so again this isn't fluid dynamics.

3) "The hemispheric dichotomy on Mars .... has been attributed either to ... or to endogenic processes such as degree1 mantle convection." [[4]]

Mantle convection has nothing to do with the surface behaving like a fluid.

4) "The rate at which the crustal topography relaxes is highly dependent upon the crustal viscosity ...." [[5]]

See note under point (1)

5) "Models of thermal evolution of Mercury with realistic temperature-dependent and pressure-dependent viscosity ...." [[6]]

Again, see note under point (1)

Are we talking about two different things? Dan Watts 17:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I was stating that applying fluid dynamics with viscocity modeling that was done by the groups you referenced was inappropriate. This group doesn't do that but rather uses viscocity as a surface deformation parameter -- one that does not stick to the fluid approximation. In other words, the Navier-Stokes equations do not apply. Joshuaschroeder 19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This is beginning to appear to be a lesson in advanced semantics. Is there some fundamental difference between flow and deformation? Obviously, as viscosity increases, all higher-order time derivatives can safely be set to ~0 compared to other terms. Granite, salt domes, the pitch drop experiment, glaciers, etc. all show deformation over time. Must Navier-Stokes equations only apply (or be applied) to materials which, in a short time (relative to a day?) will settle to gravitational equilibrium if undisturbed? Dan Watts 20:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a big difference between flow and deformation and it has to do with the continuity of time-dependent functions. The article you linked claims some sort of continuity of a time-dependent function that applies only to fluids, not to fields with static stress. The Navier-Stokes equations will not work if there are discontinuties in the functions that depend on time. Joshuaschroeder 21:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you stating that N-S equations will not work for ocean surface waves since the surface is time-dependent, and any vertical profile has a density discontinuity at the water-air interface which changes (height) with time? Dan Watts 02:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The gravity wave solutions are dependent on a discontinuity solution. Solving the N-S equations continuously at the surface is impossible. Joshuaschroeder 16:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Aren't you assuming the solution that you want with "static stresses"? If (or since) rock deforms (slowly) under stress, then the stress will not, in general, be static. If the stress is not static then is your statement still appropriate? Dan Watts 02:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The stress-strain tensor does not need to be isotropic in time or space. You can solve in any way you wish. Joshuaschroeder 16:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Persistence is a virtue"

some may regard that type of persistence as trolling--anon 20:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciate your contriubtions

I just wanted to extend my gratitude to you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While sometimes I disagree with your positions, I have found you to be the most reasonable sympathetic editor of creationist-related articles. If there were more creationists like yourself, I have no doubt that there would be very few edit wars in Wikipedia. Hats off. Joshuaschroeder 13:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. I appreciate your willingness to go along with whatever detail it takes for me to get to the bottom of things. Dan Watts 17:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natural explanations vs. natural phenomena

The distinction is a linguistic one. Science provides explanations for phenomena that occur in nature. As such it provides explanations for natural phenomena. This is in contrast to "natural explanations" which reads more like "explanations that one arrives at naturally". The sentence is meant to convey that the phenomena are the natural things. Indeed, the explanations are actually artificial because they are the product of scientific investigation. --ScienceApologist 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So would the terminology "naturalistic explanations for phenomena" be accurate? Dan Watts 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A "naturalistic explanation" would be an explanation that conforms to naturalism (philosophy). However, a naturalistic explanation can be applied to things other than natural phenomena (for example, reports made in the Bible of a flood could have a "naturalistic explanation" of the Black Sea basin being innudated) and the context of the sentence we are talking about is that we are providing explanations for natural phenomena. If you wanted to be extremely redundant you could rewrite it as "scientific explanations for natural phenomena", but I think you'll see that such wording is much more awkward that what currently is there. --ScienceApologist 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So the crux of the matter philosophically is whether all phenomena are (or have been) natural. The apparent groundrule for the scientific method is that all the world is assumed to be, and has been, natural in all the processes and events in its history.

"There is a fundamental difference between the scientific approach and the approach used by creationist advocates. The scientific approach uses the scientific method as a means of discovering information about the natural world. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories."

could be more clear if it were:

"There is a fundamental difference between the scientific approach and the approach used by creationist advocates. The scientific approach uses the scientific method as a means of discovering information about the (assumed) natural world. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for (assumed) natural phenomena in the form of theories."

Dan Watts 20:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Inserting "assumed" in those two places is inappropriate because it's the scientific method that is assumed, not the "natural world". The only definition available for the "natural world" is the sum of phenomena that can be discovered and explained through the scientific method. There are philosophers of science who argue that the "natural world" in this sense doesn't exist but is rather a construct, though in practice most people, including most creationists believe the natural world does exist in reality. (It's really the fideists who believe that the noetic supernatural realm is what is "real", so they reject both creationist and scientific appropriations of reality.) So science doesn't need to assume a natural world at all, it just needs to use the scientific method and then by the definition of the scientific method it studies the natural world and the natural phenomena of the natural world. --ScienceApologist 20:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dendrochronology

Moved to [7] where the experts are and/or are referenced. I'm not a dendrochronologist. Please consult with them for answers from the specialists. Jclerman 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talkpage deletions

Since wikipedia is not a soapbox, unrelated rantings of the anonymous user have been removed (just like spamming or vandalism). --ScienceApologist 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chapters and verses

Really, they are a medieval invention

The chapter divisions were created Archbishop Stephen Langton between 1227 and 1248 AD
The verse divisions were created by William Whittingham (c. 1524-1579)

See Chapters and verses of the Bible. Clinkophonist 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Available but unfeasible test for parallel universe

To test parallel universes you need to build a time machine. Such things do exist physically, but to build them generally requires the ability to harness energy on galactic scales. --ScienceApologist 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen anything that states that such things exist, only that exotic matter (unobtanium?) is necessary, along with galactic scale energy, in constructing such. That is a far cry from stating that they exist. Dan Watts 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the Casimir effect exists, one need only create a galactic size device that would produce enough of the right conditions to create terms in the stress-energy tensor that worked in such a way. No "unobtainium" necessary, just macroscale technologies. --ScienceApologist 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that "Not currently possible" is an apt description of the setup since there is currently no armada of rockets or Von Neumann probes available to position metal plates in space. (Saying nothing of fabricating them.) Dan Watts 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horse Evolution...

Howdy Dan,

Thanks for the info - I'm still trying to come up with some non-debatable information that Evolutionists can't argue against... but I haven't been very successful yet. I have seen the AiG page, but I haven't been to the National Geographic page before.

The discussion concerning Horse Evolution is going on at the Evidence of evolution talk page...

Thanks, EChronicle 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"information that Evolutionists can't argue against" - "I don't think that word means what you think it means" - Inigo Montoya (The Princess Bride) Good Luck in finding such information! I've never seen such. Dan Watts 17:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the abiogenesis article

We're trying to coordinate improvements to the abiogenesis article at Wikipedia, I'm trying to gather interested parties at:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1358&m=1

--Percy

[edit] Flat World Believers

An edit of yours to Creation-evolution controversy says that there are no more flat Earth supporters... Unfortunetly (teehee) this is not true. Evidence of a flat Earth has spawned the Flat Earth Society, a society of people believing in the Flat Earth. I hope you don't mind if I revert. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No such thing as supernatural phenomena

The term "phenomenon" is generally meant to mean an observation of a noumenon. Since all observations are noumena, there is no such thing as a "supernatural phenomenon". There are only "supernatural explanations" for phenomenon.

Technically speaking, there is no such thing as a "natural phenomenon" either.

--ScienceApologist 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiometric Dating

What are the odds that the T-Rex collagen-like material found recently will be tested? Dan Watts 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This question can only be answered by those who have such samples. Jclerman 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

True. I meant, what do you think are the odds of such testing actually being reported? Dan Watts 21:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Analytical laboratories always report their results to the submitter of the sample. Why would they not? Jclerman 00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good for them. I was wondering if there would be a report on such tests comparable to the reports on the discovery of the flexible T-Rex tissue in the first place. Dan Watts 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global flood != catastrophism

While a global flood is certainly catastrophic, it is not the sum total of what catastrophism entails as a paradigmatic enterprise. --ScienceApologist 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We read it two different ways

I read the sentence to mean that people can (and do) reconcile religious belief with evolution even while there are specific religious beliefs that contradict evolution. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiometric dating

The reference conversion script I used got confused because you had used {{ref|fn_1}} to reference the note, but hadn't used {{note|fn_1}} in the 'notes' section where you actually defined the source. In any event, that format is out of date anyway. Marking it as 'citation needed' was an oversight on my part, and I've done the reference conversion properly this time. Sorry about that! Cynical 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] calibration

See the use of curves and statistics in Talk:Radiocarbon_dating#About_calibration Jclerman 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micro/macroevolution

I said relatively ueless: There's a full spectrum between them, so they're only really useful at early teaching stages. It's the equivilent of looking at assembler computer code and an Operating system: You could look at both, but there's a full spectrum between them, and the operating system is, in the end, just a complicated final product of all the code. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realise I'm a third-year Biology Undergraduate, right? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read your page. Does your background help answer the question that I asked? Dan Watts 02:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise: I should have tried to explain, but the problem is that it is, admittedly, a rather complex thing to deal with. I'm going to try here.

This small-scale statistical analysis, ignoring what's going on in the rest of the organism [Ive moved a section that came before this down to the end - just run with it], is what the paper you linked refers to as the "Special theory of Evolution". The key things to remember is that it's far more than the change of just ONE feature at a time. It's the comparison of randomly-created collections of all the features with other randomly-created collections of all the features. The fact that one feature tends to be considered at a time is because that makes the experiment *a lot easier*. In other words, even this limited "special theory of evolution" is far more powerful than the paper gives it credit for.

The paper gives the general theory of evolution as "all organisms descended from a single source". First off, it should be noted that this wasn't always thought to be true: early theories often pondered multiple lineages, often cutting off worm-like animals from the rest of the animals. This theory came about after the discovery that all known organisms used DNA to encode proteins in highly similar ways, and this common language - with a few "dialects" - led to the belief that all organisms came from the same source, after this protein-coding was prepared, and that the minor differences evolved later.

So far, we're on fairly reasonable terms. The "general theory" does indeed come from further observations of broad-scale similarities like the Universal Genetic Code that the "special theory" does not bring up.

However, from this point, the article moves back into much shakier ground. It says that speciation can only occur through loss of information: However, by duplicating part or all of a chromosome, you end up with two copies of one or more genes, and mutations and/or further crossing over providing them with additional alleles can add more information.

For instance, let's say that a chromosome has a gene with one allele to let you see green light, and another to let you see red. (G and R in these chromosomes - the other letters and numbers are other genes, labelled in upper and lower case so you can tell parts of them apart (Forgive the appearance of these - Each chromosome is supposed to be a vertical column)

A a

B b

C c

G R

D d

E e

F f

A creature with both these alleles has normal vision, a creature with just one has red-green colour blindness.

By crossing over working properly, you can only remix parts of the chromosomes

a A

b B

C c

G R

D d

E e

F f

But it could also make a mistake, and copy over too much of one of them:

A a

B b

C D

G E

c F

The chromosome on the left now has more information. (The unlucky organism inheriting the chromosome on the right will probably not survive to birth)

As for the claim that evolutionary theory can't be tested without appeal to the theory itself to interpret the results. This is not entirely true: Tiktaalik was discovered by using the theory to predict what age of rocks it ought to appear in, then going there and searching for it. The fact that it was found serves as a passed test for the theory.

...Um, yes. And then the article ends without really making any further claims. Well, ask about anything else you're wondering about, or anything I didn't make clear.

APPENDIX: "Special Theory of Evolution"

The first thing to realise is that a lot of things are dealt with in classes in a very simple form because they rapidly get too complex to do by hand. For instance, this is a typical Punnet square for a dominant allele A and recessive allele a at one locus, with two hybrids crossing (I'm afraid that Wikipedia doesn't explain the concept very well, but...:

Aa x Aa
×	A	a
A	AA	Aa
a	Aa	aa

In this simple case, an offspring that inherits aa will be noticably different than Aa or AA, because a is recessive. A typical example is brown and blue eyes: Brown eyes are dominant, so the offspring of a parent with one brown eyed (A) and one blue-eyed (a) gene with another parent with the same genotype will, on average, have 1/4th blue-eyed children, and both of them will have Brown eyes.

I'm going to presume you know about this - I'll clarify if you don't.

However, for each additional heterozygous gene you add to the same parent, the number of possible recombinations increases by a factor of 2. For instance, doing the cross AaBbCcDdEe x AaBbCcDdEe (each letter, upper or lower case, representing a different gene), you have to compare every possible combination of the two alleles for each gene of the first parent parent with every combination of each gene's alleles for the other parent. For each of the five genes, each parent has two alleles, so the number of combinations is 2^5. This represents the possible combinations of genes that can be passed to each sperm or egg - I suspect I'm not explaining this well at this hour. Ask if it's unclear, and, if needed, I'll even draw out this Punnet square. Anyway, since you're comparing all of the father's 2^5 possible ways of combining his five heterozygous genes with the mother's 2^5 ways of combining her five heterozygous genes, you end up with 2^{5 * 2⁵ = 2¹⁰ = 1,024 boxes to fill in to represent the possible offspring. This gets impractical for school use.}

Hence, it's easier to look at relatively small changes when explaining evolution.

Which brings us to the article you linked me.

[edit] Genetic drift

If two alleles of a gene offer no selective advantage, then, as you may suspect, only random chance will determine what the ratio of one is to another. It tends to vary, and, on the long scale with small populations, random chance will eventually cause one trait to be selected for, simply because, by chance, none of the other allele got passed on that generation. This is not evolution, but is useful to understand as a sort of "null case". There is maths that can be used for this and the next few sections, but I'll leave them out for now unless you ask.

[edit] natural selection

However, the change of traits can also be influenced by a selective effect, which biases the possibility of passing an allele on against or in favour of it. All this, of course, happens at once for all alleles: Any individual animal will have a mixture of the "best" alleles for some genes, "middling" alleles for others, and "poor" for a few more. But the animals with the best combinations of genes in that generation will tend to survive until they can reproduce more often (or, in the case of sexual selection-related and fertility-related traiits, tend to reproduce more if they do survive) So, the amimals with a "better" set of genes for their circumstances will tend to survive.

Again, though, it's FAR easier to do the analysis if you concentrate on one or a small number of the genes, and, as genes sort reasonably randomly, (*) if you have large numbers of offspring so that the combinations of the other genes are essentially random background noise as far as statistical analysis is concerned, the effect on survival can be compared for a paricular genotype or phenotype using statistical tricks.

(*) Somewhat of a simplification, but not overly so. If a gene happens to be RIGHT NEXT to another gene on a chromosome, the two will tend to sort together, as crossing over, the reshuffling mechanism used by the chromosomes, won't tend to affect it. But crossing over is quite extensive, so it holds true for most genes and over timescales of reasonable length.

[edit] Red-Green Colour blindness

However, my example of crossing over errors preventing red-green colour blindness (which is not polyploidy, but an enlargement to an existing chromosome) is thought to have happened on the human "X" chromosome. This is the simplest mechanism of adding information, and is known to have happened in many cases. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You.

Thank you for joining us at the radiocarbon dating forum. I felt surrounded and outnumbered. I just want a fair shake for our side inserted into the article. It seems like that's a pretty tough sell. 200.121.111.113 13:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't expect a fair shake. And I have little/no hope of ANY balanced presentation. Dan Watts 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my edits reverted

Hello, I am quite new to Wikipedia and started editing small bits and pieces in some of the ID- and creation-related articles. The majority side is reverting my edits. Some reverts are justified (I am still learning), some reverts were only partial. But in general, I find that NPOV view is not as popular as main stream POV. Do you want to have a look? For example A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Any comments, either here or on my talk page? Thanks. Northfox 12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that people can just write whatever they feel like regardless of factual accuracy, yet unfortunately that is how a lot of people like to interpret it. Additionally, in particular in the context of creationist ideology, it is a fact that young earth creationism is a religious doctrine that also happens to be scientifically false. Young earth creationism does not even exist in geological science today, just as geocentrism doesn't exist in astronomical science today. These are concepts that were invalidated scientifically over two hundred years ago. Young earth creationists are certainly free to believe whatever they wish to believe, but in a NPOV context they don't get to falsely pretend that are religious doctrine is scientific, when it isn't. It is simply a fact that young earth creationism does not exist in geological science today.

That being said, I have noticed one beneficial thing about certain edits that YECs make that get reverted but not completely undone (because some of the details of the information provided aren't some of the regular bogus stuff). For example, when a YEC provides a legitimate citation to a genuine science research article that is relevant to the page topic that is about some detailed aspect of the topic, this adds detailed nuances to the article when the detailed information is discussed within the broader context of the science. This contributes to understanding those particular details, and contributes to understanding details of accurate application of the relevant concepts. Greeneto (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, the only solid advice that I can give you is to have a reference for what you put in. It may still get deleted, but usually it won't. Dan Watts 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the advice. Irony is that I deleted some things the previous editors didn't have references for. And someone put it in again.Northfox 04:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You can try putting a ^{[citation needed]} tag on the unreferenced edits, and wait some time (a day or two) with an associated remark on the talk page about the impending doom of the unreferenced statement. Dan Watts 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Thanks for experimenting with the page Creation science on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the decay rate of Rhenium has been experimentally shown (i.e. it was observed in a laboratory) to be changed by 9 orders of magnitude, so the statement that the decay rate can be "varied slightly" would be called an understatement. Dan Watts (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To characterise stellar interior conditions as being merely outside "standard temperatures and pressures" is a gross misrepresentation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)