User talk:Bensaccount

Creation vs. Evolution debate

Please do not insert the term "ignorant" into the article. It is extremely POV and offensive. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:NPOV and personal attack.

P.s. if you can find out who said about "creationists think that monkeys and humans both having arms is coincidence", then it can be quoted, and thus can be put into the article.

In fact, 100% of the pro-evolution quotes can be removed on the condition that that quote be the last thing in the article. CheeseDreams 23:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if you noticed I only inserted this term as an afterthought. My first thought was to make the entire article a redirect to ignorance. Only later did it occur to me that although this debate is between the ignorant (people who don't understand what a scientific theory is) it does still exist so it deserves a page. It would be POV however to treat this as an intelligent issue, because it is not. It is only an issue among the ignorant. Bensaccount 00:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit conflict

It was Rednblu editing some part of the text (possibly the whole thing) at the same time as I was editing the last section, causing the whole thing to be duplicated. Your reversion has just removed both of our contributions, could you please be more careful about reverting. If there is an edit conflict, you are supposed to extract both sets of additions, put them in the same part of the article, and remove the duplicated text. Rednblu was going to do that. CheeseDreams 20:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. it's dealt with now. CheeseDreams

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk) 18:27, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Oxidation of hydrogen gas.png and Image:Palestine.png. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, — Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams You can comment on the talk page, or in "evidence" CheeseDreams 00:55, 11 December 2004

You make scientists look bad

And just for the record, maybe you can find the source for this: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." Bensaccount 22:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That Charles Darwin would end his First Edition to his Origin of Species with that sentence was probably a mistake in using "having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one." What is your point? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Darwin made a mistake and accidently wrote something he didn't mean in the last paragraph of his conclusion to The Origin of the Species. He probably was in such a rush to publish that he didn't take the time to properly formulate his ideas. Also, Einstein, messed up while writing E=mc^2. He meant that E=mc^3. He just lost his concentration toward the end. Bensaccount 23:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My subsequent attempt to educate you

Here is a tutorial created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.[[1] (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml)].

• Okay. I am listening. And what pray are the learning objectives (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/templates/objectivetool.html)? Can you at least name one objective? What is your point? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forget it, it was just a vague attempt, no real objectives in mind. Bensaccount 03:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

•  ??? ---Rednblu | Talk 05:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

• Image:Gear_icon.png
• Image:Gear_icon1.png
• Image:Gear_icon2.png
• Image:Gears_icon.png

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Also: Image:TRNA2.png, and I put TRNA.png in IFD since it doesn't seem to be used, please correct if I'm wrong. (Duk 03:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC))

About the misleading statistics and their misleading supporters

I've been watching the discussion at Talk:Creation_vs._evolution_debate, and having seen your question there and the allegations it implies and having personally experienced something similar with two of the editors you refer to, I thought you would benefit from reading this: User_talk:Rednblu/Archive2003_07_01To2004_10_30#Allegations_against_User:Rednblu --FeloniousMonk 19:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can not say for sure that Rednblu is duplicitous. I give him the benefit of the doubt and credit him with ignorance. Bensaccount 22:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

$10

Nope. He came back. I think he might be a bot actually.

To Do list

Could you add these two pages to your to do list, there is some extremely POV editing going on by TBSDY

• 1 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there - [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_and_Gnosticism&diff=0&oldid=9885700)
• 2 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there - [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=9181224&oldid=9166102) , [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=9329916&oldid=9281275), and most of all [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=9887037&oldid=9853957)

Also note that the critical books removed are the more respected of the group, but the ones left in more dubious. The same goes for trying to tie all of the aspects to people like Hislop, Freke, and Gandy. Also note that Freke & Gandy's book was regarded by the Daily Telegraph as "an erudite and well researched book stuffed with controversial ideas", and so inserting only the CNN viewpoint is a heavy and POV attempt to discredit it.

