Talk:Peter Stoner

message: I'm having problems finding a critique of Stoner's claims that is truly Stoner-specific (as he seems to have been basically unknown until McDowell).  I could easily take him apart myself (there are many more errors in "Science Speaks" than have been mentioned so far), but presumably I'd fall foul of the "no original research" prohibition. --Robert Stevens 12:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique

message: The "Critiques of Stoner's Apologetics" section keeps getting deleted by user User:Kdbuffalo, who has refused to discuss the matter (he has also deleted my message on his personal Talk page).  The reason, allegedly, is that it makes the article "POV" and "unbalanced": supposedly, deletion of all mention of the controversial nature of Stoner's claims is "balance".  He's even added a link to an apologetic response to an article whose own link he keeps deleting!
In a biography of a person notable for making a controversial claim, it is customary to mention the controversy (and citations are provided).  Granted, there's not a lot else here at present, but the solution to that is to expand the article, not delete all mention of the controversy.--Robert Stevens 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted your material as I did not find Stephen Carr or Jim Lippard to be notable critics nor did they have any qualifications which would make them relevant.  Nevertheless, I decided to compromise rather than get in a edit war and left them in but I deleted your editorializing which had no footnotes.  I also added this material in order to make the the "Critique section" more NPOV which I think you should have had in prior and I should not have had to add it:
Professor Stoner's work Science Speaks was reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group was found, in general, to be dependable, accurate, and convincing in regard to the scientific material and the probability material presented in regards to prophecy.   In addition, Christian apologetist JP Holding defended Professor Stoner's work in regards to its examination of Bible prophecy against the criticism of one of its critics.   ken 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated deletions by user Kdbuffalo

message: Can someone tell me why Wikipedians should consider Jim Lippard to be a authoritative or notable critic of Professor Stoner's work?  I don't think it is a mistake that Wikipedia does not have a biographical article on Jim Lippard.  
Can someone tell me why Wikipedians should consider Stephen Carr to be a authoritative or notable critic of Professor Stoner's work?  I don't think it is a mistake that Wikipedia does not have a biographical article on the Bible skeptic Stephen Carr ken 23:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holding is not an authoritative source either (a former prison chaplain with no relevant qualifications whatsoever).  Should I remove him?  Lippard and Carr have peer-reviewed articles published by a site which DOES have a Wikipedia page devoted to it. --Robert Stevens 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard are scholars. You certainly have not given any credentials for them which would leave me to believe they are scholars. I could find no biographies of them which would make me believe they are scholars.  Secondly, JP Holding is a notable person. This was discussed at Wikipedia and it was determined that Holding is notable. Lastly, I don't believe you have given compelling evidence demonstrating that Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard are notable.  By the way, I think the following quote from JP Holding in regards to Stephen Carr asking his readers to do research because he did not read a particular book was rather telling: "Well, this is a hoot! Asking the readership for help in the text of your publication? I can see it now - Einstein writing an article in Physics Journal: "Schroedinger says that quarks are made of whipped cream. This is from 'Quarks: Our Friends and Neighbors.' I do not have this book. Does anybody know what theories it refers to?"  Some books are rare and hard to get, but Carr needs to at least make an effort here." 
ken 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what definition of "notable" is J.P. Holding (pseudonym of former prison librarian turned online evangelical) notable and I'm not?  (I'd say either we both are or aren't.)  Likewise, under what definition of "scholar" does Holding qualify and I don't?  I wrote "Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah" while in the doctoral program in philosophy at the University of Arizona.  I didn't finish my dissertation (I earned an M.A., passed my comprehensive exams, and wrote one dissertation chapter before making a career change from academic philosophy back to working with computers), but I've published book chapters, magazine articles, and multiple peer-reviewed journal articles; several of them are cited in Wikipedia articles (e.g., in the entries for "Free Zone", "Scientology versus the Internet", "Ian Plimer", and "Henry M. Morris").  Does Holding have any academic credentials?  BTW, note that Peter Stoner's grandson, Don Stoner, is the author of _A New Look at an Old Earth_, and holds quite a different view from his grandfather.  He contacted me with favorable comments on my critique of his grandfather's book. Lippard 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are Jim Lippard and Stephen Carr? I don't believe they are authoritative or notable critics 

message: I am sorry but we have no real evidence that "Sauron", an anonymous user at a Internet Infidels discussion board, actually contacted Mr. Haas at the ASA. .  I would rather take the testimony of a professor (namely Peter Stoner) and H. HAROLD HARTZLER, Ph.D.
Secretary-Treasurer of Goshen College, Ind. 
, than take the testimony of an anonymous user at a Internet Infidels discussion board.  According to Professor Stoner, who cites H. HAROLD HARTZLER, Ph.D. Secretary-Treasurer of Goshen College, Ind., Professor Stoner's work Science Speaks was reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group was found, in general, to be dependable, accurate, and convincing in regard to the scientific material and the probability material presented in regards to prophecy.  I hope you are not saying that "Sauron", an anonymous user at a Internet Infidels discussion board, is a authoritative source that should be used at Wikipedia. ken 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not present that information in the article.  I presented it to YOU, personally, on this page only.  It was background information that I thought might be of interest. --Robert Stevens 08:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you can effectively use an anonymous poster at a Internet Infidels discussion board as background information in order to exclude information for the article.   He is not notable or authoritative.  However, with that being said I am revising my contribution to make it more accurate.  I formerly wrote:
Professor Stoner's work Science Speaks was reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group was found, in general, to be dependable, accurate, and convincing in regard to the scientific material and the probability material presented in regards to prophecy.   In addition, Christian apologetist JP Holding defended Professor Stoner's work in regards to its examination of Bible prophecy against the criticism of one of its critics.  
Here is the more accurate information:
 Professor Stoner's work Science Speaks was reviewed by a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group and has been found, in general, to be dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented and the probability material presented in regards to prophecy.   In addition, Christian apologetist JP Holding defended Professor Stoner's work in regards to its examination of Bible prophecy against the criticism of one of its critics.   ken 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sauron, an anonymous user at a Internet Infidels discussion board, is not a authoritative or notable source

message: I don't believe that it should be merely said that Professor Stoner believed the earth and universe are billions of years old.  I say this because I believe the record shows that Peter Stoner was a old earth creationist.  ken 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.  He seems to use the word "evolution" to refer only to naturalistic evolution: "We shall refer to that particular theory of evolution which supposes that life, in its most simple form, either developed on this earth spontaneously or was transplanted from some external source".  Maybe he believed in some sort of divinely-guided common descent: I don't know.  I did not specifically revert the claim of Stoner's possible Old-Earth creationism: but if you make such changes while also perpetrating vandalism, don't be surprised if some stuff gets lost in the inevitable revert.  I will put this back in my next revert. --Robert Stevens 11:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ...Ah, this appears to clinch it: "Since the same God created at least the basic forms of plants and animals, certainly we would expect to find great similarities of anatomical structure. Life is told in the scriptures to reproduce after its "kind.""  Standard OEC fare: belief in separate "created kinds".  And the arguments in Chapter 1, attempting to correlate the Genesis "days" with scientific claims, is also standard Old-Earth creationism.  I think this is sufficient evidence to add the "Old-Earth creationism" and "Creationists" categories. --Robert Stevens 14:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Stoner was a old earth creationist.  this is the most descriptive description of Peter Stoner. 

message: Hey all, I've got a question concerning the critisism section, it appears that the two links provided demonstrate just one critisism, that Stoner's account of prophecy did not line up with the viewpoint of two athiests on some minor points. Are there more citations to back up the claims in the article or is what I'm seeing as deep as it gets? --Home Computer∴Peace 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the existence of Tyre isn't just "the viewpoint of two atheists": I imagine the tens of thousands of residents of Tyre might have an opinion, if asked!  But this is easily verified from other sources.  It's just that most Tyrians, being unaware of their "nonexistence" according to Stoner, haven't made citable comments on this.  Such are the limitations of Wikipedia rules. --Robert Stevens 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about the works of one man and whether or not we can dig up any more reviews of his work. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, as McDowell didn't incorporate the whole of Science Speaks into Evidence that Demands a Verdict, the links provided don't address great chunks of Stoner's material.  I haven't found a source that specifically comments on (for instance) Stoner's "mammals" error in chapter 1. --Robert Stevens 13:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've got a copy of two of the McDowell books in front of me right now, thought I've never noticed the name Stoner till this article came up. Maybe I'll dig and see if I can come up with more. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well don't worry about others, lets make this a good article together. So far we've got mentions of Stoner's work, 2 non-notable athiests, McDowell and the ASA endorsement. I support leaving the athiest comments in simply because it's all we've got to work with right now but I wonder if there's not more info available. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see my comments above why Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard are not notable or authoratative critics.  ken 22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stoner critisism

message: Due to the discontinuation of Yahoo Geocities, the online edition of Science Speaks has moved to: ScienceSpeaks.net
Please make the necessary revisions. -Don Stoner (stonerdon@yahoo.com / dstoner.net) 71.107.114.224 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The online edition of Science Speaks has moved 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peter Stoner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012131030/http://cresourcei.org/ezekieltyre.html to http://www.cresourcei.org/ezekieltyre.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified