Talk:Creation scientists

message: Please maintain professionalism and comity. Thank you.
Please have the intellectual honesty to discuss POV here before throwing mud. Thank you.
:I tried to NPOV the article (and I use the term article loosely), but it ended up being anti-creationism-POV. But please, 
:*'Creation scientists are active members ..'
:*'..yet direct topical arguments .. are actually being discouraged by the entrenched scientific community.
:*'This representative list ..'
:These comments are obviously POV. I also don't see quite how this list is supposed to be encyclopedic. -- Ec5618 14:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. 
:- "active" means their researching and writing is modern and up for current debate. plain english
:- "yet" is used because scientific method would dictate the dismissal of any particular point only after its empirical nullification, but the approach taken is simply to dismiss issues before empirical nullification
:- "representative" means these are not the only advanced degreed researchers and writers who oppose macro-evolution, just the ones who have approved their names to be used in this "representative list"
:- the purpose of wiki is to inform, is it not? would you prefer this information NOT be conveniently available to anyone in this community. the artical is actually *about* this list... so how can the list be irrelavent?
Thanks again for talking and reconsidering the use of weapons of mass destruction.  68.44.194.112
:This is just a nice way of saying that biblical creationism is a science, there are more than enough articles like this, if any more popup, I'm going to have to start a few articles on greek god creationist scince, explaining that the universe was really created by Zeus, and I'll show you at least 2 or 3 people who agree with me, then list them in some kind of big list of Greek god Creationist Scientists--172.141.193.91 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Flying Spaghetti Monster & Invisible Pink Unicorn -- Ec5618 14:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Brilliant! 68.44.194.112
==Proving a point==
This article contains a list of creation scientists. How is that encyclopedic? I don't feel it is, in its current form. Simply stating that over 30 scientists, in different fields of science, believe in creationism would be enough.
68.44.194.112 has just reverted my edit (again) claiming in the edit summary that his(/her) point had been proven "beyond dispute in less than 12 hours!" (...the proven point was that any discussion of this issue would be squelched by ES bigots without regard for accuracy... and you proved it again... 68.44.194.112) 
defense of CS clearly, my point was that you with I do hope this article was more than an attempt to prove that there are people who disagree with creationism, and who would like to see this article removed or improved. (... i would prefer it be improved... and agree there are too many adjectives... that should happen... 68.44.194.112)  
I could have seen that coming, and I did in fact see that coming when I saw someone comment that a list of creation scientists should be included only in a seperate article. (why in the world shouldn't this exist as an article... is it because there ARE bona-fide CS scientists conflicts with your belief that there should NOT be practicing scientists in modern acedemia who support CS?... are you disputing their qualifications to make scientific objections? 68.44.194.112)
Again, the current, original version is POV:
*These scientists are respected in their fields, and seek to provoke an empirical and rational analysis of the claims of evolutionary theory. - Conjecture, and an attempt to prove a point.
**(... What?... they are NOT provoking analysis?... they are just trying to IMPOSE their view on the community without offering contradictory theories?... 68.44.194.112)
*Specific arguments presented by creation scientists spotlight inconsistencies and blatant overstatements of fact underpinning the evolutionary theory. - Duh. These inconsistencies should be noted in the evolution article before being heralded as fact here, without proof or sourcing. 
**(wait... you don't even know enough to understand that there are inconsistencies?... do we have to back that far up the intellectual pipeline here? are you serious?... 68.44.194.112) Blatant is a value judgement, and obviously POV. (... wording should probably be changed. 68.44.194.112)
*..are actually being discouraged by the entrenched scientific community. - Of course they are being discouraged, just as theories dismissing the moon landing are discouraged. Creation science is seen as a misuse of scientific materials and methods, comparable to the use of photography to find ghosts.
**(NAS says "case closed"... so "case closed!" ?...  there you go again... you need to percieve the consequences of your attitude... YOU know better than every one of those PHd's on the list... they are all boneheads and YOU are smarter... and you don't even want to the existence of these dissenters influencing your soapbox... 68.44.194.112)
**(... yet again, you dictate that instead of employing and funding these professionals... these universities should 'blacklist' these scientists as heretics, right? 68.44.194.112) 
*And, just as with ghost photography, the ghosts are often hoaxes, created by the photographer through misuse of the material (double exposure, specifically). The camera never lies, indeed. 
**(.... there he goes again!... 68.44.194.112)
*Darwinian counter-arguments have degraded over time to shrill, derogatory, and dismissive approaches to the subject .. - Are you kidding me? 
**(... excuse me, can't hear you, you're sounding a bit shrill ~~)
*Longstanding efforts to marginalize proponents of creation science as unsophisticated and uneducated are becoming threadbare. - Are ya? Are you kidding me? 
**(... ouch, i feel so marginalized by that sarcasm... 68.44.194.112)
*They champion a process of progressive ongoing debate across the host of relevant scientific issues. - Em. I'm going to give up at this point. If you can't acknowledge that 'champion' was absolutely a wrong word to use here ... 
**(... how about "seek progressive ongoing debate"?... like you are doing right now. 68.44.194.112) 
Reverting
--Ec5618 15:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Please, 68.44.194.112, respond to posts below the original post, to preserve readability.
This is rediculous. You seem unwilling to listen to my comments. Please note that I have been here for a while, and, honestly, I thought I had pretty much seen everything. 
Claiming that counter arguments have degraded to shrill, derogatory and dismissive is not only offensive (derogatory) and dismissive, it is POV. And while I do not object to your POV as an editor here, I do object to you injecting it into the article namespace.
And no, I don't care about the US NAS specifically, and don't know its official stance on the moon landing, but what I do know is that its not only quite possible to travel to the moon, its quite improbable that a fake moonlanding could have been kept a secret from the general public for long, making a hoax quite improbable.
As for inconsistencies in evolutionary theory. Please, name one. Will you suggest that evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics? That the odds are low? That Darwin himself called the evolution of the eye improbable? That no missing links have been found? That the bible never mentions evolution? That YOU know better than I? Than the scientific community? That YOU are not an ape-descendent?
Again, do not call the scientific community 'entrenched', do not call people who disagree with you 'shrill', and do not presume to know everything. 
You suggested that I 'know better than every one of those PHd's on the list.' And while I appreciate the compliment, what I am capable of understanding or knowing is not the issue here. It is you who is using this page as a soapbox, to spout ideas and faiths. Wikipedia is not the place for that.
Finally, I am still not convinced this article is encyclopedic. This list can never be complete, can never serve any purpose (other than the afforementioned argument from authority).
And will you PLEASE stop reverting to the version of this article that I have tried to shoot full of holes. It is undeniably POV. POV is the enemy here. Please understand that, if nothing else. POV must die. POV is evil. POV POV POV. -- Ec5618 17:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Pre-emptively commenting to 68.44.194.112.
My version contains:
*Less POV
*A properly wikified list
*Proper cleanup tags
*Proper references
*The  template.
Please, edit 'my' version, instead of trying to keep ownership of this article. This article is not yours. -- Ec5618 17:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
________________________________________________________________
so, first creationism trys to legitimize itself by adding the word science to it, making the word creationism into creation science, now they want to create the term creation scientist, yet it's no more scientific than creationist, it might be best to just redirect there, and get it over with.. since this whole page is somewhere between a play on words, and a delibrate attempt to weasle into the sciences category--172.141.193.91 17:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initiated in Good Faith

message: This article contains a list of creation scientists. How is that encyclopedic? I don't feel it is, in its current form. Simply stating that over 30 scientists, in different fields of science, believe in creationism would be enough.
68.44.194.112 has just reverted my edit (again) claiming in the edit summary that his(/her) point had been proven "beyond dispute in less than 12 hours!" (...the proven point was that any discussion of this issue would be squelched by ES bigots without regard for accuracy... and you proved it again... 68.44.194.112) 
defense of CS clearly, my point was that you with I do hope this article was more than an attempt to prove that there are people who disagree with creationism, and who would like to see this article removed or improved. (... i would prefer it be improved... and agree there are too many adjectives... that should happen... 68.44.194.112)  
I could have seen that coming, and I did in fact see that coming when I saw someone comment that a list of creation scientists should be included only in a seperate article. (why in the world shouldn't this exist as an article... is it because there ARE bona-fide CS scientists conflicts with your belief that there should NOT be practicing scientists in modern acedemia who support CS?... are you disputing their qualifications to make scientific objections? 68.44.194.112)
Again, the current, original version is POV:
*These scientists are respected in their fields, and seek to provoke an empirical and rational analysis of the claims of evolutionary theory. - Conjecture, and an attempt to prove a point.
**(... What?... they are NOT provoking analysis?... they are just trying to IMPOSE their view on the community without offering contradictory theories?... 68.44.194.112)
*Specific arguments presented by creation scientists spotlight inconsistencies and blatant overstatements of fact underpinning the evolutionary theory. - Duh. These inconsistencies should be noted in the evolution article before being heralded as fact here, without proof or sourcing. 
**(wait... you don't even know enough to understand that there are inconsistencies?... do we have to back that far up the intellectual pipeline here? are you serious?... 68.44.194.112) Blatant is a value judgement, and obviously POV. (... wording should probably be changed. 68.44.194.112)
*..are actually being discouraged by the entrenched scientific community. - Of course they are being discouraged, just as theories dismissing the moon landing are discouraged. Creation science is seen as a misuse of scientific materials and methods, comparable to the use of photography to find ghosts.
**(NAS says "case closed"... so "case closed!" ?...  there you go again... you need to percieve the consequences of your attitude... YOU know better than every one of those PHd's on the list... they are all boneheads and YOU are smarter... and you don't even want to the existence of these dissenters influencing your soapbox... 68.44.194.112)
**(... yet again, you dictate that instead of employing and funding these professionals... these universities should 'blacklist' these scientists as heretics, right? 68.44.194.112) 
*And, just as with ghost photography, the ghosts are often hoaxes, created by the photographer through misuse of the material (double exposure, specifically). The camera never lies, indeed. 
**(.... there he goes again!... 68.44.194.112)
*Darwinian counter-arguments have degraded over time to shrill, derogatory, and dismissive approaches to the subject .. - Are you kidding me? 
**(... excuse me, can't hear you, you're sounding a bit shrill ~~)
*Longstanding efforts to marginalize proponents of creation science as unsophisticated and uneducated are becoming threadbare. - Are ya? Are you kidding me? 
**(... ouch, i feel so marginalized by that sarcasm... 68.44.194.112)
*They champion a process of progressive ongoing debate across the host of relevant scientific issues. - Em. I'm going to give up at this point. If you can't acknowledge that 'champion' was absolutely a wrong word to use here ... 
**(... how about "seek progressive ongoing debate"?... like you are doing right now. 68.44.194.112) 
Reverting
--Ec5618 15:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Please, 68.44.194.112, respond to posts below the original post, to preserve readability.
This is rediculous. You seem unwilling to listen to my comments. Please note that I have been here for a while, and, honestly, I thought I had pretty much seen everything. 
Claiming that counter arguments have degraded to shrill, derogatory and dismissive is not only offensive (derogatory) and dismissive, it is POV. And while I do not object to your POV as an editor here, I do object to you injecting it into the article namespace.
And no, I don't care about the US NAS specifically, and don't know its official stance on the moon landing, but what I do know is that its not only quite possible to travel to the moon, its quite improbable that a fake moonlanding could have been kept a secret from the general public for long, making a hoax quite improbable.
As for inconsistencies in evolutionary theory. Please, name one. Will you suggest that evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics? That the odds are low? That Darwin himself called the evolution of the eye improbable? That no missing links have been found? That the bible never mentions evolution? That YOU know better than I? Than the scientific community? That YOU are not an ape-descendent?
Again, do not call the scientific community 'entrenched', do not call people who disagree with you 'shrill', and do not presume to know everything. 
You suggested that I 'know better than every one of those PHd's on the list.' And while I appreciate the compliment, what I am capable of understanding or knowing is not the issue here. It is you who is using this page as a soapbox, to spout ideas and faiths. Wikipedia is not the place for that.
Finally, I am still not convinced this article is encyclopedic. This list can never be complete, can never serve any purpose (other than the afforementioned argument from authority).
And will you PLEASE stop reverting to the version of this article that I have tried to shoot full of holes. It is undeniably POV. POV is the enemy here. Please understand that, if nothing else. POV must die. POV is evil. POV POV POV. -- Ec5618 17:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Pre-emptively commenting to 68.44.194.112.
My version contains:
*Less POV
*A properly wikified list
*Proper cleanup tags
*Proper references
*The  template.
Please, edit 'my' version, instead of trying to keep ownership of this article. This article is not yours. -- Ec5618 17:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
________________________________________________________________
so, first creationism trys to legitimize itself by adding the word science to it, making the word creationism into creation science, now they want to create the term creation scientist, yet it's no more scientific than creationist, it might be best to just redirect there, and get it over with.. since this whole page is somewhere between a play on words, and a delibrate attempt to weasle into the sciences category--172.141.193.91 17:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proving a point