Here are some links you might find useful for commenting on TBSDY

• WP:RFC
• WP:RFM
• WP:RFAR

Thanks. Good luck. And don't give in. And just to check what is going on

• WP:AN

I've just seen this. Please, feel free to review my edits! Also be aware that this is most likely CheeseDreams commenting, however she has been blocked for a day for editing articles related to Christianity (and thus violating the ArbCom order) and then blocked for a week for using someone to edit for her as a proxy. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and also I suggest that you carefully look at the edit history. I did not remove the book reviews that talks about the "erudite and well researched books (etc)" comment. That was another user, not related to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My to do list can be found at [[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Goals_for_the_intro)]. Bensaccount 17:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quote

From Churchill

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

Never give in— never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Warning - your images could be deleted

Hello. I was image tagging, when I came across Image:Gears icon.png. You don't seem to be responsive to image copyright questions. If we can't determine the copyright statuses of your images, they will soon be deleted. They're good images, and we'd like to keep them around. Please let me know the source and copyright information for the images people have asked you about above. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Titration

In the article for Titration you added "isothermal titration calorimeter uses the heat of reaction in an" under "Types". To this day the sentence has not been completed.

Someone42 08:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

similar/related

For two words to mean the same, they have to be able to used interchangeably wherever they appear. That is, they have to have the same extensions and intensions. 'Similar' and 'related' have neither, and all that your examples show is that their extensions overlap. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But for two words to be used interchangably in a certain context they don't need to always have the same meaning. You have not proved your point. You haven't even demonstrated you know what a synonym is. Bensaccount 18:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You've just committed the fallacy (perhaps the most commonly committed) of affirming the consequent. I'm not saying that synonymy is a condition of interchangeablity (in certain contexts), but that interchangeability (in all contexts) is a condition of synonymy.

Incidentally, you might find life pleasanter if you could learn to be just a trifle less aggressive and rude to people with whom you disagree. You might even consider granting that other people have knowledge and intelligence (and even that they might sometimes be right). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That fallacy does not apply to definitions. A pail is defined as a rough cylinder that is vessel open at the top. Therefore saying that all rough cylinders with vessels open at their tops are pails, is a logical conclusion. If it weren't the definition would be flawed.

You are wrong. Synonyms don't need to be interchangeable in all contexts to be synonyms. They only need to be interchangeable in one context. I have no patience for pride. If you are wrong, admit it, or suffer the consequences. Bensaccount 18:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Simply stating that you're right, but more aggressively, is hardly likely to convince anybody.

synonym n. 1. a word that means the same or nearly the same as another word, such as bucket and pail. 2. a word or phrase used as another name for something, such as Hellene for a Greek

(The Collins English Dictionary)

Perfect synonyms “are separate words whose meaning, both denotation and connotation, is identical, so that one can always be substituted for the other without change in the effect of the sentence in which it is done.” Imperfect synonyms “can sometimes be substituted ”, etc.

Fowler's Modern English usage)

If, of course, two terms are imperfect (that is, occasional) synonyms, it is wrong simply to call them synonyms. It is always wrong to say that they mean the same.

As for suffering the consequences, and all that rubbish — you really should calm down and try talking sense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A perfect syonym is very rare. Most synonyms are imperfect, therefore there is no reason for me to add this adjective, it is assumed. User:bensaccount 19:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am aggressive and rude, but perhaps you don't know the full story. Every now and then Ungtss brings up this example in an attempt to prove my stupidity. He is wrong, and so are you. Bensaccount 19:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nature1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Nature1.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Since you've moved Creation beliefs to Origins beliefs, could you please immediately fix the large number of old links and double redirects that you have left behind? -- FP 04:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Rednblu

<<I noticed you spoke of nominating Rednblu for admin. I have spent a lot of time with Rednblu on talk:creation-evolution controversy. He is not the kind of user I would want as an admin. Have you ever seen this user do anything worthwhile on Wikipedia? Bensaccount 00:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)>> citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kim_Bruning&diff=next&oldid=12410762)

