User talk:Temlakos/Archive1

Image procurement policy

I've noticed that Image files, both in the English CreationWiki and in the larger CreationWiki Media Pool, seem to have no licensing information other than that they are assumed to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). But I wonder whether one ought to be sure of the precise circumstances under which an image was acquired. On the Wikipedia, anyone who uploads an image is required to state exactly where he got it, and how it is licensed. Of course, if the image is from his own camera, and he was allowed to take a picture of the subject involved, then he is understood to be releasing it for everyone. But what about photographs of famous paintings, or someone's poster art, or visitor's-gallery images? For that matter, what about images taken from elsewhere on the Web? Shouldn't you at least ask everyone where an image came from, so that you can determine whether you ought to keep the image or not, or whether the use of it constitutes fair use in the United States or according to the International Copyright Union? (For example, the Wikipedia uses a lot of book-cover art and even motion-picture poster art to illustrate articles about the works depicted. Now that is fair use. But we do the same thing--for example, when reviewing a book. What exactly are our rights to that sort of image?)

We have made some improvements to the upload form since the CreationWiki was started, but users are now advised of the requirement to include that information when uploading.

Please Note: All files uploaded to the CreationWiki must be free of copyright restrictions. Your image will be deleted unless you provide information on the source of the file and the copyright status. For help in finding public domain images - browse our list of hosting sites.

Any images that do not contain a specific "source" and "copyright" should be edited to include that information or recommended for deletion.

Some information regarding copyright restrictions has been provided and a list of public domain and creative commons licensed images has been compiled. (public domain images)

With rare exception all original works are copyrighted automatically by USA copyright law. An author is under no obligation to provide copyright notice and the absence of such notice should not be considered a release of rights. Explicit permission must be given or use of materials is a violation of copyright law.

Copyright: The exclusive, legally-secured right to, among other things, reproduce and distribute works of original expression. Under copyright law, creators hold copyright in a book or other literary work from the moment they put the words down on paper, into a computer file, or into some other tangible medium. Copyright protection in works created after January 1, 1978 generally lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator. Copyright in works created by businesses or before 1978 can last for 95 years from publication. After a work is no longer protected, it falls into the public domain.

Intellectual Property: Products of the human mind, such as books, inventions, computer programs, songs, movies, and other works – are often owned by the creator as "intellectual property," meaning that the creator may have control over uses of the work such as reproduction. Intellectual property is recognized under copyright, patent, trademark, and other laws. If a work is not legally protected as intellectual property (possibly because its protection has expired), it is said to be in the public domain.

Public Domain: For most works, "public domain" includes those for which the copyright has expired (70 yrs after the death of author), or the work was ineligible for copyright. The latter includes U.S. national government publications, such as from the USDA, USGS, NASA, NOAA, NSF, etc. For help finding public domain images, browse our public domain images gallery. --Mr. Ashcraft 16:18, 18 December 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject: Is it acceptable to "poach" an image from the Wikipedia Commons, so long as that image is already released under GFDL or is otherwise in the public domain? Or would you rather we gather our own images, by either shooting them ourselves or buying them in collections, so long as the collection vendor allows us to upload the images here?

We would prefer that people find alternative sources for public domain or Creative Commons Licensed images, but uploading images from Wikimedia Commons is acceptable.--Mr. Ashcraft 16:18, 18 December 2006 (EST)

And speaking of which: I'm very likely going on a seventeen-day tour of Turkey, Egypt, and Israel, beginning on 9 April 2007. I'll be taking a 6-megapixel camera and a 1.5-megapixel camera. I welcome any suggestions as to what sort of images any authors would want for their articles. --Temlakos 15:04, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Source Policy for Books, Videos, etc.

I noticed that many times the source for a book is simply purchasing information from the Northwest Creation Network's on-line store. Now if I happen to find other places where one might purchase any given work, would it be acceptable to mention that? And if so, have you any sort of list of vendors that you would rather I did not cite? I appreciate everything you're trying to accomplish here on CreationWiki, and I'll respect any policy decision you make.--Temlakos 15:10, 18 December 2006 (EST)

We link exclusively to the NWCN as a courtey for paying the bills, but we should find alternative sources for anything not carried in their webstore. --Mr. Ashcraft 16:18, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Redirects

Redirecting a subtopic (i.e. Boiling point) to a related topic (i.e. Pure substance) should be done by using a link to the appropriate subheading.

Pure_substance#Boiling_point

Personally I think its better to create a redundant stub rather than redirecting in this manner, and assume the stub will be fleshed-out later. Then simply link to the stub within the subheading as follows.

Boiling point

Main Article: Boiling point

The boiling point of any pure substance is the temperature at which, under common atmospheric pressure, that substance changes its state from liquid to gas. If the substance is a gas at 25 degrees Celsius, this temperature is sometimes called the condensation point.

--Mr. Ashcraft 12:38, 27 December 2006 (EST)

FABNAQ

Just wanted to compliment you on a good response to talk origins. Keep up the good work! --Gil 16:57, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Maybe we ought to call it "FAAABNAQ"--Frequently Asked And Answered But Never Acknowledged Questions. Furthermore, I'd like to propose publishing some questions for the Talk.Origins crowd to wrestle with, if any of them have the courage. And let's start with those non-correlating and inconsistent radiometric dates. And let's follow that up with questions about comets. I have two that I'd like answered:

