Talk:Creation science/Archive 3

message: Someone always seems to want to add the term to these issues, usually as a derogatory label, but at least one with a quite variable meaning. For NPOV, we should follow the Associated Press guidelines which recognize the pejorative nature of the term in many minds, and only use the term for those who call themselves fundamentalists. I have therefore removed the term, and it should not be included. The rest of the text makes it clear that it refers to Christian with a literal interpretation, which includes a lot of groups that would not label themselves fundamentalists. Pollinator 04:07, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, "fundamentalist" is one of those terms that can be seen as derogatory but can also be used as an objective descriptor.  When I used it, I mean the literal, objective interpretation - as in someone who subscribes to a literal interpretation of a religious text.  I have yet to see any examples of non-fundamentalist Christians who believe in Creation Science.  It is, if you will forgive the use of the term, fundamentally a fundamentalist position.--JonGwynne 04:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalism? 

message: For the record, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% of scientists are atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God. Figures from an almost identical survey in 1914 and 1933 show a steady decline in God-belief among scientists. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link to that?  Thanks Guettarda 18:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998 'Leading scientists still reject God'  Ian Pitchford 19:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: would you support making this fact clear in the text?  Ungtss 02:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't belong in this article. Joshuaschroeder 04:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it's highly pertinent.  what do other editors think?  Ungtss 05:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't strike me as highy pertinent, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.  It strikes me as something that might belong in the "controversy" article, but I don't have a hard and fast opinion.  Can you outline your reasoning?  Thanks. Guettarda 13:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, since creation science is spoken of in highly religious terms and judged against the "objectivity" on the mainstream community, isn't it pertinent to note the a- to anti- religious demographics of the mainstream scientific community that is rejecting creation science as "religiously motivated anti-science propoganda?"  Ungtss 14:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: i know, i know.  the facts are only what you tell us they are.  Ungtss 21:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers on the religious beliefs of scientists

message: if i were to rfc mr. bensaccount regarding his persistent vandalism of this page, wouldn't any of the other editors here join me?  Ungtss 19:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good faith.  right.  anybody interested?           Ungtss 19:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: you personally insulted me in your example.  don't complain about my passing observations on the quality of your argument.  the point is, you are consistently forcing your pov onto this page against multiple editors, and, when necessary, vandalizing it.  Ungtss 19:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: i'm pointing out that you said, "Similarity and relationship are synonyms, moron."  Not only did you personally attack me, but you did it while being totally, utterly wrong.  Ungtss 19:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the thesaurus. I apologized, by the way and am still waiting for your apology.  Bensaccount 20:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i have nothing to apologize for.  Ungtss 20:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have unapologetically leveled personal attacks against me on multiple occasions. Should we start to make a list? Joshuaschroeder 20:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: when the soldiers of fundamentalism come around, the soldiers of christ stand with soldiers of all stripes, jewish, muslim, atheist, hindu, buddhist, or cofucion, to continue the struggle for reason against the forces of nonsense.  Ungtss 20:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: atheists are on the list.  i've met some fantastic, wonderful, and reasonable evolutionists and atheists in my time.  i consider it to be a very respectable, reasonable, and ethical point of view.  i've also met bigots and hatemongers who peddle their nonsense under the guise of atheism.  those people give atheists a bad name.  Ungtss 20:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: i think you'd have a hard time finding a second involved in the conflict there.  Ungtss 20:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if bensaccount wants to respond with rfc on Ungtss (in general) he can sign on the one already started and we will be underway. Joshuaschroeder 20:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: he is not involved in an edit dispute with me.  there are no failed attempts to resolve any conflict, because there is no conflict.  not liking people is no basis for rfc.  if it were, your last one would have worked.  Ungtss 20:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: i see that impartiality has once against fallen by the wayside.  rfc requires failed attempts to resolve an edit conflict.  i am involved in no edit conflicts.  anticreationist bigotry aside, there is no basis for an rfc against me.  bensaccount, on the other hand, has been repeatedly forcing his pov into the intro against almost a dozen editors over the course of a month.  that, to me, is rfc material.  but if nobody else is interested, i'll pass.  Ungtss 20:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: oh i'm not concerned with the talkpage -- i meant his repeated editing of the intro for his pov, and today's deletion of the template, calling it a "word association."  Ungtss 23:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: reality, please.  i rfced no one.  i asked if anyone was interested in rfcing you for your continued campaign of nonsense on this page.  nobody's interested.  no rfc.  Ungtss 19:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: if i were to rfc mr. bensaccount for his persistent vandalism and pov pushing on this page, would anyone join me?  Ungtss 20:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i think you'd have a hard time finding a second involved in the conflict there.  Ungtss 20:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if bensaccount wants to respond with rfc on Ungtss (in general) he can sign on the one already started and we will be underway. Joshuaschroeder 20:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: he is not involved in an edit dispute with me.  there are no failed attempts to resolve any conflict, because there is no conflict.  not liking people is no basis for rfc.  if it were, your last one would have worked.  Ungtss 20:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: i see that impartiality has once against fallen by the wayside.  rfc requires failed attempts to resolve an edit conflict.  i am involved in no edit conflicts.  anticreationist bigotry aside, there is no basis for an rfc against me.  bensaccount, on the other hand, has been repeatedly forcing his pov into the intro against almost a dozen editors over the course of a month.  that, to me, is rfc material.  but if nobody else is interested, i'll pass.  Ungtss 20:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: oh i'm not concerned with the talkpage -- i meant his repeated editing of the intro for his pov, and today's deletion of the template, calling it a "word association."  Ungtss 23:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: reality, please.  i rfced no one.  i asked if anyone was interested in rfcing you for your continued campaign of nonsense on this page.  nobody's interested.  no rfc.  Ungtss 19:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  to avoid burial 

message: Once again, Ungtss has broken the 3 revert rule. He has graciously numbered his reverts in the article history. Bensaccount 02:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 are permitted.  i reverted 3 times.  no rule violated.  Ungtss 02:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: reverting is appropriate for blatant pov pushing.  you are engaging in that behavior, and have been for a month, by asserting your pov as fact in the intro, a flagrant violation of npov.  but the evolutionist editors of this page don't have the courage to put npov ahead of their own bias, for fear that people might not see things as clearly as they do, so it continues.  Ungtss 02:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three revert rule