Ben! Ben! You and I have to grow up here, I suggest. Though we have rarely been on the same side in our discussions about what should appear in Wikipedia articles, I have learned much from our discussions. And let me say that I am sorry for any hurt that the vigor of our discussions and my learning has caused to anyone--and especially I apologize for any hurt that our discussions has caused to you. Accordingly, I suggest that you and I take this opportunity to examine 1) whatever "lack in worthwhile" you have seen in our discussions and examine 2) what our divergence in views means for the very serious commitment to NPOV. Would you not agree that our sometimes extreme divergence in views has serious implications for how NPOV actually manifests in Wikipedia articles--such as the Creation-evolution controversy page? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other than your repeated (paranoid?) insistance that citation = neutrality, you have contributed nothing to the page in question. Your insistance on taking sides and "writing for the enemy" has not had any positive implications on Wikipedia articles. You repeatedly claim to be an "evolutionist" but yet you only take issue with those points that would be favorable to "evolutionists". This leads be to believe you are duplicitous. And most recently you have started a trend of calling people "censors" for no apparent reason (delusional?).Bensaccount 01:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for discussing these problems with me. You raise several good points. I will pick your point that I feel has the greatest "sting"  :)) namely the word censor. Within a set of rules about how NPOV actually operates on Wikipedia, someone who violates those rules by brute force would be a censor would they not? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who is throwing the term around for no apparent reason, you should know what it means. Bensaccount 15:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, folks, break it up, I didn't mean to start any fights eh?

Bensaccount, there's a lot of discussion on talk:creation-evolution controversy, though just from random browsing, Rednblu's behaviour seems excellent. Could you point to the aspects of his behaviour that you're talking about? At his request he still has roughly 3 months before nomination, so if there's anything in particular, we might work on solving it.

Thank you for taking your time to point things out!

Kim Bruning 19:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can understand why you might be led to believe Rednblu's behaviour is excellent. He is very deceptive, and hides behind buzzwords like "personal research" and "NPOV". Here is a classic example of the contributions of Rednblu to Wikipedia -- Here he is trying to get the creation-evolution controversy to be called a scientific debate: "I suggest that we should report in the article what actual scholars have said about the controversy. Keeping the implication that this is a "scientific" debate out of the article is an interesting piece of personal research, but that is not what published scholars actually say. What do you say? Let's do NPOV and report what published scholars actually say." If this is not enough, I will produce more when he is nominated. Finally, don't you find it odd that he does not address being called duplicitous, but instead discusses the definition of "censor"?Bensaccount 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Kim Bruning (talk • contribs) is far from neutral in all this; he supports disruptive and PoV-pushing users like Sam Spade, Rednblu, Ungtss, et al. at every opportunity. He presents himself as a reasonable moderator of disputes, an honest broker, but the pattern of his behaviour is painfully clear after only a brief examination (and I've done more than that). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting WHEELER and Netoholic. Check my RfA, check RFAr and check policy pages. You may want to revert your above comment. I'll drop a note on your user talk. Kim Bruning 23:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've now talked with several people about nominating Rednblu, some strongly in favor, some strongly opposed. I'm finally quite confused as to what I should do, to be honest. I'll think about things some more before I decide. Thank you for your message dd 17 april. Kim Bruning 10:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image idea for Creation-evolution controversy

A guy/gal in a science coat in a lab with a fancy microscope (perhaps with a TV output showing what's going on to the camera). The "scientist" is leaning forward but between his eyes and the microscope is an open Bible (perhaps over one of the eyepieces). :) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds too abstract, but if you can upload it I will give my opinion. Bensaccount 20:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

You put the following message on my talk page:

Lately you have been reverting my edits on creation science for no reason. Discuss these edits on the talk page before you revert again. My edits are very well-explained. Dispute resolution involves discussion, not only reversion. Bensaccount 14:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, but that's a lie. I have always given reasons, and we've discussed them previously on the talk pages extensively. The problem is that you always insist upon restoring parts that the talk page has already reached consensus on that they violate NPOV policy. It's the exact same issue that was already settled. I am against the POV pushing that creationist try to do on these pages, but I am also against your POV pushes as well. It is your OPNION that creation is not a science, that is NOT a fact. The article already says that the vast majority of scientists say that, to go a step further and have the article agree with them is taking sides. We already discussed this, please don't try to pretend that we didn't, and everyone but you (including several people who also are there to stop the creationists' POV pushing) agreed to it. DreamGuy 02:43, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

So basically, a couple of biased users say it is "POV to say creation science isn't science", provide no reason why it would be POV to say this, and suddenly we have consensus that can no longer be discussed, no matter how many further reasons are presented. In fact, the last time you discussed your reversions, (deep in the archives before a lot of discussion took place) you yourself said "Sorry, Bensaccount, but placing the Bible beyond question makes it dogma AND makes it not science. " Still think its just my opinion and not a fact? I will continue to provide more reasons on talk:creation science, hopefully you will join the discussion rather than just mindlessly reverting. Bensaccount 15:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Creation science

(cur) (last) 18:24, May 29, 2005 Bensaccount (rv -- Someone ban me, I am sick of Wikipedia.)