Where's the Oort Cloud?
Why is Halley's Comet as bright as ever, if the earth is more than old enough for Halley's Comet to have made its hundred passes at the sun?--Temlakos 22:08, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Hehe, that's a good one! Or it can also be called Frequently answered but never asked questions. Though, i don't think Ashcraft would approve of change to the name. You know, that's a good idea and I'm sure there are plenty of questions that we can ask them. Will you be the one to start this or is it just a suggestion for someone else to do? --Gil 22:39, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I'll send a message to Mr. Ashcraft right away, outlining my proposal. You see, the more notice such an effort gets, then better it will be--and that's where Mr. Ashcraft could help us out the most, in addition to making contributions of his own.--Temlakos 22:55, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Tell me how that goes! A shame that we don't have very many intellectual creationists here so that we can finish the Index to creationists claims and other responses to anti-creationists. I would work more on those articles but it's not really my area. --Gil 22:30, 5 January 2007 (EST)

To answer your question, biological sciences are of primarily interests but i do at times participate in biblical apologetics along with a bit of philosophy. --Gil 05:04, 7 January 2007 (EST)

E-mail

Hey Temlakos,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comments. I'd like to talk some more, but Mr. Ashcraft seems to dissapprove of using the talk pages for this. Do you have an e-mail address? Scorpionman 17:51, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I usually don't publish my e-mail address either; DrLindberg is pretty much the only wiki evolutionist to know my e-mail address, as well as John Stear. Fortunately, neither of them have sent any crap to me, but John is an evolutionist extremist who uses vulgar and obscene terms to describe creationists on his site. DrLindberg is okay, but I don't really like to take a lot of time to discuss things with him since he, as well as most other evolutionists, likes to use creationist errors to try to undermine my faith, but of course he explains away or denies evolutionists doing those same things (i.e. underhanded techniques to get their theory across). If you'd rather have my e-mail, I think I've already given it on this site so it probably won't do much if I tell it to you.

But we should probably stay on this or your talk page, just to be safe. Scorpionman 19:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

My sentiments exactly. We can talk here, so be sure to watch my Talk page for changes.

About your moniker--"ScorpionMan." Is that any relation to a really bad B-grade motion picture titled The Black Scorpion? In it, a volcanic eruption in Mexico releases some giant-sized scorpions that start ravaging the countryside, except that they end up killing each other off. The Federales succeed in electrocuting the last survivor among them, after he has the bad sense to attack Mexico City. Typical evo-horror story line. Remind me sometime to tell you why I am so suspicious of any form of theater.

Which brings me, of course, to the most tiresome thing about evos. They have run out of original thoughts. We've exposed so many of their frauds that sometimes we get mixed up. Archaeraptor? Archaeopteryx? I seem to recall now that the latter was genuine but the former was in fact glued together. But they all start to blend into the same story, know what I mean?

Maybe I'll go ahead and write that article on eschatology--unless Mr. A. has taken that first. The only relevance is that if one particular last-things scenario plays out--as I happen to believe it will--then all the reporters will descend on Francis Crick's house, if he's still around. And they'll want to know about the Progenitors, and whether their motive turned out to be hostile.--Temlakos 21:12, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Never heard of that film—I got my name from a Marvel Comics character, an enemy of Spiderman. Yes, comic books tend to take on an evolutionary storyline, but hey, that's unfortunately the way things are today. The creationist view would make it boring to them, so they have to use evolution.

Mostly what I am suspicious of is television. Like I've mentioned before, most TV shows like the Simpsons, Family Guy (the main character is a creationist and labelled as "retarded") and The Sopranos (not that that's a credible show anyway). And people actually like it that they're satirizing and villainizing creationists! Of course they don't do that to atheists, because they're the Smart Ones. According to John Stear, if Ken Ham, a "raving bibliot and delusional" were allowed to teach his "ignorance", then children will be "ill equipped indeed to deal with life in the 21st century"! Of course, John Stear doesn't know one-eighth of what Ham knows, and he doesn't realize that way back when the country was started people got along just fine teaching creationism, but because he's an evolutionist you must believe him! (if you want to see the full of Stear's ridiculous rant go here, but don't take it seriously because it's just a prejudiced rant)

At any rate, you get my point. Even if Ken Ham were to read this article and make a response (which would be a waste of time and effort), Stear would attack him, foaming at the mouth. Any attempt to show the falsehoods of evolution results in brutal, verbal abuse and repression. Scorpionman 22:43, 3 February 2007 (EST)

And of course, Mr. Stear couldn't tell you how an education in evolution would equip people for "life in the twenty-first century." He won't even explain what he means by that. I can think of a dozen meanings of "life in the twenty-first century" that ought to embarrass him. But I'd like to ask him to define his terms.

Because you see, his argument assumes something special about "the twenty-first century," and that what is new is by definition improved. His argument further assumes that "evolution" is at the heart of any particular human invention that redounds to the betterment of mankind. This, then, is my challenge to all evolutionists: name one such invention. (And if it's any particular genre of theater, I'm not interested.)--Temlakos 22:54, 3 February 2007 (EST)

I'll send him an e-mail and ask him. I'll let you know what he says. Scorpionman 08:04, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Okay, here's his reply. It's pasted below:

You wrote, "What do you mean by 'life in the twenty-first century'?"

In the twenty-first century we are increasingly reliant on science and

technology. Children taught that science comes from the Bible are ill equipped to maintain their place in such a scientifically and technologically based society.

"You also assume that evolution is at the heart of any particular invention that redounds to the betterment of mankind. Well, name one such invention."

Plant breeding is one. It has provided us with all the crop varieties we rely on for food and relies on the methods and theory of evolutionary biology.

Perhaps the most important example is the understanding gained through evolutionary studies that we are all descended from a common ancestor. In other words, knowing that all genetic structures are adapted from previously existing genetic material helps understand biology. Evolutionary theory is most important in genetic research. See http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/benefits.shtm l, from which I quote:

"Rapid progress in genome science and a glimpse into its potential applications have spurred observers to predict that biology will be the foremost science of the 21st century. Technology and resources generated by the Human Genome Project and other genomics research are already having a major impact on research across the life sciences. The potential for commercial development of genomics research presents U.S. industry with a wealth of opportunities, and sales of DNA-based products and technologies in the biotechnology industry are projected to exceed $45 billion by 2009 (Consulting Resources Corporation Newsletter, Spring 1999). Some current and potential applications of genome research include

Molecular medicine Energy sources and environmental applications Risk assessment Bioarchaeology, anthropology, evolution, and human migration DNA forensics (identification) Agriculture, livestock breeding, and bioprocessing"

Cheers

John

Scorpionman 08:42, 5 February 2007 (EST)

All right, let's take the above one at a time:

His argument now assumes that evolution--along with abiogenesis and the spontaneous "arising" of the universe and everything in it--are at the core of a "unified theory of everything" on which all science depends. But saying that a thing is so does not make it so. Even evolutionary astronomy says absolutely nothing about basic physics. You don't need evolution to build a car, nor to drive it or stop it. Thus he has not shown that the automobile, the electric light, and other key inventions of the last three centuries would never have been, had evolution not been "discovered."

Plant breeding does not depend on evolutionary theory. Genetic theory is not the same. And were evolution as powerful as he asserts, we would not even be able to improve upon the "wild type" of various crops. Indeed certain groups having Luddite tendencies use evolutionistic arguments to assert that the wild type is all we need, and that to attempt to improve upon the wild type is to create something that either won't survive on its own, or that will take over our environment and perhaps kill us all. (Ned Ludd founded a movement based on sabotage, having the announced purpose of delaying or thwarting the Industrial Revolution.)

How does "descent from a common ancestor" make anything in genetic research possible that would not otherwise be possible? The real insight is that life has a common design template, not a common ancestor. Speculation on different design templates for life is the stuff of the horror and science fiction genres of literature and, more prominently, theater. No one has shown that life has any design template different from the one we know.

And here is my biggest current challenge: Where did that common ancestor come from? Did it somehow arise spontaneously? Or did someone fire a brace of missiles laden with bacteria and blue-green algae in all directions, so that one such missile crashed on earth?

In sum, while I don't dispute the potential of genome research (and by the way, that is a potential for good or for evil), I do dispute that genetic research depends on evolution. Gregor Mendel, the pioneer of genetic theory, was a monk, not an atheist like Richard Dawkins, or a disgruntled Preacher's Kid like Darwin.

But--and here's another question I have for him--creation theory tells us that rules exist, and that they must apply to everyone. Does your correspondent recognize any rule against pursuing any particular line of research? Does such a thing as "evolutionary ethics" exist? And if so, what is the standard-of-value of that ethical system?--Temlakos 11:42, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Apparently not. However, were you to ask him, I'll bet he would say that we should treat people nicely because it makes the world a much better place to be in! (If you'd like to talk to him, here is his e-mail address. Mind though, he obviously displays very little scientific knowledge; he takes most of it obviously from the Talk.Origins website.) I've talked with him before, and he really doesn't show much scientific knowledge. Scorpionman 15:04, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Here's some more evolutionist nonsense: Talk:Abiogenesis. This guy thinks that oxides weren't present back then, etc, etc, and therefore it was altogether possible that life could have come from nonlife. Scorpionman 14:56, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Another question: could the fusion of chromosomes bring about the possibility of apes and humans sharing a common ancestor? Someone on the talk page of Creation vs. evolution said something like that. Scorpionman 11:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)

As far as I know, the only thing that the fusion of chromosomes is going to get an organism is prematurely dead of a severely debilitating syndrome. FYI, no human being born with "monosomy" in any of the autosomes (meaning the numbered chromosomes) has ever survived even to live birth. Sufferers with the trisomies do better, but not by much. The only humans that survive to siring or childbearing age are those with Trisomy 21, now called "Down's Syndrome" after Langdon Down, the first physician to describe the condition. (Sadly, Dr. Down originally called this condition "Mongolian idiocy," an utterly uncalled-for slam against a race that, after all, produced one of the most remarkable conquering armies in recorded history.)

But the problem with "common ancestry" goes further than whether man is of the same "kind" as are the great apes. The "common ancestry" argument asserts that all of life has a common ancestor, in the form either of a bacterium or of a blue-green alga.--Temlakos 12:23, 8 February 2007 (EST)

See, that's the problem. On Wikipedia everyone insists that "we didn't evolve from apes, we are apes. We share a common ancestry." There really isn't any evidence for this (except for a few similarities between skulls, which could easily be interpreted as Common Design rather than ancestry). But they will not accept this. Why? Because their hearts have been hardened. Scorpionman 19:23, 8 February 2007 (EST)

It seems Wikipedia and EvoWiki aren't the worst of the anticreationist Wikis, either. This site claims to be a parody of the former and turns out is even more anticreationist (they do this by writing parody "pro-creationism" articles) and even goes so far as to mock Jesus. Our culture is clearly out to attack creationism in every way it can. Scorpionman 23:30, 8 February 2007 (EST)

Haha, this is true because even though the whole website is a parody, they spend more time mocking creationists rather than making a parody of both sides. This can be seen by just looking at the Evolution page. Before, i recall it having more content but now it's really decreased. They sure spend more time mocking creationists... The writers are probably from Wikipedia who just want to mock us in everything. This seems to be the character of most evolutionists that are online these days. --Gil 23:55, 8 February 2007 (EST)

One of them says that "over the course of a billion years the right amino acids could combine to form life." Another typical argument; ignoring completely the fact that it would require perfect, controlled conditions which require intelligence. His argument suggests that in a billion years a pile of junk could form a car by random processes (oops! I forgot natural selection—they love pointing that out). Indeed, one can even see that evolutionists worship Natural Selection as a god, but they'll deny that but it's true. Scorpionman 08:32, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Yes, I've seen the "uncyclopedia." I don't think they'd be able to get away with that "damaged jigsaw sphere" logo, did they not have permission from Wikipedia Foundation to publish that. This is similar to the mis-called "Fairness Doctrine" that once governed the promulgation of news and opinion on radio stations in the United States (and might do so again).

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? Psalms 2:1 (KJV)

--Temlakos 09:33, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Well, no one seems to have gotten after them for it! I wonder why? And I know one of them who is also a Wikipedia user; and, he thinks "creationists are full of sh*t". Now only that, but he claims that creationism is on par with "flat-earthers" (of which there are virtually none anymore), those who believe in magic, and those who think the sun revolves around the earth. Now there's your typical anticreationist: ranting, raving and never discussing things sensibly, just making blatant, blanket anticreation statements (not to mention comparing apples and bananas).

"How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?" Proverbs 1:22b (NIV)

Scorpionman 21:16, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Atheists just love to ridicule common creationist arguments for Intelligent Design. One such argument is the simple "look around you". Is there anything wrong with this argument, for instance, should it be listed in AiG's "Arguments creationists should not use"? Scorpionman 20:38, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Purgatory

This doesn't have anything to do with the discussion above, this is about biblical doctrine. The Bible says that confessed sins will be forgiven, but what about sins that someone hasn't confessed (a saved person)? Would he have to somehow pay for them on earth, or will he go to hell because his sins still count against him? It's pretty confusing. People keep saying that once you're saved you're saved, yet the Bible says you have to confess your sins. Purgatory, perhaps? Scorpionman 10:53, 15 February 2007 (EST)

I find no Scriptural warrant for purgatory. The only thing necessary or sufficient for salvation is: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

That said, Saint Paul speaks repeatedly of the Judgment Seat of Christ. The Greek word for this is βημα or bema. But what is in view here is not the bench of the "Night Court" at the local police station/constabulary/etc. Rather, it is the reviewing stand at the ancient Olympic Games. The judges at this stand handed out the medals of gold, silver, and bronze to the top finishers.

At the ancient Olympics, only the winner got any credit and he was awarded a crown (stephanos) of bay/laurel. --Oelphick 07:19, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

The Judgment Seat of Christ works like this reviewing stand. All saved persons will appear before this stand. Any unedifying parts of the personality will there be destroyed by fire. The experience will probably not be pleasant, but it will be temporary. After that, the person will receive decorations, when, as, and if appropriate, for services rendered to the cause of Christ.

The concept of purgatory might have arisen out of confusion about this Judgment Seat. When Paul ventures to say, "He still will be saved, but so as through fire," that sounds an awful lot like someone going through hellfire. But this fire is not the fire of hell. It is more like cautery applied at surgery to stop bleeding.

Or the concept might have been a confused understanding of Abraham's bosom. Jesus mentioned this in His parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Abraham's bosom was a place in Sheol reserved for Old Testament believers. When Jesus died on the Cross, He went to this place, emptied it out, and closed it down. Thereafter, those who die in Him are ushered into His Presence, while they await the Judgment Seat.

So that anyone reading these words later on will understand what informs me, I am a Baptist, and more particularly a Fundamentalist. I can recommend Torrey's Fundamentals to start with. Then I can recommend the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America for definitive information.--Temlakos 11:43, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Same here, rather I'm an evangelical (since I'm not really familiar with all the different sects and divisions, I'm not sure if there's a difference). Scorpionman 14:34, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Another question (I hope I'm not annoying you) What is your opinion on near-death experiences? I've heard views from several sides. Many take them as evidence for a soul, which is the most plausible. Others from the same view use them as evidence that heaven awaits everyone (which isn't biblical). Others say that conciousness resides in every cell of the body, and that cells communicate back and forth, and therefore even if the brain is dead you're still technically alive. What do you think about this? Scorpionman 23:51, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Near-death experiences could be anything--literally anything. Demonic manifestations are the most likely, and probably the most common, cause. In evaluating this or any other "mystic sign," one must have a gold standard. My standard is the Bible, and that's my approach to my writing here in CreationWiki: Prima Scriptura. Scripture first.--Temlakos 13:28, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I have to agree on that, mainly because the "being of light" encountered often says or does things contrary to the Bible. But could they be evidence for a soul? I mean, when they are observing things that they shouldn't be able to see because they are brain-dead, that strongly suggests a soul? And for those who think conciousness resides in every single cell, don't you find that rather absurd? (To be specific about that point, I found it in a Reader's Digest magazine that was talking about NDE's.) Scorpionman 16:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Radiometric dating problems

An interesting article. It offers examples of inapplicable dating methods yeilding incorrect dates (which is why those dating methods would not actually be used in those situations) and completely neglects to mention that responsible scientists apply multiple dating methods to single samples to determine possible errors. Claims regarding K-Ar dating on volcanic rocks is discussed here, though I suspect that you will dismiss the claims made there as "biased" without actually explaining why the counter-argument is faulty. Ignoring important facts because they show a "refutation" to be faulty is a technique that I Have come to expect from creationist sources.

This is in response to the Radiometric dating problems article, from a liberal user on Conservapedia (it's sad, but half the users on there are liberal, it seems). Are his claims valid? Scorpionman 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I've heard it all before. And I'm fairly sure that we have the rebuttal on our Talk.Origins response pages.

The basic problem is that multiple dating methods still ought to yield the same answer. Talk.Origins even alleges that you do get the same answer--and then I found that not only did you not get the same answer, but also--the kicker--you got answers that made no sense.

Actually, I'm going to ask Chris whether I ought to submit some of my discourses for peer review on this site. Maybe it's time I got some input directly from some RATE scientists, if they are signed on here.--Temlakos 12:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He even linked me to a Talk.Origins "rebuttal", but of course we have refutations to those, so his link is worthless. Thanks! Scorpionman 16:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New signature style

Like my new signature? Here's how to make a signature with superscripted Talk link:

[[User:Temlakos|Temlakos]]<sup>[[User talk:Temlakos|Talk]]</sup>

Change my username to yours in the Signature box (on Preferences), and make sure you check the raw signature checkbox below it. That will disable automatic linking and direct the signature routine to make your signature exactly as you have typed it.

I learned this little trick on Conservapedia.--Temlakos^Talk 13:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Neat. I like it and I hope you don't mind if I use it. Thanks. --A. Morris^Talk 14:51, 20 March 2007 (EST)

Why do you suppose I published it here, and left instructions on how to reproduce it? Take the technique with my compliments.--Temlakos^Talk 15:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

UserTalk response

I would have left the comments on my page, but if you're like me, you don't think to return to someone else's talk page to check for a response. Thanks for dropping by with a few words in response. (They were nicer than some of the others.) I'm cool with whatever vision CreationWiki's founders have in mind, whether to focus exclusively on creationist arguments or to expand and cover the Bible.

I'll take you up on your offer to check out some of your contributions, although a lot of my experience equips me to deal more with creation/evolution specific arguments rather than comprehensive coverage of Biblical topics.

In return, I'd be happy if you'd check out mine and make as many productive additions as you like!

--Davelr 21:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

T-rex bones

Buddy Davis, in his book The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure claims that his group found unfossilized dinosaur bones. But then in one of AiG's articles, they're saying this can't be confirmed. Why not? Shouldn't it be fairly easy to discern between fossils and true bones? Or are they just scared and are trying their best to look smart in front of evolutionists? I'm not accusing them of this, but others are. It's scary, but they can't go doing that if they're going to show themselves scientific. Scorpionman 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I know it sounds scary. But think it through: anyone can make a claim. AiG has to have confirmation before they go public with a thing like this. It's not just the state of the bones that AiG has to confirm--it's whether those bones even exist. The last thing any creationist organization needs is our own equivalent of the Piltdown Man scandal.--Temlakos^Talk 22:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

But hold on a second: didn't they find unfossilized dino bones in Alaska? Didn't they bring them back and show them? Back when the Piltdown man was found, man lacked the kind of technology to show this fraud. I'm sure they could see the difference between a fake unfossilized bone and real one, just by comparing it to a real bone! Scorpionman 23:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I need a lot more detail than I've seen yet even to begin to evaluate this story. What references/articles do you have?--Temlakos^Talk 23:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I'm still waiting for the guy over at Conservapedia to give me a reference. This is his claim, see, but he still hasn't linked me to the article that he claims said that. Scorpionman 23:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

And say, don't you have an account there too? Maybe you could discuss with them—although reasoned discussion with them often doesn't succeed. Still...Scorpionman 23:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I am a dual user. Let me know which user you're trying to reach, and what article this is in reference to.--Temlakos^Talk 07:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's the link. On here you can find a whole bunch of whining and outrageous complaining of crybabies who want the page to be biased toward their view. Right now it takes a pro-creationist perspective, therefore they can't shut their mouths and have to rant about how nonsensical it is. Oh, the guy who made the AiG claim is Sid 3050. You can find his claim here. Scorpionman 10:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, now I've read everything. Sid, of course, got himself blocked for a day for some of his attitude, so I can understand your skepticism over anything he says.

Now let's look at the controversy: Buddy Davis went off to Alaska and found some bones from a duck-billed dinosaur. So AiG started to test them. That was thirteen years ago, and the frustrating thing is that they still have no conclusive finding that those bones were not fossilized. They thought they found some proteins, but then they found them degraded. Here is John Whitmore's quoted message:

It was our hope, because of the “remarkable” preservation, that these bones might contain some ancient organic molecules. To date, our tests have not been able to confirm the “unfossilized” hypothesis. Twenty of the bone samples were analyzed in Russia for collagen. Only four showed positive results. We became suspicious of these results when we were not able to confirm them with tests made by other labs. One report from a reputable laboratory in the United States told us the samples they tested were “extremely degraded”. Some of the bones have also been tested for DNA. The results were inconclusive. From our results thus far, the bones should not be referred to as “unfossilized.”

The Bureau of Land Management reports that the Alaskan bones are fossilized, but all of their pore spaces have not been filled in with rock, making many of them lightweight. They also report that no DNA had been discovered in the bones, but because of their condition, they might be good candidates for it. Until further testing can prove otherwise, the Alaskan dinosaur bones should be referred to as “fossilized.”

John H. Whitmore

Now there you have it. So what can we make of it?

My take on it is that the "extremely degraded" condition means that the Global Flood happened to throw it around in a place that left it exposed. That BLM statement lends further credence to the exposure theory. If they found it on top of Mount McKinley or some such place--well, there you have it. The Rocky/Andean Mountain System formed from the buckling of the land mass that formed the Americas, as it got shoved to the west from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Suppose that dinosaur rode to the top? It would have been among the first remains to be uncovered--and that accounts for its deplorable condition.

In short, that find in no way proves evolution. Now I don't know much about paleontology, but I wonder how evolutionists explain /any/ find in such a condition. You'd think that the specimen with either be very well preserved, or degenerated into unrecognizable dust by now. But what do I know? I'm just trying to apply a healthy dose of common sense to a debate in which it has been sorely lacking for over a hundred years.--Temlakos^Talk 11:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of the recent find in the Sea of Japan--the one with the dinosaur with all its flesh still attached--nearly rotted, but still the first time that any such specimen had been found with any flesh at all.

Yeah, that makes sense. Still, don't expect to be taken seriously by any of those pigheaded individuals over there; I got so frustrated just now I had to tell them I'm not going to bother with any of their silly arguments unless they have something reasonable to say (which they never will). Still, if you wanted to try to convince them that the block is legitimate, you can try, but I wouldn't advise wasting your time trying to convince them that evolution is not science; they even admit that it isn't proven, but then they say that there's nothing to the contrary. What do you make of that "nothing to the contrary" stuff? Plenty of evidence has been found that throws evolution into the shadow of doubt, but then they just bend and twist either the evidence or their theory so it doesn't contradict anymore. I can't believe they're so narrow-minded that they won't see that, yet they are. Scorpionman 18:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Upon extensive review, I've decided that I need to let the user named Conservative (he might call himself "Creationist" over here) defend himself, and rally his colleagues. That article seems to have become the lightning rod and the Schwehrpunkt for the ideological war between creation and evolution. Here we have a bastion of creation science--and also of Bible study.--Temlakos^Talk 18:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I hate to say it, but it doesn't appear that Conservative is really doing much to that effect at all. All these anticreationists and anticonservatives are sitting there calling him names and accusing him of being afraid to debate, and it really seems he is because he's not saying anything in his own defense. Nor do I see him doing much rallying. Most of the work he does is on the evolution article (which he has locked), I don't see him doing much anywhere else. That kind of disturbs me; why would he lock it if indeed all these guys want to do is put scientific fact in? Scorpionman 22:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

talk pages

Temlakos,

I noticed that you create talk pages with the category: discussion on them for all your new pages. But only talk pages that contain content should be listed in the discussion category[1]. Mr. Ashcraft and I have been deleting talk pages with the discussion category that have no discussion content. Just thought I'd let you know. --A. Morris^Talk 10:24, 09 April 2007 (EST)

Ah. Initially, Chris gave me the impression that every article ought to have a talk page on general principle. If this is no longer the case--well, perhaps I need to put the Talk template in the article, so that discussion would get started. Will that work out?--Temlakos^Talk 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I know, I was doing the same thing! But if you think about it, it doesn't make sense to have a page with no discussion on it in the discussion category. Well, I guess you could do that, but if you Talk template in the article wouldn't all articles need the Talk template in them to be uniform with all other articles? --A. Morris^Talk 10:45, 09 April 2007 (EST)

Now that you mention it, they would, and that would also assign all main articles to the Discussion category, and that wouldn't strike me as appropriate. But every user ought to understand that the first person to open discussion on any article should put the Talk template on it, to make it easier for another person to "post." I'll have to keep a watch on all my pages, so that when someone opens discussion, I can make sure that the Talk template is added.--Temlakos^Talk 23:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that would be a good idea. I think I'll do the same so I can make sure that the talk template gets on the discussion page. --A. Morris^Talk 12:51, 10 April 2007 (EST)

Gorillas

This is from Conservapedia: "Comparison of DNA sequences of humans and gorillas show them to be 99% identical". Apparently somebody decided to add evolutionist propaganda, especially since the source provided was a link to an evolutionary site. Now it might be true, in that case I felt like Ned Flanders: "All our cherished beliefs are a MYTH??" What do you make of it? Scorpionman 21:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Incomplete, Scorpionman, incomplete. I might get right over there and add the "fact template." Thanks for the heads-up.--Temlakos^Talk 21:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

No problem. Scorpionman 14:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

James 2

Just out of curiosity, exactly what does "faith without works is dead" mean? Seems kind of conflicting with what Jesus and Paul said about faith being all that is neccessary. Scorpionman 16:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It means that a faith that has nothing to show for it, is not evident.

Faith alone is necessary and sufficient for salvation. But faith informs decision-making. For example, you sit in a chair because you're sure that the chair will hold your weight. Faith is being sure of things that a pure reductive materialist would say that you have no right to be sure of.--Temlakos^Talk 22:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Aha. Scorpionman 08:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Revelation 21:8

Another random question...but one that's been bugging me. Just exactly what is the Bible referring to when it says "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur."? Doesn't James say that "He who keeps the whole law, yet stumbles in one point is guilty of all"? In that case then Revelation 21:8 is applying to everyone, is it not? In which case this verse is contradicting everything the Bible says about forgiveness and faith, isn't it? Scorpionman 14:31, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Not quite--well, except for the unbelieving. The Bible is talking about one final incident of judgment: the judging of the dead after the end of the Millennium. At that point, Divine patience is at an end. But--if you're a believer, then you're out of that, because Jesus covered your debt. That does not apply to those people who face this Great White Throne Judgment that the above verse describes.--Temlakos^Talk 15:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Now what's the point of the Final Judgement if your salvation is already determined in this life? I mean, if you've put your faith and trust in Jesus, then you know you're saved, so why the Great White Throne? Scorpionman 16:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I hate to put it this way, Scorpion, but God did ask Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the earth...!--Temlakos^Talk 23:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

That's true. My pastor says it's so He can rewards us for our actions. Scorpionman 09:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Another thing: believers aren't supposed to continue on sinning after salvation, yet that's what I'm doing. No, I'm not proud of it and it always racks up guilt, yet it doesn't seem to stop me from doing it again. The Bible doesn't seem to address this directly, so why does this happen? I know that Paul also struggled with something, as evidenced in Romans 7 Scorpionman 21:32, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

And I don't think the Bible ever specifies exactly what it is you're saved from; "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved", but saved from WHAT? Scorpionman 21:35, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

From the consequence, or "wages," of sin, which is spiritual death.--Temlakos^Talk 22:00, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Does it save you from eternal death? There is a distinction there. Scorpionman 17:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

It does. Though we both must face the "Judgment Seat of Christ" (Greek bema a judge's bench, or an athletic reviewing stand), we do not have to face the Great White Throne Judgment. Those who appear there are assured of only one verdict: eternal death--that is, separation from God--and disposal in a lake of burning sulfur.--Temlakos^Talk 18:47, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

German site

Chris, the link to the German site didn't make it into the sidebar. Instead, all I see is a red link to a page that pretends to be in a namespace called "De" and have the title of "Hauptseite." Thought I'd mention it, since I can't figure out what went wrong.--TemlakosTalk 07:49, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Yea - I know. The de directory isnt installed yet. I was acting ahead. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

My talk page

Yes, I had one, but I don't think there was much of consequence on it. Should you happen to run across it, I'd be happy to have it back, but it's no big deal if you don't. ~ MD Otley (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Good news! I found it and moved it back into place.--Temlakos^Talk 11:30, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm much obliged. ~ MD Otley (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello! We know each other from CP?

I believe?-AmesG 22:57, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what are you doing here?--Temlakos^Talk 23:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Gonna engage in constructive & informative & polite debate! For fun and edification. Don't worry, I won't edit "content." Also to gather material for RationalWiki to further said debate.-AmesG 00:34, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I just read off your user page about your wife. We've had our disagreements, and I'm fairly sure you hate me, but I'd still like to give you my condolences regarding this tragedy. I hope you find happiness despite this profound loss.-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 15:38, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Counselor-to-be, first of all, I despise the things you stand for and have stood for in other forums. But that does not mean that I hate you. Nor could I do that, anyway, without bringing dishonor on my wife's memory.

Let me share something with you: she died quietly in my home, and when I found her, she had composed herself in an attitude of prayer. In other words--she knew where she was going. She found herself in the Very Presence of Jesus Christ--and He probably came bearing a crown to set on her head. Not because her death served any political purpose--but because her life was a testimony and a deposition for Christ, and for what being a Christian really means. That's really what the word martyr means--not necessarily someone who dies for the sake of a cause, but one whose life or death is a fitting testimony to that cause. The word comes from the Greek word for a witness in a court of law.

More to the point, Counselor, when I say that she is in a better place now--I mean what I say, and I know what I'm talking about.

I don't know what area of law you're planning to go into, or even what area of law is your favorite area at this stage of your studies. I do, however, challenge you with this: the Ten Commandments form the basis of American law. I often wonder what areas of that law you would really, really want to abolish--at times when you lay aside your apparent desire to shock or provoke.--Temlakos^Talk 16:00, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

It appears we agree on one very important thing - we separate politics from people. That's good. I'll agree that I don't particularly like your viewpoints, but that is not to say that I don't like you. Hurray! One area of concurrence.

Anyways, you raise an interesting point about the foundation of American law, etc., and one that has interesting applications. So, I'll first agree to stipulate arguendo (for the sake of this argument, only) that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law. Then the question applies, as foundational law, are the Ten Commandments rules, or standards? I believe, standards. That is to say, they are guiding principles. And one of the guiding principles - be kind to your neighbors - may at times call for the exclusion of display of religious texts, even of this foundational document, in the public square. Not abolition, of course, but discretion. Does that make sense? Is that the question you were getting at?-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 18:26, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, that wasn't it. (And besides, if I didn't make the foundational documents available, then people are less likely to know the foundations of American law. And what's more imperative, people have to hear about their need for expiation for sin, and Who made that expiation.

What I had in mind was the Seventh Commandment.

I would also say the Tenth, but you have never declared yourself on matters of legislation and public policy that would seem to stand in violation of that particular Directive.--Temlakos^Talk 20:39, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Do non-Christians really need to have Jesus thrust upon them by the government? My Jewish friends say they'd rather not.

And does the government really need to be in the business of teaching morality? Whose morality?

And when have I violated the seventh commandment?-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 20:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I didn't charge you with a violation of the seventh commandment. Nor have I grounds for such a charge.

The relevant question is whether you think that such a violation is serious or not, or whether you recognize the act that the Seventh Commandment forbids, as a violation of any law that humans ought to respect.

And as for the question you asked earlier: the Ten Commandments predate Jesus Christ. In any event, the real issue is whether the civil government ought to enjoin any private citizen from sharing the Gospel in the public square--or indeed, enjoin any parent from sharing the Gospel, or imparting any other precept or instruction, to his own children.--Temlakos^Talk 21:00, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Does the state so enjoin any private citizen? And yes, I believe that with human-ness inheres some basic code of morality, not predicated on religion, but objective. It's a smaller code in some ways (nothing about "the gays" being immoral) but larger in others (respect for all). Theft of property and life are on that list.-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 21:39, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

According to a number of recent and disturbing court decisions, the state does indeed so enjoin a private citizen.--Temlakos^Talk 21:41, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Can I please have cites to the cases? I'm curious.-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 01:43, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Start with Boerne v. Flores in the United States Supreme Court in 1997.--Temlakos^Talk 07:06, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

I think you're confused - Boerne is a federalism case, in which almost all of the conservative justices concurred, limiting the Congress' power to dictate to the Supreme Court constitutional tests either higher or lower than the Constitution demands. In essence, it's just separation of powers. It may have incidentally hurt a church, and torpedoed the laughable RFRA, but its results has been to reaffirm the independence of the judiciary, not hurt private exercise of religion. And besides, the only way in which "private exercise" was harmed in the outcome here was that a church couldn't expand in violation of zoning laws. Is that... so bad?-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 14:17, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, because the "zoning" involved was a "taking of private property for public use, with[out] just compensation."--Temlakos^Talk 15:08, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

It strikes me that a state's decision to restrict or not restrict zoning of churches is their own decision; and the federal government meddling to prevent it by warping the Constitution and usurping the judiciary's role seems to me to be something that conservatives would be opposed to. In short, I don't think Boerne is a case of congressional restriction of religion, to say the least. Do you have other examples?-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 14:00, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Creation museum article: translation

Hi Terry,

Thanks for all your work on the Creation museum articles...I looked at the German and Spanish translations of it and didn't see anything missing. So I think it's good.

I just saw where you posted that your wife died a while back...I'm very sorry. I hope God has been with you through the tough times. I know that you know she's in a better place now! --_└^{Amanda M.}_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:47, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

BTW, have you been to the Creation museum? I just went this week - it is awesome! They have truly put a lot of work into it, and I know it has strengthened many people's faith...and challenged some!

Sadly, I don't get any opportunities to fly anymore--though that might change. If it does, I'll make a point of going to the Museum if ever I have to land at Cincy International.

Is that your user-box design? Maybe I'll try to translate that.--Temlakos^Talk 18:47, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Ahaz & Hezekiah

Hello Temlakos. I would probably be happy to collaborate with you on the article you suggested. Else you can cite me as Kenneth Griffith. Before I commit to collaborating I would want to know more about the place it would be published as well as your chronological assumptions. I pretty much follow the Ussher-Jones YEC chronology myself. Email me at kengriffith at gmail dot com.Grifken 22:54, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Hitler and Christianity

DR Lindberg claims on the talk page for Hitler based his views on Darwinism (Talk.Origins) that Hitler did not believe evolution. Disturbingly, no one has responded to him. But I don't think he checked any of the links in that article either. Why the ardament determination to prove Hitler was a Christian? What was he really? He seems to have had mixed beliefs from both. Scorpionman 13:27, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Hitler had only one religion, as far as I can tell from the evidence I have seen: the religion of himself.--Temlakos^Talk 14:11, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Not only was he obssesed with himself, but his race as well. Being the superior race and the one destined to survive all others as they are of no use to society as a whole. Whoever thinks Hitler was a Christian bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

If you were to assign any religion by name, other than merely saying he was extremely prideful, which he was, but Hitler and the Nazi party as well as his most trusted advisors, were HEAVILY entrenched within the New Age movment and surrounded themselves with the symbolism unapologetically. Hitlers thinking logically aligned with what is called Darwinian evolution and eugenics. It is no secret either that the modern New Age movment teaches through relying heavily on Darwinian evolutionary thinking as well. To the New Age there is no God but themselves, they possess the knowledge, exactly what Hitler thought and acted out. --Tony Sommer 14:19, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

It strikes me that most, if not all evolutionists share that same kind of religion. And the fact that they so violently deny it hammers down further proof. Scorpionman 14:53, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I can't stress enough how absolutely wrong you are. I've written a very thorough refutation of this point of view here. First, Hitler may have "believed in evolution," but not everything that Hitler believed in should be immediately tarred as evil by association. Hitler also probably believed in eating when he was hungry; I wouldn't think that eating is thereby evil. Second, if Hitler based his ideas on "evolution," he based it on the theory of social darwinism, an extremist perversion of a scientific theory, which does not imply or require any sociopolitical conclusions in and of itself. Eugenics & Nazism are both the disturbed ramblings of a deranged mind, and that this derangement finds its germination in a value-neutral idea should not implicate the value-neutral idea. As a parallel, Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, is a Christian. This, by your reasoning, makes all of Christianity suspect, too. You see the problem? I do. As for the final point, that the "New Age" movement teaches darwinism, and thereby evil, well, I don't really know where to start! As it turns out, there is no unified monolithic "New Age" movement. We don't have cabalistic secret meetings to decide how to destroy mankind. And that we recognize the fact of evolution does not imply that we do not believe in God. And even we didn't, that we don't believe in God doesn't necessarily mean that we repudiate all morality. I'm happy to discuss how morality works for me and other "evil-utioniss," if you'd like.-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 16:11, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

So you say I am wrong, then you say that, "Hitler may have "believed in evolution," but not everything that Hitler believed in should be immediately tarred as evil by association." Well, fine, but like I stated he believe in evolution, you are proving my point here.

As far as the New Age movement, get out of your defensive position and realize that all I said is that the, "New Age movment teaches through relying heavily on Darwinian evolutionary thinking as well." It is clear if you read and study/research the founders of the New Age movment their god is Satan.

You have not refuted either of my points. To be honest the way you speak of the New Age movement, using the word, "we" seems to me that you believe in it. You are actually saying Eric Rudolph was a Christian when he killed people? Why are you speaking on this as if you see him as a mirror to Christ, as a real Christian? You obviously have no clue how to discern why people act.

How funny that we are having this discussion, in which you think there is no connection between evolution and racism, yet in the news a top British scientist, James Watson said quite the opposite. I guess you haven't heard of Charles Davenport making racist conclusions based in darwinian evolutionary thinking either. --Tony Sommer 16:26, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe this should be resolved off of Terry's talk page. Please go here and we can debate it. As a precursor, you should give me that inferential chain of reasoning that I ask for on the talk page... if you can. And please, in the process, try not to use guilt by association.-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 17:21, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Spaghetti monster

Good evening!

You brought up a number of issues in your reply to my comments that I'm afraid I may not be understanding correctly. Is if possible to contact you directly to continue our discussion?

Sorry to take up so much of your time. --Drlindberg 19:55, 6 November 2007 (EST)

You may use the "e-mail this user" link on the sidebar. I cannot promise you an immediate response, but I will certainly give your questions every consideration.--Temlakos^Talk 20:15, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I get a notice that this page is already too long, so I am hesitant to upload the comments and questions I just finished writing. Any suggestions? --Drlindberg 12:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Yes--send it directly to me by e-mail.--Temlakos^Talk 14:20, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Current European events

Terry,

Unfortunately, I have not found any creation related events in France; however, there are a good many in the UK: AiG UK events. The only organization I know of that hosts events in Europe is AiG. But, I'll let you know if I come across any additional events that are going to take place in Europe. --_└^{Amanda M.}_┘^┌_talk^┐ 14:17, 15 November 2007 (EST)