Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 2

message: I don't think this topic is so important to the understanding of AiG that it deserves a section that appears in table of contents.  The existing section does contains some important information about AiG's views, but I think these could be summarized into a paragraph and placed in a section that alrady exists.  Also, I think what was written about 9/11 is a little misleading.  By selectively quoting the phrase "encouraging reminder" it makes it appear that AiG has a wholly positive view of what happened on 9/11.  If you read the sourced article, it starts off by calling what happened on 9/11 a "sobering reminder" and ends by calling it a "solemn reminder". DennisF 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on 9/11, tsunami, and Katrina 

message: It seems odd to me that we only quote the first part of the AiG's Statement of Faith in the article.  Unless there is something in there that makes them different from other evangelical organizations then we should just have a reference to it with an external link so the reader can go to AiG's website to read it if they choose.  DennisF 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Quoting large sections of their charter doesn't seem very encyclopediac. It basically just says that they are Christians and biblical literalists, both of which are already mentioned in the article numerous times. Cut the section, I say. Ashmoo 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only quote first part of Statement of Faith? 

message: Since the intro is supposed to provide a summary, material in the intro should be repeated in the text.  Guettarda 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: Ashmoo,  Why did you remove that entire sentence in the intro?  Couldn't it have been fixed instead? DennisF 14:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to the intro 

message: Another problem I just noticed: the section labelled 'Criticism' is actually a discussion on the religious beliefs of a critic of AiG and contains no actual criticism. This looks like the wreckage of an edit war and really needs to be fixed. Ashmoo 02:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Some people are reverting lots of changes without explanation (except maybe POV-pushing, as if they don't push their own atheistic POV).  They should be more careful, because they are also putting back typos when they act so heavy-handedly.
The claim that "biologists" oppose AiG is POV.  AiG includes Ph.D. biologists.  So it should state "critics".
It is crass to keep putting back claims that natural selection invalidates teh specific creationists probability arguments, when they have pointed out, citing Dobzhansky, that natural selection cannot apply before self-reproduction, so cannot explain the first self-replicator.
Some critics don't understand the role of axioms.  E.g. the Copernican principle is one; it is not the result of science, but a framework by which scientific results are interpreted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.180.134 (talk • contribs) .
:I have not looked at the article recently but AiG's probability argument is wrong.  For example, AiG assumes the first replicator is a cell but the first replicator would have been a macromolecule not a cell. Dobzhansky did not say the first replicator was a cell that is AIG spin. So it is valid to say that natural selection could lead to the first cell. 
:With regard to biologists that is a fair claim.   If it makes you feel better it could say "99.5% of biologists" which is an accurate representation of the current state. David D. (Talk) 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Axioms are useless if the data does not support them. David D. (Talk) 05:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David D is unreasonably dogmatic about the state of current chemical evolutionary theories.  Many of them do regard a cell as the first replicator, since there is no example of a true molecular self-replicator.  So Dobzhansky's argument still holds, and was accurately cited by AiG, despite David D's spin.  Also, 99.9% of biologists haven't a clue about chemical evolution, and it has no practical application for their work.220.245.180.134 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply not true that there is no example of a "true molecular self-replicator". In particular, RNA has been shown to be able to reproduce itself (which is why the RNA world hypothesis was developed in the first place). --ScienceApologist 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true at all.  Read the article!  No way is RNA self-replicatiing.  Template-directed formation of a few short chains from activated nucleotides is hardly the same.  The RNA world hypothesis was extrapolated from the observation that some RNA can act as an enzyme.220.245.180.134 05:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way is RNA self-replicatiing. Tell that to the molecular biologist who see RNA self-replicating all the time. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy-handed reversions

message: Could we please tone down the language in the edit notes? Some editors have been repeatably accusing others of bullying, mendacious vandalism,  rank hypocrisy and being lazy, POV pushers and hypocrites. This sort of language borders on abusive.
Everyone here is just trying to make the article as good as possible according to their own point of view. I presume everyone has read Wikiquette?
Please see What_vandalism_is_not before accusing people of vandalism. Regards, Ashmoo 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language in edit notes

message: It sounds good for the opposition, but is it simply opinion, or is someone claiming she has the authority to make such a claim?  PrometheusX303 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, item 26 that you quoted was a charge made by AiG in their counter suit and not an opinion of the court. DennisF 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jennifer Warner quote 

message: Above, I outlined three other quotes regarding salary, related (directly or indirectly) to this discussion.  Are any of them to be included (I vote no, but wanted to make sure that we had a consensus) in the salary section? To recap:
* some anon on a web board --which I think is unfair to use 
* Henke's more general criticism ("Nevertheless, there is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause") about 'YEC ministries'--not directly about AiG, so wishy-washy
* or Sharpe's criticism of AiG US speaker/scientist Jason Lisle ("Finally, a big mystery is what is the motivation for Jason Lisle’s involvement with creationism ... Somewhat less favorable explanations are that he is in it for the money ... Getting a research position at a university is difficult, and if you get one it is a lot of hard work with bad pay. Going around the country talking about creationism and writing glossy creationist books is easy and pleasant work, with easy money, and one is at the top of the field with no competition. One can bask in the glory of showing Christians that one is a “true” Christian who knows science" {emphasis mine}) --most valid of these particular three, but Lisle is not on the 990 as one of the top paid
agapetos_angel 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Personal websites as sources. DennisF 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, AiG's form 990 lists highest paid employees who are not officers.  According to that, Lisle must be making less than $60K since he didn't make the list. DennisF 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another reason to leave that source out. Thanks for clarification. agapetos_angel 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other quotes regarding salary 

message: It was fun (but more frustrating) while it lasted but I am getting out of the salary dispute and Wikipedia editing all together.   I don't have the patience to deal with editors like Agapetos angel who don't understand why it is wrong to doctor up a statement made by a reporter to make it appear as an actual quote from Ken Ham.  Her response in the section "Looking for outside input on salary criticism" shows how truely clueless she is to the objections I've raised about the reliability of Warner as a source and the over OR-ness of the salary section.
For the other editors who I could actually carry a discussion with and receive coherent replies from, it was nice working with you.
I'm not looking for sympathy, just letting the other editors know why I am disappearing (and venting my frustration before I quit). DennisF 13:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to see you leave rather than trying to work things out.  It's not doctoring a statement when the reporter stated Ham said something (three times!), to show it as what Ham said (with the caveat that it is 'according to X reporter') rather than including the exact quote from the newspaper which included all three variations of 'he said'--it read odd that way.  As for your vent of frustration?  I give it a 5.9.  It had a good tune, but I couldn't dance to it. :) agapetos_angel 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia isn't for me. 

message: Since Dennis seems to dispute the Warner quote so heavily, would it perhaps be more appropriate to add the following after Warner's quote (showing other critics might illustrate it's not an isolated complaint):
* Similar complaints  were echoed by Dr Christopher Sharpe  on his 'domain name for commercial uses' CSharpe , and by Dr Kevin Henke  on John Stear's website NAiG .
I still vote 'no' because this pads heavily on "negative", rather than meeting NPOV, IMO.  However, I'm willing to add that if the anti-Warner view is still popular.  Warner expressed best the complaint, IMO, that several people have expressed in other versions. agapetos_angel 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the RfC results, I've added these two sources, while expressing the objection that this now moves it to the POV heavily negative. agapetos_angel 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing Criticism discussion 

message: :::Complaints of financially-driven agendas have been published with regard to the Creation museum development project. Lexington's Ace Weekly and Cincinnati's CityBeat quoted Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in the dismissed lawsuit/countersuit with AiG (USA), saying, "It's all about making money.  They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination."  Similar points have also been addressed by Kevin Henke  who made a generalised complaint about  YEC ministries: "Nevertheless, there is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause".  
:::Subseqent articles by the Kentucky Post staff reporter, Kevin Eigelbach, about Answers in Genesis' (USA) message, reported Ham's salary for 2001 and Ham's defense of that salary amount: People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices [I] made to get the ministry started.  [I] had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with [my] teacher's retirement pay.
:::According to Guidestar, the United States branch of AiG had revenue exceeding $10 million in 2004. In that year, Ken Ham was compensated $185,572. Other high ranking officials were compensated $115,621 (Dale Mason), $92,352 (Carl Kerby), $91,316 (Mike Zovath), $89,133 (Mark Looy) and $86,068 (Kathy Ellis).
This is an effort to address everyones concerns.  Possibly we can edit on the talk page for a while and try and hammer out some prose that work for all. David D. (Talk) 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working copy of '''Financial motivations''' 

message: Let me be very clear that I have no agendas in my edits regarding AiG.  My only purpose for being involved with this project is to see that AiG is treated fairly.  I want to see this article well written including criticisms.  I don't think NPOV is reached by trying to balance each side, but is reached by allowing each side to be accurately represented.
Opening sentence:  I believe using the word "weathered" implies that AiG has somehow survived a crisis and is too strong.  I think the difficulty you had in finding sources to back up this section refute that this criticism is an area that plaques AiG.  How about a compromise and we open the section saying, "AiG has been criticized…" or something to that fact.
Csharp paragraph: In my opinion, this quote is the most influential quote to show that AiG is "in it for the money".  I've been thinking that I would like to include Sharp's full quote including his belief that Lisle may be delusional.
Henke paragraph:  As you can obviously tell, I am not trying to whitewash this whole section.  I just didn't think the quote by Henke was a criticism towards AiG.  It was more directed towards their financial supporters.
Warner paragraph:  If we are going to mention the countersuit, shouldn't we also mentioned the basis for it?  I am not trying to whitewash the countersuit, I was just trying to be brief and only presenting information that I thought was important.  Here's another suggestion, since we are mentioning the lawsuit, why not provide a source for it?  AiG has posted a copies of the court filing (not sure if that's the proper word for it).
Guidestar paragraph: I am fine with your rewording.  Let's flip the salary range so that it goes from lowest to highest.  I think that is the proper way to report a range.  See comment below about CN.
Kentucky Post paragraph:  I am fine with your wording.  Never mind what I wrote, I was just trying to improve it and that was an incomplete draft that slipped past me.
Armstrong paragraph:  I think providing context for a quote is only necessary when it helps better interpret the quote.  In this case, I don't describing the article adds any value to the quote.  If you think it does, go ahead and leave it in there.  I was just trying to keep the section brief where it made sense.  I am against your wording of ‘responded directly against criticism of this nature’.  Are we in a position to judge what Hollingworth's meant?  All he said was 'creationists have a lot of money'.  Since we don't know the exact source of this quote, we can't even be sure he had AiG in mind when he quoted this!  I agree that we should proceed with caution since we can not verify this quote (I tried searching for it on Google with no success).  Maybe we should just give the context of Armstrong responding to criticism of 'creationists having a lot of money' and leave Hollingworth's name out of it.
On the CN data:  I think it is almost irresponsible for us to be aware of data and objective rankings provided by CN.  Personally, I would like to see even more info from CN included.  Everything else in the section is the opinion on one side versus the opinion on the other side.  Here's some hard data and it needs to be included.  I've already included the data that compares Ham's salary to the national average for religious charities (something that even CN advices us against doing!).  When you say we must then include all the negative aspects of the CN data, what exactly are you referring to?  CN has given AiG good ratings that they rightfully deserve.  We shouldn't be trying to reach NPOV by making sure the positive-negative scales are balanced, but by making sure that each side is fairly represented.  I think that is unfair to AiG to censor this data that treats them favorably.
I am too busy to make a rewrite now.  I can make an attempt in the next few days if you don't want to. DennisF 14:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DF response 

message: : Let's agree, then, that introducing a POV or failing to correct to a NPOV is not caused by either of us serving an agenda.  My concern is not that 'AiG is treated fairly' (or that the critics are treated fairly for that matter), but that the information is accurately represented.  The first is the job of their PR department; the second is the responsiblity of the editors here.  You said, 'I don't think NPOV is reached by trying to balance each side, but is reached by allowing each side to be accurately represented'. These two things are often intertwined, though, Dennis.  For example, to accurately represent the material on CN for inclusion, 'the bad and the ugly' has to be presented with the 'good'. More on this below.
: Opening sentence:  I will agree to different verb usage, but prefer that it flows from the other criticisms to keep the section from reading choppy.  There wasn't difficulty in finding sources that criticise 'in it for the money' (remember that at first it was direct criticism of Ham; Criticisms of AiG being 'in it for the money' are more vast than the ones supplied, actually but I didn't want to oversource in heaps of negative (google AiG+Plimer, for example; however, inclusion would have necessitated far too much space coverage, which I wasn't prepared to do, for accurate representation of the issues.  That mention would be nearly an article in itself.)  To my eye, 'weathered' was more like standing in a storm, blowing back (criticism) and forth (replies).  I'll wait to see your rewrite; see how we go.
:Csharp paragraph: This quote is definitely one of 'the most influential quote[s]'.  Quoting the entire section and adding more appears to be more to discredit Sharp than to just report the information in the concise manner requested by other editors.  Do you really think it's a good idea to add then, then have to address 'his belief that Lisle may be delusional'?  I'm sorry, but introducing extraneous information can sometimes (like in this instance) introduce undue weight by 'opening a can of worms'.  My version provided the background that Durova suggested.  It also briefly indicates who the critics are and where they come from, which can be just as important (e.g., NAiG articles are by their very nature written with criticism directly against AiG; therefore, that needs to be pointed out). 
:Henke paragraph:  It was more directed towards their financial supporters:  I strongly disagree.  There was no indication that the supporters were to blame; Henke laid it all on the shoulders of the ones that he accuses of taking the money.  AiG is often referred to as the largest YEC ministry; therefore, it is appropriate to use this generalised complaint.
:Warner paragraph:  If you want to add a paragraph/section about the lawsuits, by all means do so as a separate section.  Opposition to the land developement and the museum is well sourced.  However, brief indication does not equal presenting half the story.  That 'poisons the well'.  Better to exclude all, or more accurately, to include lawsuit/countersuit, then write about the lawsuits there in more detail in another section.  Didn't check the source, but if it's accurate and relevant, why not use it?
:Guidestar paragraph: Agreement reached (?) - The salary ranking was changed by Ashmoo, so check her reasons before changing it back, I'd say.
:Kentucky Post paragraph:  Agreement reached (No worries.  I've done the same sort of thing.  Easy when there is heaps to discuss.)
:Armstrong paragraph:  By all means, then, leave the context out (I was trying to meet that request across the board; hated that inclusion actually as it was far too wordy).  Let's just let Armstrong speak for himself by saying something very brief like '... Armstrong disagrees' then the quote.  Armstrong provides enough background in that quote for it to be self sufficient.  ... Armstrong is for his full name and I'd say that there should be indication of his ties to AiG.  That allows appropriate caution to that bit.
:On the CN data:  Dennis, I'll give you time to look back over the history of the article and talk addresses this point fully.  It's not censoring data, but rather keeping undue weight from creeping into the section.  Adding the CN data postive necessitates adding the CN data negative for accurate reporting.  We've been back and forth on this issue, and I have to strongly stand on it all goes (brevity) or it all stays (undue weight).  I vote for brevity over undue weight.
:I'll wait a day or so to see your re-write attempt.  Thank you for continuing to work this out in compromise. agapetos_angel 02:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Forgot to add that I'd removed the section pending agreement on the best wording to avoid any appearance of edit warring. agapetos_angel 03:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with with the arguments on this page due to being busy with work. I'd just pop in to respond to the salary order section. I definitely think it should go from highest to lowest. Ordering should be most significant to least significant and in this case the higher salaries are more significant to the premise of the paragraph. Ashmoo 22:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries.  Makes sense Ashmoo.  I'll wait another day to see if Dennis makes the re-write, and if not, I'll post a compromise that includes the agreed upon points with my points which can be addressed/edited later. agapetos_angel 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA response 

message: I've just posted my last edit.  I know there will be some points AA disagrees with but hopefully we are moving closer to the text we can both agree on.
Intro sentence:  I still think we should avoid using the word "weathered" as it can mean different things to different people (such as the both of us).  Hopefully, my new intro statement is one that you will agree with.
Sharpe quote:  I have included the full quote.  It only adds one short sentence and I think it now flows much better.  Sharpe makes two speculations on Lisle's involvement with AiG.  He calls one "most favorable" and the other "less favorable".  To clip his quote and focus on only one speculation while clipping the one he considers "most favorable" might be quoting out of context.
Warner:  I am only briefly mentioning the lawsuit/countersuit with a link to AiG if anybody wants to see the details of the court filings.
Armstrong quote:  I think it is important to include the context of what Armstrong was quoting so I have introduced the quote as being a "response to a comment amount creationists having a lot of money".  I think that is precise yet keeps us out of trouble for not knowing the exact quote from the archbishop.
The Guidestar paragraph:  I still don't follow your reasoning for leaving the CN data out.  Why does the CN source have to be an all or nothing?  What's wrong with being brief as I have and only mentioning the data that is most relevant to the amount of Ken Ham's salary?  I have included a comparison of Ham salary to averages regardless of the size of the charity (a comparison that CN themselves advices us from doing but I am including it as a compromise) as well as to the average when based on a percentage of expenses.  Maybe the reason I don't have a problem with the CN data is because I view it as being mostly favorable to AiG.  You seem to think that the data on CN is mostly unfavorable to AiG thus any mention of CN that appears as being favorable to AiG is then misrepresenting it.  Is this your reasoning for wanting it excluded? DennisF 18:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: This is a collective award, so I invite everyone here to copy and paste it to their own user page.  Good work. Durova 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Durova.  That was very kind.  I appreciate your suggestions and assistance in this and other areas. agapetos_angel 01:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's recently been established that agapetos angel is personally involved in AiG, the topic of this article. Based on recent disruptive behavior, agapetos angel is enjoined by policy and precedent from further editing on this topic. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: false. Kim Bruning 07:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a preclusion does indeed exist. Arbcomm has made a number of findings and rulings that editors should not participate on topics in which they are personally involved. Here's two off the top of my head:     There's also WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself and WP:BLP#Malicious_editing which are analogous. FeloniousMonk 07:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cautioned, not enjoined. You are making statements where it is not your place to do so. Kim Bruning 07:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other's have been enjoined by the arbcomm for this same behavior. That's called precedent. Precedent establishes common law. Enforcing policy is very much within the purview of an administrator's duties, even when such policy is established by precedent. The distinction here between cautioned and enjoined is soon to become academic if agapetos_angel continues disrupting articles she's personally involved in. FeloniousMonk 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Taking it to her talk page has been tried for weeks and is not an option any longer; she simply deletes all comments, warnings, cautions, etc. as "trolling" or "vandalism," often accompanied with a personal attack.  Try asking Guettarda about how well that works. Agapetos_angel, by lying about her personal role and involvement at Answers in Genesis and with Jonathan Sarfati and dismissing all attempts to curb her highly pov editing and 3RR vios has left us little option but an infobx. FeloniousMonk 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you need to try a block to get her attention, and if that doesn't work and you want that ban to have teeth you should go to arbcom with the case, and once they accept it, if the situation really is dire, apply for a temporary injunction. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wise advice. Agreed.  FeloniousMonk 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Misrepresentation.  Guettarda posted repeatedly on my talk page (10 times in one day, one edit was to put quote marks in a header that I created), which were viewed after attempts to discuss the matter as a continuing disruption because of the bolded accusations of lying, dishonesty, lies, etc. that he was making (archive).  I told him twice to stop or I would remove any future posts, which I did . Claiming it is a personal attack to say that behaviour was trolling is incongruent.  I posted once on Guettarda's talk page, and it was removed with the edit summary 'deleted trolling', and his old talk page had the statement that trolling would be removed.  Therefore, as pointed out to FM already, deleting after warning, and using edit summary in the same vein that Guettarda used, hardly constitutes a personal attack by me, no matter how many times and places FM repeats it.  To be consistent, FM would also have to accuse Guettarda of NPA violation as well. agapetos_angel 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar 

message: Sannse requested a *STOP*  so any further failure to address these continuing accusations is to be viewed as a compliance with that request rather than an inability to defend. agapetos_angel 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop

message: From the article:
*AiG has compiled a list of "scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation" to show that it is possible for a modern working scientist to accept creationism.
The sentence touches on the dispute over whether a modern working scientist can accept Creationism. But is it an either-or question?
Creationism is split into schools of thought. One aspect over which creationism is split, is whether:
*God created all forms of life at once (say, a million years ago or even much less); or,
*God created all forms of life gradually, over the same period of time which geologists and biologists say life appeared
Is this related to various attitudes toward the fossil record? Unificationist scholars, for example, all accept the fossil record and join mainstream biologists in dismissing Young Earth creationism as pseudoscience. So where does this leave creationists who accept the fossil record?
Can all opponents of evolution can legitimately be lumped together, or are there significant differences among creationists that deserve to be distinguished?
At any rate, we ought to clarify who is accusing whom of pseudoscience and why. Perhaps a chart or table would help. Uncle Ed 12:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science and creationism

message: Just checking with the other editors before I remove it.  I don't see an active disputes over the existing content in the article. DennisF 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  totallydisputed tag, do we still need it?