• No one is forcing you to edit. If you're sick of it, just step away from your computer and stop editing. Mgm|^(talk) 18:28, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I take it that your illness has subsided. I will revert your unilateral modification of the CS introduction now. Dan Watts 19:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The gathering of crackpot creationists at CS does not make reality unilateral. Bensaccount 19:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nor does your opinion mark the gold standard of reality. Dan Watts 19:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it sure beats calling the flintstones scientific. Bensaccount 20:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can give yourself faint praise there. Dan Watts 22:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that we agree, whats next for you Dan? How about saying the magic carpet is a feat of engineering? Bensaccount 23:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of looking at finite rock viscosity effects on the earth and moon. And you? Dan Watts 23:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I wonder, could there be a hidden agenda for this? Why would anyone care about "rock viscosity on the moon". A quick search on google and... voila, its another bullshit creationist attempt to call the earth 5000 years old. You really have to try harder to hide your motives Dan. You aren't fooling anyone. Bensaccount 00:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who said that I was trying to hide anything? Have you read Kumagai and Ito's paper on granite viscosity? It is fascinating. Or you could try spallation products of cosmic rays interacting with comets, or Oort cloud and/or Kuiper belt stability when passing through the Milky Way spiral arms. Dan Watts 01:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why must you refer to these unknown snake-oil salesmen and their obvious propaganda? Don't you realize that it is made for one purpose -- to misguide the feeble-minded (like yourself)? Bensaccount 18:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kyoto collegiate geological professors as snake-oil salesmen? Or do you just mean unknown to you? By the way, how long are you going to skip responding to the description of Dr. Lammerts experiment that I reported? How was the google search on cosmic ray induced spallation products in comets and trans-neptune orbital stability viz Milky Way spiral arms? Dan Watts 00:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Snake-oil salesman indeed. Lammerts is a hack. Just because he recorded his method of messing with tree growth does not justify his observation that trees can have excessive rings. The rest is equal bullshit and does not deserve any serious thought. Bensaccount 00:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really? What was missing in Lammerts' paper viz justification? It surely appeared that there were extra rings on those trees. That in itself would justify his observation. Why do you think Kumagai and Ito are (were, Kumagai may no longer be alive) snake-oil salesmen? I believe your vandalisms of the Creation Science intro have gone on long enough. Dan Watts 00:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol, read it again. I said quite clearly why his "observations" werent justified. Poor misguided Dan -- when will you learn?

I have learned that you reply to facts with ad hominem attacks. It appears that you have no technical-based critique of Lammerts' paper ("Lammerts is a hack" does NOT meet minimum requirements). Dan Watts 11:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just told you why his obserervations are ridiculous. Can't you read? Just because some hack messes with certain trees and produces growth rings this does not justify the observation that trees that that haven't been messed with also can produce extra growth rings. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Lammerts has no data. Show me the data, and I will further inform you how much you have been brainwashed by this propaganda. Bensaccount 00:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_science/Archive_4#Continuation) for the reference. So you are taking the position that Lammerts' "[messing] with ... trees" could NEVER happen in nature. What faith! Dan Watts 00:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Faith is one thing, scientific evidence is something quite different. Alas therein lies the problem, and this is apparently beyond your understanding. PS. Theres no data where you linked to. Bensaccount 01:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your postcript is accurate. Perhaps you may notice that I wrote "reference." The referenced article contains a detailed description of the conditions, a table of growth heights for five different groups, four pictures of seedling cross-sections 1.5 to 3.5 years in age, and a table of minimum-maximum tree diameter and height for three treatment cases. It is copyrighted, you may view it yourself - CRSQ vol 20 #2 108-115. Do you have any reference nearly as detailed on how C. W. Ferguson avoided the problem of accidental cross-referencing the bristlecone pine chronoligies that were pieced together (they are highly self-similar), or how the "up to 5% missing rings" was determined? Could it have been the number necessary to make disparate tree-ring sequences line up? Wouldn't that be a nice example of circular reasoning. Dan Watts 02:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the justification for why Lammerts [messing]] with trees could happen in nature? (other than faith). Bensaccount 18:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since all he did was change some environmental factors, this could happen in nature. Luckily, we could probably check to see whether such conditions existed or could have existed during this period in history, by checking the width of the individual rings, by studying ice cores, or by comparing what we know of the weather in those areas. Though Lammerts findings are intriguing, if any of these sources suggest there were no periods of drought, they would discredit the findings. My experience tells me that anyone willing to discredit Lammerts assertion could probably do so, with a little research. -- Ec5618 00:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Lammerts findings are about as intriguing as someone who cuts off his own hand and remarks that this proves the glove industry might not exist. Bensaccount 00:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But since the same environmental conditions would have affected all trees in the area, the analogy doesn't hold up. The trees could, theoretically, all be affected, and all appear older. In that sense, it's not impossible that a group of trees all appear older. Luckily, the conditions Lammerts introduced were fairly exotic, and no evidence I have yet seen suggests that it is at all likely that such conditions existed, repetitively no less, in these areas. Trees all around the world have suggested an older age for the Earth. Have they all been affected by seasonal droughts? Global droughts seem extemely unlikely.

As an aside, I resent the edit summary commentary: "Where are all the objective people." -- Ec5618 00:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

To the justification of Lammerts 'messing' with the trees being possible/probable, if you were to look at [8] (http://ggweather.com/climate/rain_mean.htm) (California average monthly precipitation) you could see two entries for White Mountain, one for the period 1955-1977 and the other for 1955-1980. They show 13.1 (inches I presume) total annual precipitation for set 1 and 18.95 in. for set 2. The average rainfall in August, the month in which Dr. Lammerts skipped 3 weeks of watering (Aug 5 - Aug 25, 1980) was 1.08 and 1.11 (in. presumed) respectively, the fifth driest month in both sets (although the drier months varied between the two sets). So it does not appear farfetched (it could possibly be considered reasonable) that the watering scenario used could happen in the region. You got my reply to your request, I'm still waiting for your reply to mine. Dan Watts 01:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not get what I requested. Show me the data. Show me the procedure. Show me the controls. Show me someone who has repeated the "experiment" and received the same results. I could forge results for this myself if I felt so inclined. Bensaccount 04:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To repeat myself, I told you where you could read the experiment - data, procedure, number of trees. As for anyone repeating the experiment, feel free to do it yourself. I have reported what was done, and what was ACTUALLY measured as rainfall in White Mountain as a comparison. Feel free to tell me if you have NO substantiation corroborating Freguson's statements, or information that I requested. I promise not to be disappointed, it would be what I expected. Dan Watts 11:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there is actual data there, I would like to see it. I do not own a subscription so you will have to post it. Bensaccount 21:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will check with the CRS on posting Lammerts' data and report their decision. Dan Watts 22:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I had feared, Dr. Lammerts passed away some years ago. This may take longer to be resolved than I had hoped. In the interim, you might try the Creation Researchwebsite (http://www.creationresearch.org/library_locations/library.htm) which has a list of unversities by state that carry the CRSQ. I am sorry that I do not having a definite answer yet. Dan Watts 02:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most CS websites are not set up to allow for any outside feedback, so I doubt you will get through. Why do you call Lammerts "Dr."? From what I have seen he isn't one. Bensaccount 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I beileve that he is a PhD because 1) he was listed as one, 2) [9] (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/discrim.htm) (a not very Lammerts-friendly webpage) mentions his UC Berkeley 1930 doctorate in genetics, and 3) [10] (http://www.katpher.com/alamecty/Lists/Booksetc/27UCB/27UC_p95.html) shows that he was enrolled in UC Berkeley in 1927. What have you seen on the subject?

I have had an e-mail correspondence with Glen Wolfrom (PhD Animal Husbandry/Ruminant Nutrition - University of Missouri) who, when he realized that I was discussing published information rather than data that Dr. Lammerts may have had personally, directed me to someone else who has not responded yet. Dan Watts 03:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the interim, have you looked at the Creation Research Society library locator (http://www.creationresearch.org/library_locations/library.htm)? Dan Watts 18:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin