Talk:Creationist cosmologies/Archive 1

message: What's this? Is the two column pro/contra presentation the newest invention? It for sure goes against normal policy, or am I confused here? --Pjacobi 15:07, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
: this is just an expansion of the Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared page -- it's a new idea, but it's an attempt to place the two viewpoints side by side, to allow for point-by-point comparison, allowing for an npov description of two povs.  Ungtss 15:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: The page is the sole surviving member of the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared deletion. I think it was spared because the format was changed into what you see now. It is my opinion that this page needs a lot of work. We should strive to have decent summaries of the ideas and decent scientific critiques of them. Perhaps we should remerge this page with Non-standard cosmology.
Joshuaschroeder 03:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like it's well on its way to being another jpov, uncited personal-research essay.  keep up the good work.  Ungtss 03:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it certainly looks like you haven't added a lot to this page, nor do you offer any substantive critique. All par for the course, I guess. Joshuaschroeder 06:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: add?  what could i possibly add to this marvel of well-crafted jpov bullshit?  perhaps i'm just tired of arguing with your ignorance.  Ungtss 15:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps you don't know anything about the subject. Joshuaschroeder 15:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: if that were true, that would certainly make two of us, and make you the only one willing to exhibit your ignorance.  sadly no.  i know of these things and know of their problems.  nobody will deny that these cosmologies have problems.  but mainstream cosmologies are even MORE ridiculous.  what's funny about you is, you think your ignorance is superior to everybody else's.  Ungtss 16:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find it so problematic and are so sure of your superior familiarity with cosmologies both creationist and mainstream, why don't you edit the article? I'm happy to entertain your notion that "mainstream cosmologies are even MORE ridiculous", but I haven't seen any evidence that you are familiar with said "mainstream cosmologies". Joshuaschroeder 00:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure where to go with this page

message: I removed the remark from the last item and put it in a separate paragraph [this may have simply been an oversight by the original editor].
I also put the actual URL where the repository of Humphrey's responses are located.
Finally, I will add some remarks about the difficulty of cosmological systems in general in an effort to lend at least a little parity to the page.
Phantym 01:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humphreys answer his critics 

message: I was disgusted to see that a mound of information, 
:there was no information, but there was a lot of misinformation and propaganda.
mostly simply allowing the reader to see what the various physicists had said in their own defense, was reverted.
:physicists? Barry Setterfield is not a physicist. Russel Humphreys is a physicist in a field that is unrelated to cosmology.
Please read carefully the policies of wikipedia.
:fact reigns supreme.
It is not our place to judge whether  we happen to think a scientist's views are logical, that is not what we are here for.
It is certainly not reasonable to remove an entier theory [as the reversion did].
:The removal of an entire theory was not done.
Finally, to flatly say "Quantized Red shift doesn't exist" and refer me to an article that does not even discuss it is ludicrous.  Physicists in the US, at Cambridge, and at Canada's National Research Council support it. 
:Baloney. Show me any paper on the totality of redshifts that shows quantization. 
IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO JUDGE things that publishing scientists do not agree on.  That is arrogant and very much non-neutral.
:The publishing scientists agree: Humpreys is a hack, Setterfield uneducated, and Halton Arp a has-been.
And it is absolutely ridiculous to remove a post simply indicating how a physicist answers his critics.
:It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the answers were not addressed originally.
Refer readers to the criticism, refer them to the responses, refer them to all the 'debunking' pages you want, but don't remove a vast array of information simply because you do not like it.
:I will remove nonsense and lies because wikipedia should not support them.
:We have to weight the sources, and a first, but usually telling, attempt gives the result that "Quantized Red shift" is not a topic of scholarly discussion in the field. See:
:*http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Quantized+Red+shift%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
:*Same result on http://www.arxiv.org/find
:Pjacobi 20:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
::Well put Pjacobi. Joshuaschroeder 20:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous revert 

message: I have reverted the article back to EC's July 4th edit, before
massive POV were introduced. There was little to be salvaged from
the later rewrites for myriad reasons:
1. Rampant POV
:Not true.
2. Rampant uncited and/or original reserach
:Again, not true
3. Discussion at length about mainstream science and/or its
viewpoint on creationist cosmologies rather than the creationist
cosmologies themselves.
:Since mainstream science is the way cosmology is described, it needs to be there.
4. From the talk pages it is clear that some editors have 
an inaccurate viewpoint of the subject matter.  For example,
Gentry's cosmology is certainly not a modification of Humphrey's.
One has a white-hole singularity instantiated at the beginning of
time [the other does not].
:The modification of the Friedmann Equations by Gentry has the same effect as the white hole.
Gentry's is not bounded (he only states
the visible universe is bounded.  
:Actually, Humphreys only says that the visible universe is bounded too.
Gentry and Humphreys rely on
different forces to cause time distortion.
:Not technically. The forces are both claimed to be part of a gravitational initial point.
Another example is the
remarks about quanitzed redshift. It is true that red shift is
caused in mainstream science not by the cosmological constant
but by the expansion of space-time (which is linked to the
cosmological constant, but does not rely upon it), but this
miswrite by one author does not call for the editorial response it
received since the idea remains the same: that modern astronomy
does not understand redshift correctly.
:What is this supposed to mean? Redshift quantization is not a documented idea, it is cited as a non-mainstream critique and that is discussed.
Furthermore, disparaging
quantized redshift [or flat out saying it does not exist] flies in
the face of research done by scientists at Oxford [Bill Napier]
the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh [Bill Guthries] and most
recently the Canadian National Science Research Center [M. Bell,
2003].  Napier and Guthrie (the latter who has worked as an
astronomer at the observatory for over 20 years) published
research showing a quantization of redshift that had a p-value
less than 1 in 10 million!
:This does not address the main point made in nonstandard cosmologies which is that sky surveys do not show the quantization.
To simply dump this down the trash
chute as "Fringe" or deny its existence altogether shows either a
deep bias or an ignorance of the subject matter.
:We don't need to entertain the ignorance of certain editors.
I have made some changes to the revision.  For those keeping
score, 5 of these corrections are, loosely, removing of POV on one
side while the other 4 remove POV on the other side:
a) I have removed some discussion of the big bang (including some
misplaced laudatory remarks...the big bang actually got the CBR
wrong by orders of magnitude...and was "fixed" afterward.
b) Creationists do not discuss the Horizon problem as much as
others (in particular redshift issues), so I have truncated that
discussion
c) I have removed every criticism that is not accompanied by
citation. Wikipedia is not original research. There has been a
stated need for this documentation for over two weeks.
d) Removed the peacock expression lauding Setterfield's cosmology.
Yes, it explains quantized redshift, but the reader who cares can
discover that on his own.
e) Removed unneeded discussion of non-creationist, non-mainstream
cosmologies.
f) Removed the "It is unclear what effect these constants not
being constant has." The statement is probably true, but is POV.
That paragraph already contains suitably neutral language.
g) Removed Peacock expressions from beginning of Gentry's
discussion for the same reason Setterfield's
h) Removed the list of cosmic phenomena explained by Gentry's
model in favor of three sentences describing its relation to new
and future experiments.
i) Removed obvious POV from "light created in transit" paragraph.
-Phantym
:I'm not very happy with your change, but not concerned enough to blindly revert. 
:But please do all of us a favour and learn something about Wiki editing and style, you always badly garble the Wiki source of the article.
:Pjacobi 21:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
::The change is unacceptable. I'm going to revert. Joshuaschroeder 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to EC's June 4 (with some revision)