text:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 4

'Far Side' comic
absolutely unacceptable copyvio and pov. i do wish those editors claiming to be rationalists would not allow such ridiculous edits by our friendly neighborhood pov warrior to go unchecked. Ungtss 23:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is well to remember that all of us are in search of the truth as best as we can understand it. Creation theory rests on an axiom and scientific theories rest on axioms. Scientific theories rest on axioms which are either evident in nature, or logically necessary, occasionally "guesses" partially supported by either two. Creation theories rest upon the axiom that a creator exists. Science provides detailed explanations for its axioms, explanations that depend upon logic, and further, points out axioms which currently lack proof. It is constantly struggling with itself concerning all these axioms. Indeed, the most celebrated scientists are those who have done the most to supplant long established theories from Copernicus to Newton and Einstein. In this science can be shown to be self critical, demanding intellectual honesty and humility to such an extent that scientists are willing to accept the possibility that creation theories may indeed be correct despite all their efforts. It is in challenging longstanding axioms that we as humans show our quality, our doubt in all things, which reveals our nature, and to do so we are only being honest. The scientific community does not so much take issue with creation theories as it does with it's methods, it's willingness to accept some scientific evidence but not other, obviously based upon the need for a predetermined result, a logically untenable position. Creation theories are dogmatic regarding it's axioms, condemning as sin any doubt. It is as this point that creation theories break down in terms of integrity, logic and eventually believability. Science in general has much to say about its own limitation, particularly since the paper on the incompleteness theorem and Stephen Hawking's paper on the big bang theory, both of which draw clear limits on how far our understanding may reasonably go at this point in time. Therefore, there is room for a creator in scientific theories, it is not atheistic but agnostic, a "psychologically honest" pursuit where we all together wrestle with our demons of doubt. -(61.68.16.158)
 * well said. now if only "mainstream scientists" would do what you're describing, all would be well.  Ungtss 01:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again Ungtss proves that he has no clue as to what "mainstream scientists" do. Bensaccount 21:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * good one. very convincing.  Ungtss 03:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

On Ec5618's edits
I've noticed that on several occasions now Ec5618's attempts to edit the article are quickly reverted, first by Bensaccount, later by Ungtss. Consider that if Ec5618 is able to offend both sides of the debate he must be nearing some truth. Much of Ec5618's points seem well-reasoned and factual and not the "misinformation" being suggested. I'll be working to roll some of his more salient points into the article, or supporting Ec5618 doing it himself. FeloniousMonk 04:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i think Ec5618's edits have been very good. you ought to consider the edit history in deciding whether i've been reverting him or not.  Ungtss 13:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Golly. So nice, thanks. I'd like to gently refer you all to my Talk page.
 * And let's all keep up the good work. Just imagine: -- Ec5618 13:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Ec5618 is another mislead religious zealot pretending to be neutral. Like User:Rednblu. Bensaccount 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Fundamental meaninglessness
From way above, Ben wrote: "Ungtss has rightly pointed out that consensus science is fundamentally meaningless." This statement is wrong, simply because the term fundamentally meaningless is so completely overloaded with both religious (Ungtss) and scientific (Ben) notions of absolutism. The "consensus" in science is not ever meant to represent "truth" or even "scientific proof," rather it means a tacit consensus for the current time, based on existing proofs and related experiments. Ungtss use of the word "meaningless" merely meant that consensus ≠ (religious) truth. Ben's use of the "meaningless" means consensus ≠ (scientific) proof. But MU ≠ MB, just as truth ≠ proof. -SV|t 01:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The message I was trying to get across was that saying "CS is rejected by scientists" is not the same as saying "CS is not science". Don't mix up scientific absolutism with religious absolutism. The former is an oxymoron, while the latter is not. Bensaccount 05:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Creation 'science'

 * "Creation science is an unscientific ideology"

Like many other terms, creation science has the word 'science' in it. To many people, this suggests some sort of science-connection. If that connection does not exist, we should explain it in the intro, and 'clearly' 'mark' any mention of 'science'.

 * "Creation science according to its proponents, is a scientific effort"

If there is valid (absolute) reason to allow the use of 'creation science' to mean the (more) scientific branch of creationism, we should allow it. We should then merely note that 'creation science' is not considered to be 'science' by non-creationists, as it does not, ever, follow the scientific method.

 * This is simply wrong. If you think creation science never follows the scientific method, you are operating under a heavy misconception. Perhaps you should read some of their technical papers before temeritously posting such canards. Phantym 21:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So, (NPOV), which is it? -- Ec5618 08:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618 exhibits a common misunderstanding of NPOV: "attributing lies to liars and truth to everyone else gives neutrality and makes for a good article". This is incredibly wrong, as giving lies equal say does not take precedence over stating the facts simply and clearly when they are known and straightforeward. Bensaccount 15:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * And yet, there are still people, proponents if you will, who claim that creationism is based on science. These people exist, and they regulary stop by this page to rant and rave about this article's bias.
 * From Creationism: According to a 2001 Gallup evolution poll on the origins of humans, 72% of Americans believe in some form of creationism (as defined above). About 45% of Americans ascribe to the more Biblically literal creationism, believing that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.".
 * All of these people are wrong, obviously, because they believe in the inerrancy of a book that they know nothing about. This book could have been written by someone in the employ of Hallmark, they would have no way of knowing.
 * Ask of a creationist:
 * Could a book like the bible conceivably have been altered by human hands, even if we assume that a deity inspired it?
 * Yes. Bensaccount 21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Could a book like the bible conceivably have been written by human hands, without divine help?
 * Yes. Bensaccount 21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ''How then can you (a creationist) justify to yourself that you believe in it?
 * I can believe in whatever I choose. Bensaccount 21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But this is not a discussion forum, and as long as the jury is still out on the subject, so must Wikipedia be. -- Ec5618 16:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you truly believe that "All of these people ... believe in ... a book that they know nothing about." ? Sounds like a bit of hyperbole to me, "[b]ut this is not a discussion forum ...." Dan Watts 17:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope I made my point. If so, then it shouldn't really matter what I truly believe in. If you're interested, please ask me on my Talk page, as it has no true relevancy here. -- Ec5618 17:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Saying that since people believe the bible was written by God it is impossible to call it unscientific lacks any logic. Bensaccount 21:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Bensaccount, please. Obviously, the questions were meant for creationists. You are indeed free to believe whatever you choose. You are free to believe the universe is turnip shaped. You are free to believe that this is the Matrix.
 * Creation science isn't 'wrong', simply because it can't be falsified. It is useless in science, sure. But it isn't wrong, per se. Thus, as I said before 'this is not a discussion forum, and as long as the jury is still out on the subject, so must Wikipedia be.'
 * And, Bensaccount, "Removing propaganda again (and nobody disagrees that this isn't propaganda)". I disagree. As does the person that put it there. Duh. -- Ec5618 22:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Creation science really has its roots in the writing of textbooks and apologetics works (such as "Scientific Creationism") which were meant to respond to the real beating creationists took after the Scopes Trial. The intellectual history of the United States is really tied up with the use of the term "Creation Science" -- an idea that was developed so as to allow the creationist to believe that they had monopoly on all truth, both evangelical and scientific. To this end, "creation science" is only more "scientific" in that it is a new way of describing creationism. Wikipedia has, by consensus, decided to use it as a repository for pseudoscientific arguments used by creationists to back up their claims (that is, arguments used by creationists that are not simply faith claims but rather use the trappings of scientific language to prove their points such as flood geology). It should be noted that most people do not see a distinction between creationism and creation science. Joshuaschroeder 10:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous
I don't know how this article got to be how it is, perhaps vandalism, I don't know. Even the very first parapraph has nothing bordering on a NPOV. Let's take a look:

 * Creation science (or CS) is an unscientific ideology based on scripture as an a priori source.

First, Creation science is not an ideology. It might have an ideology, but Creation Science is a field of study, just like Sacred Theology is a field of study. It might be a field of study that has prior suppositions different from what you might like, but one cannot identify a field with its axioms.

Second, calling it unscientific is clearly not a neutral point of view. No reasonable person would consider that a neutral viewpoint.

Thirdly, it does not take scripture as an a priori source. It takes scripture as a motivation.

 * Creation science disallows outside interpretation, objective criticism of evidence, and scientific reasoning and method.

This paragraph shows an ignorant editor.
 * 1) Creation science in no way disallows outside interpretation (Creation scientists regularly respond to secular scientists on their own terms with arguments completely based in their commong round)
 * 2) Creation science does not disallow objective criticism of evidence, there are often articles written by creationists too creationists indicating unpromising results or suggesting that what may have earlier been a problem in the normal superstructure of science may no longer be one, etc.
 * 3) Creation science does not disallow scientific reasoning or method, as any perusal of technical reports made by creation scientists makes clear.

6 Obvious NPOV violations and/or fallacious items in 2 sentences. It would takes days to clean this up properly. Perhaps someone who knows something about creation science should be writing this article instead of a cadre of people trying to stultify it

Phantym 21:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry but you are mistaken. Creation science is not a "field of study". It would be more correct to call it a "field of propaganda". As illustrated by the hopelessly biased articles posted by Dan above, if creation science were to follow the scientific method their propaganda would fall apart. (Could someone check this guys IP, it sounds like Ungtss). Bensaccount 21:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Your posting suggests a dangerous combination: A lot of bias and not much specific understanding of the matter at hand. If a scientist [creationist or otherwise] makes an hypothesis based on the amount of helium one should find in rocks based on known or calculated diffusion rates of helium through the medium and an accepted age of the rock, and then after this prediction he determines the actual amount of helium in the rock, either confirming or discarding his hypothesis based on the results, how is that not following the scientific method? It might not be the results you like. You might find ways to refute or explain the results, but that is not the question at hand.Phantym 04:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but even "creation scientists" don't dispute that CS does not allow for any explanation that contradicts the account in Genesis; that's why it's called "creation science", and "Answers in Genesis" and all that.

By disallowing objective criticism of evidence against Genesis, CS disallows objective criticism. Since CS dismisses any interpretation of evidence counter to Genesis, it is not practicing the scientific method. Your reasoning is flawed. FeloniousMonk 22:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Creation science is indeed based on an ideology, but not an ideology in itself. You're right. Someone should fix this. And I will, if no-one else does.
 * Unscientific is based on the definition of science, as used by scientists. Creation science is not science, it is based on science, with thinly veiled religion behind it.
 * Creation Scientists purport to follow the scientific method by creating predictions based on models and testing those predictions. Their articles show evidence of the same. Whether you like their models or think that their interpretation is flawed is entirely beside the point. They are attempting to develop and test models of reality impelled by evidence, and hence they are scientists. It is not for you to judge, as an editor, whether their work is up to your standards. Phantym 04:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Creationism does use scripture as an a priori source. Basically, creation scientists say: "The bible says the world is no more than 10000 years old. So, we should be able to find proof of that. We will find proof of that."
 * In their technical articles, creationists do not, in general, appeal to scripture when attempting to persuade their secular audience. Phantym 04:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your point being? They still do it. -- Ec5618 07:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Creation science does disallow objective criticism of evidence. For example, flood geology, which has been disproven through logic, but is still taught to impressionable people. Please explain, if you don't agree, where the water went, and why the Alps look rather different from the Three Gorges, which all supposedly formed in the same flood.
 * This actually shows a rather severe misunderstanding of science. Science does not, nor can it, prove anything. Science disproves theories by use of experiments. Mathematicians prove things using logic and a colleciton of agreed upon axioms. Scientists are nothing like mathematicians in this vein.Phantym 04:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, but logic can 'disprove' it. Unless we assume a deity removed all the water, and did a lot of other things he never told anyone about, we can safely assume that the world was never flooded after 40 days/nights of rain.--Ec5618 07:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does that logic assume that the topology of the earth must have been very similar to what it is now? No orogeny?  No deepening of the ocean?  No "fountains of the deep?"  Otherwise the "safely" may need to be removed from "assumed". Dan Watts 13:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Creation science does disallow scientific reasoning or method, as illustrated simply by the fact that science tries to fit the theory to the facts, and creation 'science' works the other way around.
 * Even a cursory read of articles published by creation scientists should disavail you of this misconception. Phantym 04:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I hasn't in the past. They use scientific tools and methodology (microscopes), but never reasoning.--Ec5618 07:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Never reasoning? Never? Never as in not once? Dan Watts 13:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no, not ever. By definition. Creationists seek out to prove a point, and (at least publically) ignore anything that doesn't fit with their beliefs. Science is not perfect, but it continually challenges itself. Creationists challenge science. -- Ec5618 15:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Before I attempt to show at least one example of "scientific reasoning" would you care to elucidate your position? Is "scientific reasoning" something that you posit as never being used in ANY research done by creationists?  Is that your "By definition" position? Dan Watts 16:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Creation science is an effort to prove creation, and to discredit evolution. No creation scientist will ever publish a report calling creation into doubt. Science, true science, seeks only the truth, or a way of representing the truth. It seeks to know more avout the universe. Creation scientists seek to show others 'the error of their way'. By definition, science must actively seek the truth, not merely seek evidence to support a premise. -- Ec5618 18:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * So Dr. Lammerts' report on the study of growth conditions of Bristlecone pines, in which he showed how long it takes to grow the first growth ring, and what conditions showed no, (or two) growth rings, by your definition, has no scientific reasoning. It has no "only truth" sought, and has no previously unknown truth (such as how long a bristlecone pine seedling must grow before it exhibits growth rings).  Indeed, you present a fascinating way to classify all creationist research.  Oh well, at least you can remain consistent this way.  Dan Watts 18:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This guy is probably not Ungtss.
 * I hope this helps. -- Ec5618 22:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * A completely similar list of allegations can be levelled at evolutionism. Evolutionists have their own "a priori" beliefs, worldview etc. Anyone who challenges their beliefs with scientific evidence are harrassed, censured and ridiculed. It is a religious ideology, not pure science. RossNixon 01:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "A completely similar list of allegations can be levelled (sic) at evolutionism." And they'd be mistaken. Science constantly rechecks its conclusions against new evidence. Oddly, evolution keeps holding up. I wonder why that is... FeloniousMonk 02:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because scientists do not often allow anything that suggests a problem to be given due audience? In 1976 a group of British astronomers published finding in Nature suggesting some major flaws with the current understanding of the Sun. The showed that based on three separate bases, new evidence indicated that the sun was much younger than previously assumed. These were not creationists, they were just astronomers doing science.  For the next 15 years or more astronomers were perplexed to answer these troubling concerns.  Soemthign similar is going on with red-shift quantization, which was brought up by Tiff in 1977 and most recently reiterated (for the umpteenth time) by Bell in 2003.  Is it not good enough that a Professor at Cambridge University writes articles indicating a massive problem in modern science that has been posed for nearly 30 years without reasonable answer?  So, no, the modern scientific community is not open to the idea that there are major problems with its paradigms, so even when major problems persist for decades, the general public is left unawares Phantym 04:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Um, No. Misquoted research and uncited conjecture do not an indictment make. You make a number of basic factual errors here, enough that I think we should be circumspect about anything you claim moving forward. First off, you're only parroting the argument made by Keith Davies of the ICR that the Sun is less than 100,000 years old and in so doing, making the exact same mistakes he did in misunderstanding and misusing the research presented in the two articles published in Nature in 1976.  Two, Davies' himself refuses to discuss alternative explanations, instead rushing to judgment for a young Sun, hence a young Earth, hence a creation account that supports Genesis. That you're pinning your argument on poor examples, a poor understanding of actual science and its method and appear to have an ideological ax to grind does nothing in the way of convincing people that your position here is anything but ideologically-driven POV.  FeloniousMonk 07:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You appear to have misunderstood my post. I do not know if the fault is yours or mine. Let me explain again and then please reread my earlier post and then decide if your response is at all relevant. I was not claiming that the research in 1976 proved the son was young. I was not attempting to show any evidence of a young earth or young universe at all.  I was indicating evidence that mainstream science is not often honest about possible problems within their own framework.  It is an issue of scientists saying oen thing to the public while discussing the opposite within their own publications.  I hope that clarifies my point.

 * All of this diverts us from the point, which is that it could be true that the world was created in some way, really. And, if we asssume a very power entity its possible that it did it like the bible suggests. But, scientifically, its rediculous to assume it. And creationist 'scientists' assume it. Scientifically, it makes sense to assume the Earth is billions of years old, because it fits with so much of the data. -- Ec5618 07:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Creationists are lying"
The point more clearly stated is that "CS is unscientific", and that unless the article says so (without attributing it to its detractors) it is biased propaganda. Bensaccount 15:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * So, you're saying that anyone that claims it is scientific (according to some definition), is lying?
 * No, the article doesn't state that CS is BS. It does state that no scientist thinks its science. What's the problem? Should we include a template, warning people that the CS is complete nonsense? -- Ec5618

Note: Creation science is by definition unscientific.
 * -- Ec5618 15:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Of course they are lying. You wouldn't say "according to its detractors, the holocaust was a genocide". Thats what it was. Stop with the bullshit (haha superfast decay of all helium is scientific...who are you kidding, it would vaporize the planet). Bensaccount 15:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I put a header in, to break this discussion up into manageable chunks.
 * Your stance is that they are lying. They fervently deny they are. There is no truth here.    The article can't claim that creationists are lying, as it can't be proven. Sorry, I'll try to make a clear point later. -- Ec5618 16:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is no truth here because people like you and Ungtss wont allow it. This is not something to be proud of. Bensaccount 20:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Propaganda: 1) "Creation science (or CS), according to its proponents, is ...." 2) "Most scientists consider 'creation science' to be pseudoscience, and a misnomer ...." 3) "As such, this article's use of the term 'creation science' should in no way be seen as an acknowledgement of 'creation science' as a science."
 * Wow! These statements would lead mere misguided mortals down the primrose path to fanaticism. (I believe that I could, not that I would, write more arresting propaganda than that.) Dan Watts 15:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Misguided mortals such as yourself Dan. I seriously think that if AiG told you to jump off a bridge you would do so without giving it a second thought. Bensaccount 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It is good to know that you can think seriously. Try using that faculty to tell me how the stuff that you reverted can SERIOUSLY be called propaganda.  I know that you don't like the wording.  I am asking for specific non-attributed (such as "creationists believe") text. Dan Watts 15:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Proponents of creation science are makers of propaganda. They create vast amounts of bullshit; the internet is full of it. Telling the readers of creation science what these religious zealots masquerading as scientists think would be acceptable so long as the reader is also informed that what they are implying is false. Otherwise the article is doing nothing more than spreading more propaganda. Bensaccount 21:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Creation science is not unscientific, though no scientist considers it to be science.

 * The section Scientific criticisms of creation science makes it perfectly clear that there is a demarcation problem.
 * Creation scientist call creation science, 'science'. Yes. According to its proponents, is a scientific effort to study the Earth, life, and the universe. No? Yes.
 * And I've said it before, and I'll say it again: creation science is not an ideology. Creationism is. Don't revert to version that contains known factual errors.

 * In a recent edit, Bensaccount went sofar as to assuse me of lying. not only do I resent that implication, and would I like to refer him/her to WP:FAITH, I would like to ask him/her to list my socalled lies.
 * He/She also stated that any article that doesn't make it abundantly clear that creationism is not science, is propaganda. And that 'my version' is propaganda.
 * I never even hinted that 'creation science' was scientific. I merely try to report on all viewpoints. Simply claiming that creation science isn't scientific, is like the article on paedophilia claiming that pedophilia is evil. Not NPOV. -- Ec5618 17:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that creation science is evil is a value judgement. Saying that it is unscientific is a fact. Theres a big difference. Lets review this theme of "lies" which you have created Ec5618. You said that you don't think anything written here is the truth. If nothing you write is true, what do you need a list for. Bensaccount 21:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * you're right on point, Ec5618 -- you've made fantastic contributions to bringing this page toward npov. bensaccount is our local troll, but no one's been willing to rfc him yet, because he does the majority's "dirty work,"           Ungtss 00:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't enter this converation since i haven't been part of it at all. But what exactly are the creationists lying about?? Falphin 00:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the idea that creationism is scientific. npov says, "creationists think creation science is science; mainstream science doesn't."  bensaccount says, "creation science isn't science, and creationists who say it is are lying."  Ungtss 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I fear that the answer to "what exactly are the creationists lying about" would have to come from Bensaccount. As I perceive it, Bensaccount has removed an edit by Ec5618 because it did not portray Creation Science strongly enough as wholly without any factual basis or coherent use of logic (and possibly because it was not vitriolic enough).  You may (or may not) be interested to know that I see no approval of CS by Ec5618.  I do see in the writing of Ec5618 an attempt to clearly describe the CS side while also showing the differences between CS and "mainstream science". Dan Watts 02:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you, that explains it. I just saw that the section title and had the urge to jump in. Falphin 21:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Reversions again
Due to the high number of unexplained reversions so far, I have created a section that you should use to address your upcoming reversions Ec, Ungtss, Dan (and anyone else who wants to remove the truth and replace it with POVs). You have so far been unable to provide a reason. Please do so here. "restoring propoganda" or "bensaccount needs to take a breath" dont really count. Bensaccount 16:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't believe I'm jumping through your hoops, when you have consistently ignored mine, Bensaccount. Also, though your reasons for reversion seem abundantly clear, you make very few actual non-repetitive comments.
 * My reasons for this reversion:
 * Only one editor, Benaccount, seems to object to this wording. That is to say, neither creationists nor non-creationists have objected. Only a strong anti-creationist is objecting, on the grounds that this wording does not tell 'the truth'.
 * Creation science is not an ideology. It is based on an ideology.
 * Creation science has proponents and opponents. Its proponents claim its scientific.
 * Creationists are not lying. Even if you assume they are wrong, they are probably not conspiring to tell conscious lies.
 * The introduction of an article is not a place to make a point. No. Please, that is what the section on critisism in the creationism article is all about.
 * You know what, I've been explaining my edits, in rediculous detail. But, Bensaccount seems quite unwilling to accept anything but total surrender. He seems to feel that this page should convince readers to choose the path of science and logic. He seems to feel that any reader who reads this page should be instantly freed from any leanings toward creationism. I'd like to ask him if that's his intention.
 * Meanwhile, I'll revert to a more balanced introductory of 'creation science'. -- Ec5618 17:16, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the POV that CS is scientific and replacing it with the fact that it is not. You have not even mentioned my edits never mind explained your reversions. You have not addressed my edit (informing that CS is unscientific). Therefore I will add it again. Next time I hope you will provide an explanation instead of just mindlessly reverting. Bensaccount 16:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I am a creationist. Other people agree with this wording.
 * 2) This edit was done by Stevertigo.
 * 3) Never said the contrary.
 * 4) Never said the contrary.
 * 5) The most important points belong here.
 * 6) You never explain your reversions (see later sections for further proof).
 * 7) Balanced does not equal useful or neutral.

 * While you keep insisting that the article in 'my version' is claiming that CS is scientific, its simply not true. At all. Please quote the line you feel is claiming this. The article is simply claiming that there are people that regularly (and with reason) claim that it is scientific.
 * Also, I asked you a question. You seem to continually ignore my comments and questions, and continue to misinterpret my intentions. I seem to recall you calling me a lier.
 * I said: Creationists are not lying. Even if you assume they are wrong, they are probably not conspiring to tell conscious lies., to which you replied with Never said the contrary.
 * Which is a lie. Or am I misinterpreting your comment: Of course they are lying. ?
 * You never explain your reversions (see later sections for further proof). I have/had already explained that edit, but Joshuaschroeder missed the explanation. In the section below I have restated my motivation, no more.
 * You have not addressed my edit (informing that CS is unscientific) I have. Several times. Please note: I will again. Please, read the next lines:

 * I see your point. According to many definitions of science and of scientific, 'creation science' is not science. It is, according to these definitions, simply based on science, with thinly veiled religion behind it. Still, many creationists (creation scientists) claim it is scientific. They claim, for example, that 'Intelligent Design' is as scientific as 'Evolution', which is clearly rediculous. Still, I disagree with calling 'creation science' unscientific, as long as the debate hasn't been settled. And it can't be unless there is a clear definition of science, which there isn't. According to the definition mentioned in the 'criticism' section, maths is not science. Ecology is hardly science, Newtonian physics (as taught in schools everywhere) is not science.
 * I also have specific problems with the wording of 'your version', which I have mentioned several times, but none of which have yet been addressed.
 * Creation science is indeed based on an ideology, but not an ideology in itself.
 * Creation science according to its proponents, is a scientific effort". Undeniably true. Which means that it isn't a lie.
 * This has gone far enough, we should be able to compromise. The main problem, as I see it, is that you want to make it clear that creationism is not science, while I want to make it clear that creationism ''is not generally considered to be science, as science is not clearly defined.
 * Finally, a quote from you: "But if everyone knows you are biased, and you make no attempt to convince them that your edits are not biased you are no longer helping article development, you are simply spamming your biases."
 * -- Ec5618 17:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am not insisting that your version is claiming that CS is scientific. I said that it included this POV. NPOV, however, says that articles should be written from a NEUTRAL POV, not any 1 or 2 specific POV's. The rest of the above rant is equally misleading. Is that quote your way of saying I am biased? As usual it is unclear what you mean, so your points are wasted. I am not biased btw. CS is not science. Bensaccount 18:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:NPOV, which states:
 * "The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."
 * I am not biased (either). CS might be as scientific as maths and high school physics. I disagree with calling 'creation science' unscientific, as long as the debate hasn't been settled. And it can't be unless there is a clear definition of science, which there isn't. According to the definition mentioned in the 'criticism' section, maths is not science. Ecology is hardly science, Newtonian physics (as taught in schools everywhere) is not science.
 * I also have specific problems with the wording of 'your version', which I have mentioned several times, but none of which have yet been addressed.
 * Creation science is indeed based on an ideology, but not an ideology in itself.
 * Creation science according to its proponents, is a scientific effort". Undeniably true. Which means that it isn't a lie. -- Ec5618 18:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are you user:Rednblu? Anyways, just because NPOV does not assume it doesn't mean it is impossible, there may be cases where it is impossible to decide what is objective and what is not. When it is possible, however, it should, by all means, be done. Stop twisting around policy to suit yourself. Bensaccount 18:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't get how you justify what you just did. I showed you that your interpetation of policy is wrong, and you accuse me of twisting policy. Are you saying that you disagree with policy?
 * I am Ec5618.
 * You also accused me of not making myself clear. I have read your last comment 5 times, and am unable to distill your meaning. There are clearly TWO points of view here. In your attempt to show NPOV, you are dismissing 'my' POV ('my' as in, the point of view you are trying to remove). It would seem then that 'it isn't possible to write this'' article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. -- Ec5618 18:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

'Evidently' - billions of years
Rossnixon has made the claim that one day maybe a different explanation for the vast distances of space and the incredible light-transit times will be discovered. Inasmuch as all of reality is subject to falsification, he is correct. However, it is just as inappropriate to place "evidently" as a modifier to this scientific observation as it would be to state that "evidently" electricity is the result of the movement of electrons. Just as this is a scientific fact, so is light travel time. On this there can be no dispute. Joshuaschroeder 10:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Creation Science (or is it only Creationism?) purports the universe to be of the order of 10,000 years old - because, for them, the Bible is true. Therefore, when they look at the distance of the stars, and the speed of light - they have a *big problem*. They have to wonder if the distances are wrongly measured, or if the speed of light has changed, or if the nature of the universe has some fundamental difference from the current scientific theories.  I suggest "evidently" as a good word to use - meaning that "this is what current scientific evaluation of the data shows". Who was here billions of years ago who could record the "facts"?  This article introduces their dilemma. If the "billions of years" was a fact, why would they search for other possibilities? RossNixon 10:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This doesn't address the fundamental problem that it is an observed fact that the light travel time is this way. The speed of light and the distances to these objects are well measured phenomena. That people who are rabidly creationist dispute this is beside the point. There are plenty of people who dispute all manner of things in all manner of (pseudo)scientific ways. The dispute over the lack of a person to be "here billions of years ago" is not even worthy of comment, but the admitting to the differences of opinions of creationists with respect to the observed fact of light-travel time is exactly what the main article does. Putting in the "evidently" is not only inappropriate, it is misleading the reader into thinking that maybe there is room for debate on this subject. Joshuaschroeder 11:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, that is not true. The problem of determining distance to far objects is a fundamental one. Much of what we currently believe is due to a certain understanding of redshift.  Many scientists [many non creationist] scientists are very unsure that are ideas in this vein are correct.  Over 140 scientists, many from rather mainstream, important universities, have signed such a letter. Finally, the reference to electricity is non sequitour as that is a purely lexicographic issue. Phantym 06:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

If Rossnixon can post a scientific observation to the contrary that any individual galaxy beyond our local group does not exhibit this characteristic -- just one single observation -- then we might say that there is a legitimate case to be made for a modifier to be placed regarding a supposed controversy. But barring this we must conclude that his insertion is a means to promoting a creationist agenda and should be eschewed on Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 11:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but please follow your own rule Joshuaschroeder. Don't revert until all points have been made.
 * Problem: Science knows that the light has been travelling for billions of years. In the same way, science knows 'creation science' is rediculously unscientific.
 * While the article on the speed of light doesn't need to make it clear that a fringe group does not believe the universe is older than 10000 years, this article does. Nothing in science is sacred when discussing this sort of thing. 'Evidently, as far as science is concerned, as far a science need know, light from distant stars has been in transit for billions of years.'
 * -- Ec5618 11:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Doesn't work as an effective argument for including "evidently". Look at my example of electricity. We should not pander to groups. It's not about something in science being sacred, it's a statement of fact that light travel times are the way they are. Read the article on creationist cosmologies for more. Joshuaschroeder 13:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Creationist cosmologies suggests light was, ahem, created in transit, and didn't travel for billions of years. Evidently, the light comes to us from far away. But it really might not!
 * Please explain your point.-- Ec5618 14:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of this. God might have created electricity to "appear" to come from electrons, but it really might not. Joshuaschroeder 14:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite true. So we can't just claim, in an article that tries to dispute conventional science, that static buildup is the cause of lightning. We can however state that all indications are that it is, and that science must assume it's true. Theoretically, its possible that electrons didn't exist until (and indeed don't exist unless) someone observed (observes) them. Theoretically. -- Ec5618 14:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Back to the use of "evidently"...I would not use this word in an article about Electricity, as there are no groups who strongly oppose the current theory. As this is an article about Creation Science, the word "evidently" is appropriate. I would go further: since there is strong dissension on macroevolution and the age of the earth / age of the universe, the word "evidently" should be mentioned prominently near the top of those articles as well! But I know I would get reverted on those. RossNixon 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because a group disputes a fact doesn't make the fact less a fact. We can be NPOV by stating the facts as simple facts. Joshuaschroeder 01:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ec has made the bold (and incorrect) editorial claim that although the light is from distant galaxies the transit time is disputed. This is not the case. The transit time for light is a fact and what creationists who worry about the age of the universe are trying to do is invent excuses for why this is so. The ways they try to do this is outlined in the main article. There is absolutely no disputing light travel time as an observed effect. It isn't just an "appearance", it isn't just "according to scientists", it is an observed feature of the universe. End of story. If you want to say that some creationists dispute this fact, that's fine, but the fact itself is inviolable from an observational perspective (and no, that doesn't mean it's an "apparent" fact). Joshuaschroeder 13:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I see that true statements are problematic for you (as you stated in your last edit). Since photons do not contain date-of-origin labels, the fact that you are showing much concern about MUST be based on a (probably widely and wildly accepted) theory. Dan Watts 15:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * "based on a theory" is a meaningless tautology when you are dealing with science. We make theories about nature in order to describe it. If we didn't, there would be no way to describe nature. What it is based on is simple: the speed of light being constant and the distances to the objects. The observation is of the distance to these objects and the universiality of physical laws. Those are both natural observations. Joshuaschroeder 15:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Joshuaschroeder, you seem to have misinterpreted my meaning. I never meant that there is question as to the speed of light. But claiming that it is a fact that the universe is billions of years old is a slap in the face of anyone who believes in creationism and creation science. Which is what this article is all about. As I said before So we can't just claim, in an article that tries to dispute conventional science, that static buildup is the cause of lightning. Similarly, we can't claim that the light has been in transit. We can claim that creationists 'attempt to tackle problems such as the fact that light that reaches Earth from distant galaxies appears to have been in transit for millions and even billions of years.' The point is exactly that the light appears to have been in transit for a long time. "Why?", creationists ask themselves. "Is God trying to fool us into believing the universe is older than in actually is? Or is the universe actually older, somehow." These are problems facing 'creation scientists'. And that is what the line refers to. And that is why it needs the word 'appears'. -- Ec5618 18:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact that there is a light travel time on the order of millions/billions of years is only a "slap in the face" to a believer if they decide that's the case. The article in question deals with people who think that this fact is problematic. Not all creationists believe that it is a problem, so it is ludicrous to claim that this is an apparent effect. We can say that creationists choose things to dispute, but a fact is a fact. Joshuaschroeder 19:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Other unexplained rv

 * EC, you haven't been explaining your reinclusion of modifiers in the creationist cosmology section. Instead, you make blanket edits that are modifying true statements to make it seem that skepticism about facts is somehow permissible. Please, if you have any observational evidence whatsoever that the statement is false, share it with us, otherwise leave it alone or add an editorial comment about how creationists dispute the fact. Joshuaschroeder 21:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the edit in question is "appear to have been in transit" versus "have been in transit." your argument for the latter is based on your chronic failure to acknowledge your assumptions.  we don't KNOW how long light has been in transit, but it LOOKS like it has been in transit for a long time.  so then you demand "observational evidence" to the contrary.  no one is SUGGESTING that there is observational evidence to the contrary.  the argument for npov in this case that because the subjects of this article challenge the assertion and there is no way to PROVE how long the light's been in transit, it is most appropriate to say it APPEARS to have been in transit.  Ungtss 23:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Try again, there is no such thing as "PROOF" in science. Joshuaschroeder 13:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Would Halton Arp's arguments concerning non-Hubble redshifts be ""any" observational evidence whatsoever?" (Not that I expect a positive response from Joshua or Ben) Dan Watts 03:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Since Halton Arp accepts that galaxies are millions of light years distant, this argument is totally irrelevent. Joshuaschroeder 13:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * How about the evidence that Arp uses? Is that totally irrelevant also?  I think that Arp's position is similar to Hoyle's for the age of the universe, but I am discussiong the evidence used for non-Hubble redshifts (Hubble redshift being a major part of the astronomical distance ladder). Dan Watts 20:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Ugtss said it, before I could.
 * To quote myself:
 * "Creationist cosmologies suggests light was, ahem, created in transit, and didn't travel for billions of years. Evidently, the light comes to us from far away. But it really might not!"
 * "As I said before So we can't just claim, in an article that tries to dispute conventional science, that static buildup is the cause of lightning. Similarly, we can't claim that the light has been in transit. We can claim that creationists 'attempt to tackle problems such as the fact that light that reaches Earth from distant galaxies appears to have been in transit for millions and even billions of years.' The point is exactly that the light appears to have been in transit for a long time. "Why?", creationists ask themselves. "Is God trying to fool us into believing the universe is older than in actually is? Or is the universe actually older, somehow." These are problems facing 'creation scientists'. And that is what the line refers to. And that is why it needs the word 'appears'."
 * Please, my point is that creationists have to deal with scientific figures which they 'know', because they adhere to their own interpretation of scripture, to be false. They have to find a way to deal with this apparent illogic.
 * Also, what if creationists are right about the age of the universe (and I'm not saying they are). The light would have had to have been created to appear to have been in transit. There is no way of knowing that's not the case. In this article, such assumptions, which is what they are, should not be made.
 * Also, please don't claim I have reverted this edit without providing grounds. I have, clearly, several times. -- Ec5618 03:02, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Your reversions are baseless. That light is observed to be in transit is part and parcel to observations of said light and observations of the cosmological distance ladder. Intervening material absorb and re-emit light in ways that can be deconstructed and reconstructed by scientists. We aren't talking about an "assumption" here, we're talking about observations that are simply about the light being in transit for millions of years.
 * To make the claim that creationists are "right" about the age of the universe demands that the light is only an apparent transit is like saying that because some wacko thinks that human beings never walking on the moon is the correct description of reality, we should, when describing his work, only say that the United States "apparently" went to the moon. Facts are facts, and they should not be mitigated by people who are wrong. Joshuaschroeder 13:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * By the way, insertion of the word "evidently" is NOT a compromise because it does not accomodate the main point that I'm trying to make and that is that it is a fact that light travel times are the associated millions and billions of years. I have added a creationist explanation for this fact to the end of the sentence, but it probably can be improved. Joshuaschroeder 13:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I never made the claim that creationists are right about they the age of the universe. I merely said that, in their belief system, the universe cannot be as old as science indicates it is. So, to them, either their scripture is wrong (which it can't be), or science is wrong, somewhere. The wording didn't suggest that science is wrong, merely that some people have trouble with its conclusions. Insertion of the word 'evidently' suggests that. To creationists it appears to have been in transit, but clearly can't have been.
 * Still, your edit, though a bit longwinded, seems to address all points. That said, I would still prefer some rewording for brevity. -- Ec5618 14:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * The insertion of the word "evidently" looks like a modification to the fact while the current edit explains how creationists wrestle with observations. I'll try to tighten up the language. Joshuaschroeder 14:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ungtss has rewritten the line, and, though it has definately bulked up, it has become, in my view, less bulky. I'm happy with it. If you are too, Joshuaschroeder, we can archive this discussion. -- Ec5618 21:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Massive Edit
I plan on doing a massive rewrite of this page. It might not matter if Bensaccount continues to revert the many reasonable edits being made by sensible editors, but I hope that a differnt format will prove less POV.

There are two particular problems with the current page [other than the pervasive POV that comes from Ben],

 * As written, half of the article is written with the misconception that "Creation Science" assumes that creation itself is a theory to be used, itself, as a model, or to be disproved or not disproved in itself. This is not true.  In scientific creationism, certain basic statements are taken as postulates, one of these being the creation.  Hence when someone says that creation science is not science because creation is not falsifiable, or that it does not predict things, that person has missed the mark.  Creation science has spawned a collection of theories [much like evolution and uniformitarianism, neither of which are considered theories in and of themselves, but rather postulates], and thosetheories can be judged for.  Those theories give predictions, and those theories gives falsifiable hypotheses.

Imagine how silly it would be to say "Modern science is not science because it is based on uniformitarianism, which cannot be proved." Such a statement would show a grave misunderstanding of the paradigm modern science operates from."

 * The wikipedia reference manual suggests that in contentious issues, one key to removing POV is to be more rigorous in citing details and sources. I will be publishing an edit that incorporates approx. half of the current article with massive citation of sources, links, etc. to both creationist and anti-creationist source material.

I hope you guys are willing to give the new version ao good try.

Phantym 05:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that the chances of all editors 'giving the new version a good try', would be greatly improved if you were to create a subpage to put it on. We could then more easily compare sections, and hopefully come to an agreement. If you simply edit the existing page, I'm afraid a revert war will be inevitable. /Phantym rewrite proposal ? -- Ec5618 07:22, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Here it is.  I admit that it could be stylistically improved, but I think it better represents scientific creationism, and it sidesteps the misguided It isn't science argument entirely. Please take a look at the /Phantym rewrite proposal

 * Not to rain on your parade, but the new proposal seems to be missing. -- Ec5618 14:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not anymore :) Phantym 15:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely brilliant rewrite. a breath of fresh air:).  i'm curious how it will be received by those editors who are less than sympathetic to creation science.  Ungtss 15:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we discuss the rewrite here /Phantym rewrite proposal/talk. Phantym 17:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This proposed article appears to be a collection of material drawn from creationist websites - complete with spelling mistakes and garbled and invented terms and phrases. Wikipedia is not going to accept material published in “creation science” journals as being on a par with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ian Pitchford 19:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It will never fly: the text lacks even a pretense of objectivity or scholarly rigour. It's a collection unsupported assertions and is without even a hint of presenting the actual mainstream scientific criticisms fairly; those times it deign to present the criticisms of scientists, it whitewashes them or offers the usual straw man arguments found on the usual CS websites. The indictments of mainstream science are equally jaundiced and hackneyed: offering as evidence Piltdown Man, etc. It also gets most of the analysis of the philosophy and method of science wrong. Nice try, but it's better suited to CreationWiki, not Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The same criticisms could be leveled at the present article, with respect to its straw-man description of creation science, refusal to articulate the reason and philosophy behind it, propensity to illogic, failure to adhere to the rules of npov regarding not stating or implying that a particular point of view is right or wrong. Ungtss 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That rhetoric in itself is a straw man. The current article is factually accurate, well-cited and represents over a year of diligent effort, heated debate, and painfully-reached and hard-won compromise between many editors. I for one am not willing to stand by idly and watch the entire ugly process restarted by ideologically driven creation science POV content replacing the accurate and neutral content already in place. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the old classic evolutionist fallback. "it doesn't matter what you think.  i think it's good, so it stays, no matter what reasons or policies are presented which provide basis for an alternative interpretation:(."  incidentally, the article is not "the result of over a year of work."  It is just over 4 months old.  it stood as a redirect for 3 years.  Ungtss 19:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Trolling? Bias?
Preceding this discussion was a lengthy brawl which has previously been archived.

In passing up your opportunity to convince those who disagree, you move from discussing to trolling. Bensaccount 14:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the purpose of wikipedia talk pages is not to debate or convince, but to aid in article development. the correction of blatant misstatements and misinformation on talkpages is essential to article development.  Ungtss 23:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

But if everyone knows you are biased, and you make no attempt to convince them that your edits are not biased you are no longer helping article development, you are simply spamming your biases. Bensaccount 17:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * your conclusion is based on the false premise that my edits are biased, and yours are not. Ungtss 01:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Since you are unwilling or unable to convince anyone otherwise, it is fair to say that premise is true. Bensaccount 21:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Easy to disprove the above premise. Your words "Creation Science does not involve experimental investigation." - Bensaccount, are either biased or wrong. See  or  for just two counterexamples to "[no] experimental investigation". Dan Watts 23:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but No; any experiment that's resulting conclusion is a foregone conclusion is no experiment at all, just as proof that rests on an unprovable assertion is no proof at all. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could look at the articles before you judge them, or is that not allowed? Dan Watts 01:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

According to this website, when Lammerts examined three-year-old bristlecone pine trees which had been deprived of water for three weeks in August, followed by normal watering during a warm month in September, he found that they had three growth rings instead of the two expected. Four-year-old bristlecone pines similarly treated exhibited four growth rings instead of the three found for similar plants whose growth was not interrupted by depriving them of water for two to three weeks in August.

In other words, these plants were deprived of water for three weeks, and (if you can believe him despite the complete lack of data) they lost one single growth ring.

Now firstly, different factors such as location, temperature, moisture, soil thickness, soil type, susceptibility to fire, susceptibility to wind, and the amount of sunlight received all are controlled variables that effect tree growth. Thus if you are trying to disprove a dating method, you have to use trees that have undergone the same conditions as the ones in the original dating procedure. The growth-ring analysis of bristlecone pine trees are done in the White Mountains, and they turn up negligible number of cases where there was even a trace of extra rings. In fact, the case for partially or totally missing rings is much more impressive. A typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing (Weber, 1982, p.25). Thus, if anything, one is likely to get a date that is too young! A careful statistical study, of course, minimizes even that problem.

Creationists sometimes seize upon such isolated facts in their desperate bid to discredit tree-ring dating. However, their failure to use repeatable controls gives results that can depend on any outside factor. This is not scientific experimentation. This is propaganda, meant to look like actual research but with no actual basis on experimentation. Bensaccount 14:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Intriguing analysis. After reporting time and method and conditions used in the test, Bensaccount claims "This is not scientific experimentation." and charges Lammerts with "failure to use repeatable controls."  As to "the complete lack of data," the link was to a survey of analyses, not the analyses themselves.  (If you wish, I can get the actual reference.)  Complaining about the experiment not mimicking the White Mountains, and what all wasn't done does not change the results of that study. Dan Watts 16:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Cutting in half and remarking that since this tree is fairly short, other trees could also be this short, is not a science experiment. It is not an honest observation, it is misrepreseting known facts as something that they are not. Bensaccount 15:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you have decided to label such research as akin to that which was labelled pejoratively as Jewish Physics. Dan Watts 12:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Creation science is discredited due to its complete lack of scientific experimentation or observation. How is that the same as Christians discrediting Einstein because he was Jewish even though his theories were scientific. Bensaccount 14:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * And here I thought that it was the Nazi establishment that was behind the discrediting. Thank you for enlightening me.  Your definition of "scientific experimentation or observation" must be different from mine. Dan Watts 16:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they were Jewish Nazis. If you are unsure of these definitions use a dictionary, they are fairly standard. Bensaccount 15:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Continuation
Ec5618 Had archived the discussion above before it had run its course. Previously: "Creation Science does not involve experimental investigation." - Bensaccount

 * See [] for an overview reference to Lammerts' study of the variable rate of Bristlecone Pine tree-ring growth (experimental investigation). - Wdanwatts (edited)

 * ....Creationists sometimes seize upon such isolated facts in their desperate bid to discredit tree-ring dating. However, their failure to use repeatable controls gives results that can depend on any outside factor. This is not scientific experimentation. This is propaganda, meant to look like actual research but with no actual basis on experimentation. Bensaccount 14:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Intriguing analysis. After reporting time and method and conditions used in the test, Bensaccount claims "This is not scientific experimentation." and charges Lammerts with "failure to use repeatable controls." As to "the complete lack of data," the link was to a survey of analyses, not the analyses themselves. (If you wish, I can get the actual reference.) Complaining about the experiment not mimicking the White Mountains, and what all wasn't done does not change the results of that study. Dan Watts 16:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Cutting in half and remarking that since this tree is fairly short, other trees could also be this short, is not a science experiment. It is not an honest observation, it is misrepreseting known facts as something that they are not. Bensaccount 15:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * From Creation Research Society Quarterly Volume 20, Number 2 (September 1983), pp 108-115 Dr. Walter E. Lammerts (who begins his paper by mentioning C. W. Ferguson's "Bristlecone Pine: science and esthetics" and discussing some of Ferguson's conclusions) outlines the materials and methods used in his study of ring growth in the Colorado strain of the Bristlecone pine.  The detail includes: the size of the greenhouse used (including roof slant), amount and type of materials used in construction (lumber and polyethelene), heat light source, fluorescent light source, source of seeds purchased (along with a statement concerning the unavailability of White Mountain seeds), thermal heater and temperature set point, dates of planting, description of five conditions groups of plants were maintained in, watering setup, watering (or not) schedule and dates of duration of such, lighting schedules, nutrient makeup and dates of application, dates of transplanting, dates of transport into and outside of greenhouse, dates of rainfall (for those trees which were not inside the greenhouse), dates of cross-sectioning, and number of plants in each group.  The results reported include: tabular measurements of growth height (histogrammed and subdiviede by group into 0.125 inch height bins), time necessary to grow first annual growth ring (instead of aboriginal "pith" - surprisingly, 2.5 years),  pictures of cross-sections, and conditions under which the extra growth rings were observed.  He then concludes the paper with a discussion, including dated photographs, of the relatively recent decrease of water in the White Mountain region of California, and what effects the previous wetter climate could have had on the Bristlecone pine.

 * Now, if that does not meet the definition of "experimental investigation" that Bensaccount understands, then perhaps Bensaccount can cite a definition which disallows Lammerts' paper or shows it to be "not an honest observation" and "misrepreseting known facts as something that they are not."  Otherwise, a retraction from Bensaccount appears to be in order. Dan Watts 15:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know this literature but it looks to me as though Lammerts (or perhaps Gish) has confused the dating of some Bristlecone Pines to c. 7000 BC with the maximum age of these trees, which is actuallly c. 9000 years. Lammert adjusts the figure of 7000 years to 5600 to make it more consistent with a young earth perspective. The real scientific literature can be accessed here Ian Pitchford 19:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually the literature referenced (and I am not surprised that you don't know it) was concerned with a heating/lighting/watering pattern which caused double growth rings in a year in Bristlecone pines that Lammerts grew. It did not address the maximum attainable age of the Bristlecone pine.  Lammerts postulated a scenario in which ~7000 tree rings would actually cover ~5600 years.  Thanks for the pointer to "real scientific literature." Dan Watts 21:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

See Ferguson, C. W. (1968). "Bristlecone Pine: Science and Esthetics." Science 159(3817): 839-846. "In certain species of conifers, especially those at lower elevations or in southern latitudes, one season's growth increment may be composed of two or more flushes of growth, each of which may strongly resemble an annual ring. Such multiple growth rings are extremely rare in bristlecone pines, however, and they are especially infrequent at the elevation and latitude (37° 20' N) of the sites being studied. In the growth-ring analyses of approximately one thousand trees in the White Mountains, we have, in fact, found no more than three or four occurrences of even incipient multiple growth layers." (p. 840) - Also, "A bigger problem is missing rings; a bristlecone pine can have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Thus, dates derived from dendrochronology, if they are suspect at all, should indicate ages too young." Ian Pitchford 21:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: Lammerts grew Bristlecone pines and did experiments with them, Ferguson inferred growth patterns from already-grown (and also from dead) trees. Which data is more direct? Dan Watts

The article you cite is just a claim by Gish about what Lammerts is supposed to have done. If Lammerts did the work he should have published it in an appropriate journal where it could have been studied and replicated by experts in the field. The scientific evidence on bristlecone pines does not lend any support to a YEC perspective. The bristlecone pine chronology extends back 9000 years not 7000 years and there are (may be) living things much older than bristlecone pines, e.g c. 11,700 year old creosote bushes. Ian Pitchford 11:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If I may call your attention to EvoWiki, where a page is set up for just this sort of talk. -- Ec5618 15:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I posted there, and the article I cited WAS written by Lammerts . Dan Watts 15:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Now if Ian will just do the same, we will stop filling up this page with (off-topic?) discussions. Dan Watts 19:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This discussion was not continued in the EvoWiki, but a brief dialogue can be found on User talk:Bensaccount. (-- Ec5618 09:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

New article proposal
I'm growing tired of the rambling, repetitive discussions that seem to fill this page. It is not our job to either prove nor ridicule 'creation science'. Whether or not an argument holds water is important though, but these discussions seem to provide little conclusion.

The /Phantym rewrite proposal lists a long list of common arguments made by creationists, without refutation by 'secular' scientists however. We could probably fill another article with the arguments made by creationists to disprove evolution, with the arguments made by evolutionists to refute those claims, with the arguments made by creationists to refute those again.

My suggestion: we create a new article (or simply build upon the /Phantym rewrite proposal for now). In it, we list the arguments made by creationists to object to evolution, and the arguments made by non-evolutionists (oh, alright, 'evolutionists') to object to creation. We first list a statement, including any quotes, then list (*) an argument opposing it, and so on. Creationists and evolutionists could test their argumentation against peer review.

My question to you all:

 * 1) Is it possible?
 * 2) Is it worth the effort?
 * 3) Is it encyclopedic?
 * 4) Is it going to alleviate the incessant discussion on this Talk page, and the Talk pages of other, related, articles?

(oh, and please answer these questions softly to yourself, or in your own post somewhere below this one)

For an example of what I mean we need only look to the above section. A better example can perhaps be found in the often heard allegation that 'many scientists are starting to turn starting to realise that Evolution is impossible', which is then 'proved' with (dubious) quotes, from prominent scientists, such as Charles Darwin.
 * Many scientists are realising the error of evolution, as can be seen in this quote: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."
 * This quote was taken out of context, as, in full, Darwin goes on to explain that, though it may seem absurd, it is no more absurd than the concept of a moving Earth: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
 * But Darwin also called evolution satanic.
 * No he didn't.
 * Yes, he did.

We would probably need icons or colours to distinguish between pro and anti.

If we do do this, we should remember to word any arguments convincingly and truthfully (and to edit any argument, as is the wiki way). This page should not turn into a discussion forum, possibly descending into arguments about clarity and wording, but should be a list of useful (and less useful) argumentation.

A bit of a long post, but one that, I hope, will convince someone to either start a new article to address these heard used arguments, or to convince them to stop arguing mindlessly for their own side. (Try proofreading an edit, as someone else might read it, before submitting it). -- Ec5618 15:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a worthy proposal, but probably not achievable in practice. I imagine we'd end up - after years of heated debate and editing - with an article the size of talkorigins that few would read and fewer would understand. Ian Pitchford 18:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * very worthy proposal, Ec -- i truly admire your interest in fairness in this case and you've been an invaluable source of reason on this page. As a historical note, a proposal very similar to yours was put into action several months back -- it was called "Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared."  It failed miserably, because evolutionists persisted in deleting every creationist argument that they perceived was invalid, rather than adjusting the evolutionist argument to account for it.  there was also a great deal of objection to "placing unequal views on equal footing," because, it seems, creationism is inherently invalid and worthy only of vile hatred.  ultimately, after one failed vfd by mr. bensaccount, it was successfully vfd'd by joshuaschroeder.  Ungtss 20:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I would go for anything that can reduce the volumes that are being written. (Yes, I am to blame for a sizable portion of it now.) As it stands, revert wars usually stop only when someone is censured/locked out, and specific topics (haven't been/can't be) resolved.  Maybe different would be better. Dan Watts 20:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Not encyclopedic, more appropriate and already done by evowiki. - RoyBoy 800 21:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I've read a few comments. To Ian Pitchford I should like to say that it might be worth starting such an article, if all it would do is provide a proper place for such endless discussion. Also, if we set some guidelines for the article, it should be possible to prevent endless discussion. As I see it, a single argument (i.e. "Darwin called evolution of the eye absurd" or "A recent study of tree rings called the age of ancient trees into question") should be fairly easy to deal with. The argument can't (shouldn't) devolve into namecalling, not in the article itself, and any new arguments brought to the table should be given a new header. Thus, a single argument should be done quickly, at which point the editors can move on to another argument.

To RoyBoy, though you call the proposed article unencyclopedic, lists abound on Wikipedia. How would this article need to be much different? The only truly different thing, is the option to 'retort' directly (though without discussion in the article itself), which is impossible on talkorigins itself. And thank you for that link to EvoWiki. I didn't know EvoWiki existed. Nevertheless, the article you linked to covers only creationism arguments, and doesn't include the retorts in an easily accesible way. I also feel the layout and ordering leave a lot te be desired. Since EvoWiki is a wiki, we should be able to build upon its contents, and list it as reference material.

I'm ready to be convinced though, but I am quite fed up with the constant bickering, and with the idea that such bickering will continue indefinately, if left unchecked. -- Ec5618 09:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * I certainly understand the energy, emotion etc. that can build up after facing tenacious creationists... you just want to do something, anything to get them to face their straw men. Doing an article will just decend into chaos as noted; and it won't be unchecked with you and others around to go to google and provide short responses with links to creationist arguments. Takes less time, takes less space, and lets you get on with other stuff. Someday I might follow that advice myself. :+D - RoyBoy 800 04:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't be in favor of expending any effort on this. The NCSE web, TalkOrigins and EvoWiki suffice. Ian Pitchford 10:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was tried already (see Votes for deletion/Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared). I originally created that page and looking back on it now I agree that it needed to be deleted. I wouldn't say that it was impossible to have a page on this topic but it needs to be done very carefully. Barnaby dawson 17:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. It is unlikely that such a page would survive for a great length of time because of the strength disagreement over how to represent Creation-science (i.e. is it science or is it just pseudoscience). Additionally, such a page would, as was correctly said on the Votes for deletion page, incorrectly show the debate to be a simple "either-or", two-sided debate between mainstream science and Creation-science. The debate about origins has many, many sides, and a myriad of views, and such an article would be highly unlikely to represent all (or even a majority of) shades of opinion. It is my view that such a page would not be workable, and also that there are now so many other articles on the matter that most of the arguments are satisfactorily covered. Having said that, there might be room for an extra section on this page explaining that, with the rise of the Internet, the debate does appear to have become much more polarised. Polocrunch 10:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree with the viewpoint that my page does not show evolutionist's criticism of arguments made by creationists.  I have 4 challenges that evolutionists specifically level at creationists [and note that these are hard to find because they tend to attack their more specific theories than the postulates themselves.  It is difficult for scientists to disprove special creation, and most do not even think it would be within their purview to try.
 * Secondly, of the 14 examples of challenges creationists level at mainstream science, I give specific examples of criticism for 8 of them [the only ones that I can find specific criticism against], and I include links to very vitriolic, anti-creationist articles on every single one [except the flux of interstellar dust, where I link to a creationist article that indicates its own weakness]. There is one theory whose criticism I did not feel I could explain (because it appears to misread the original paper so badly), but I still give a link to that attack.  So, all in all 9 of the 14 examples give the reader easy access to appropriate materials.  I think that the examples I give are suitably abbreviated with outside links for each one.  They do not judge the theories, but rather give a snapshot of the ideas on each side and articles for people to go to to evaluate for themselves.  I think it would not be difficult at all to add a bit to the article I made and go with that.-Phantym 20:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Make that 10 of 14, I added some info to the transitional forms portion, as well as a link to a discussion of punctuated equillibrium. -Phantym

There's already a complete list of creationist claims at TalkOrigins and a list of responses at CreationWiki. Perhaps we could work on something more original such as the history of creationism, with specific articles on neglected areas such as racist creationism; conspiracy theory creationism; bigotry in creationism; sexist creationism; quackery in creationism; totalitarian creationism; occultist creationism; pyramidology in creationism and so on. I can provide reading lists in all of these areas. Ian Pitchford 20:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Or perhaps we can write an article on what creation scientists actually focus on, which is the point of my article. -Phantym

 * The list isn't that complete, I know of some that are not mentioned. Dan Watts 21:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why? Ian Pitchford 21:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The way I see it, we can either try to prevent these useless discussions (for example, by adding a message box at the top of this Talk page), or we can create a page, and a format, for these useless discussions. Perhaps, in time, such a page will prove to be a useful resource, if only for editors.
 * "This page is an encyclopaedia article concerning creation science. While it mentions specific areas within creation science, it does not go into great detail, and does not list all'' specific arguments. Most editors agree that this isn't the place. See:
 * EvoWiki
 * CreationWiki
 * TalkOrigins."'' -- Ec5618 11:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should create an article to deal with this. However what might profitably be done is to put up a notice stating clearly that discussions on the talk page should have a high relevence to the advancement of the article itself. Unfortunately it may be hard to achieve consensus enforcing such a notice.

What may be more profitable on articles not specifically dealing with creationism but which get stuck in the same tar pit (e.g evolution) would be to create a separate talk page for issues to do with creationism or its various variaties. This would allow those who do wish to do serious work on such articles and who are unconcerned about issues surrounding creationism to do that without having to wade through masses and masses of text. Barnaby dawson 15:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Creation science/Archive 4


text:
Snake River Conspiracy

Snake River Conspiracy (SRC) is an American industrial rock band. It was formed in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay Area by producers Eric Valentine and Jason Slater. The band's vocalist, Tobey Torres, was recruited in 1998.

History
Snake River Conspiracy was founded in 1996 as a project of producer Eric Valentine and Jason Slater, a former member of Third Eye Blind. After forming, the band hired Tobey Torres to be the band's singer. The band was initially signed to Interscope Records in 1998 on the strength of a two-song demo, and shortly after signing to the label Valentine opted out of the band to focus on his music production career. Problems at Interscope led to the band moving to Elektra Records and then Reprise Records. The band's debut EP/single, "Vulcan", was released on October 5, 1999; it received rave reviews from critics, and was named "Single of the Week" by the British music magazine NME.

SRC's debut album, Sonic Jihad, was released in the United States on July 11, 2000. The band found moderate success in the United States with their cover of "How Soon Is Now?" by The Smiths, which reached a peak of number 15 on the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart and number 38 on the Modern Rock Tracks chart. "How Soon Is Now?" was reissued as a single in the UK by Morpheus Records in July 2001, where it subsequently reached number 83 on the UK Singles Chart.

In an episode of the official SRC podcast from 2005 addressing the numerous lineup changes, Slater named Mitchell Doran as the “best guitarist and most solid band member” in SRC.

On December 9, 2020, Slater died of liver failure.

In July 2022, Torres and Mitchell Doran launched a new Instagram account for Snake River Conspiracy, announcing that new music from the band will be released in 2023.

In November 2022, Mitchell Doran alleged that Jason Slater had stolen several compositions that were written by other Snake River Conspiracy members during the SRC2 recording sessions, and reused them with other bands he produced.

Band members
Current members
 * Tobey Torres-Doran – vocals (1998–2004, 2006, 2022–present)
 * Mitchell J. Doran – guitarist, producer (2005–2006, 2022–present)

Former members
 * Jason Slater – producer, bass (1996–2006, 2012–2020), guitars (2004–2005) (died 2020)
 * Eric Valentine – producer, engineer (1996–1999)
 * Martina Axén – vocals, drums (2004–2005)
 * Geoff Tyson – lead guitarist, production (1998–2002)
 * Rob Patterson – guitarist (touring only; 2000)
 * Fab Fernandez Hewitt – guitarist (2002–2004)
 * Eric "Hendrikx" Henderson – guitarist (2003–2004)
 * China – guitarist (2004)
 * Leo Larsen – guitarist (2006)
 * Ivo Ivanov – keyboards (touring only; 2000–2001)
 * Scott Engelter – keyboards (2001–2002)
 * Ashif Hakik – keyboards (2006) (died 2021)
 * Jay Lane – drums (2000)
 * Neil Taylor – drums (2000–2002, 2003–2004)
 * Bobby Hewitt – drums (2002–2003)
 * Matt Lucich – drums (2006)

Discography
Studio albums
 * Sonic Jihad (2000)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Snake River Conspiracy


text:
File:Vanilla ninja-vanilla ninja a.jpeg

Summary
Cover of Vanilla Ninja's self-titled 2003 album.

title: File:Vanilla ninja-vanilla ninja a.jpeg


text:
Bonar Bridge

Bonar Bridge (Drochaid a' Bhanna, ) is a village on the north bank of the Kyle of Sutherland to the west and the Dornoch Firth to the east in the Parish of Creich in the Highland council area of Scotland.

The Kyle of Sutherland ("the Kyle" for locals) is a river estuary of the Rivers Oykel, Cassley, Shin and Carron that all enter the Kyle above the bridge at Bonar.

The estuary (downstream) and the rivers (upstream) separate Sutherland from Ross and Cromarty to the south, and the estuary opens into the Dornoch Firth to the east.

Pre-History
Evidence of pre-historic inhabitance abounds in the area with many ancient hut circles and cairns.

One excavation was performed in 2004 by the Time Team UK Television program. It excavated a small henge and a crannog (artificial-island home) in Loch Migdale.

Migdale Hoard
In May 1900, a priceless collection of early Bronze Age jewellery known as the Migdale Hoard was discovered by workmen blasting a granite knoll behind Bonar Bridge, near what is known as "Tulloch Hill".

Dating from about 2000BC, the artifacts are in the custody of the National Museums Scotland in Edinburgh. The Migdale Hoard includes a bronze axe head, sets of bronze bangles   and anklets, and a series of beautifully carved jet and cannel coal buttons that may well have adorned a Bronze Age jacket, bronze hair ornaments and fragments of an elaborate bronze headdress.

Pictish Symbol Stones
There are a number of Pictish Symbol stones in the surrounding area, the closest being at Creich (in field near graveyard), Kincardine Church and Edderton (one at Church, one in field).

Norse/Viking times
Sutherland was named so (Sudrland) by the Norse of Orkney as it formed the Southern part of the Norse province of "Cat". Modern Caithness was the "Ness" part, with the third part "Strathnavern" (modern StrathNaver) being the third part (now mostly in modern Sutherland). The Dornoch Firth was the boundary between "Cat" and Ross and was called "Ekkjal" (Oykell) by the Norse and it is mentioned in the Orkneyinga saga.

"In the 11th or 12th century a contest of the inhabitants with the Danes is recorded to have occurred at Drin-leah (Drum Leadh), near Bonar Bridge, whence the invaders were driven back with great loss to their ships at Portnacoulter, [Meikle Ferry]. The extraordinary number of tumuli [Cairns] or graves on the scene of [the] action, while they attenst the truth of the tradition, and the greatness of the slaughter, cannot fail to excite the wonder of reflecting persons at the great numbers who must have been engaged and the consequent density of the population at that remote time".

Appearance on maps
The oldest records of local place names (on North side of the Kyle) found on maps are (in order from oldest) Sordel (Swordale, from Norse name) which is now a part of Bonar Bridge and has Swordale Farm, Little Swordale (Sordel Beg) (a mixed Norse Gaelic name with "Beag" meaning small in Gaelic) which is now abandoned, Creich (sometimes with Little Creich called out), Migdale then later Tulloch. A name "Eam" occurs several times towards Invershin, past Drumliach.

One such map is Sutherland, Strath Okel & Strath Charron of Robert Gordon's from 1654 or the Bleu Atlas of 1654, both found in the National Library of Scotland.

On the South side of the Kyle, MidFearn (Ferne 1573) is the oldest location shown, with Kincardine (with its church) appearing next.

17th century
The Battles of Invercarron and Carbisdale took place in 1650 during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms close to the village of Culrain, which lies to the West of Bonar Bridge. The battles were fought between the forces of the Scottish Covenantor Government and royalist forces loyal to the King, led by James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose. The royalists were defeated.

18th century
In 1746 the Earl of Cromartie and his forces returning South were attacked by Clan Sutherland near Bonar Bridge, in what became known as the Battle of Bonar Bridge. Most of the Jacobite officers were captured, many of the men were killed and the rest were driven onto the shore where several were drowned trying to swim the Kyle of Sutherland. Thus Clan MacKenzie were prevented from joining the Jacobite army at the Battle of Culloden.

Nineteenth century
Until 1812 the only means of crossing the Dornoch Firth was by ferry. On the night of 16 August 1809 over 100 people boarded the ferry boat on the Dornoch side along with goods and stock for the market in Tain. The over-laden ferryboat set off and, though conditions were calm, the boat was dangerously low in the water. About halfway across the boat turned broadside to the tide and began to take in water. It sank almost immediately with the loss of some 99 lives, including the Sheriff of Dornoch, Hugh MacCulloch. Over £2,900 were raised for disaster relief, much of it coming from overseas. It resulted in the construction of Bonar Bridge in 1812, designed by John Simpson (1755-1815).

Twentieth century
In 1927 a school of Pilot Whales ran aground in the Bay between Bonar Bridge and Ardgay. (See another photo in Tain Museum Archive )

Transport
The village is at the junction of the A836 road with the A949. The A836 leads north towards Lairg and Tongue and east over the Kyle for 4 miles to the B9176 junction to the A9 at Skiach, near Alness. Then runs along the south bank of the Dornoch Firth to the A9 near Tain. The A949 runs east along the north bank of the Firth to the A9 near Dornoch, at the other extreme of the Dornoch Firth bridge that takes the A9 over the Dornoch Firth from Tain here.

The village is a transport hub for pupils travelling to Dornoch Academy, Golspie High School and Tain Royal Academy. Stagecoach North Scotland provide numerous services via Bonar Bridge including the 25X-Inverness to Dornoch, 62-Tain to Lairg, 166-Bonar Bridge to Helmsdale, 167-Lairg to Dornoch and the X99 Wick to Inverness.

The village is 1 mile (1.6 km) from Ardgay railway station, which lies south of the Kyle. Ardgay is on the Far North Line, the railway line linking Inverness with Wick and Thurso. For a long time, Ardgay Station was called Bonar Bridge Station.

Light airplanes can land at Dornoch aerodrome; otherwise the closest airport is Inverness.

Original ferry points on the Kyle of Sutherland
Originally, the Kyle of Sutherland and the rivers feeding it were crossed where Bonar Bridge lies, and at other points downstream such as Creich (where the small "Stell" ferry ruin still stands) and at what was called "Portnacoulter" (Meikle Ferry) and upstream at what was called Portinleck (Culrain-Invershin) by small ferry boats (or Cobbles) and much further upstream by small bridges (e.g. Oykel bridge).

Fording the Kyle of Sutherland – at Bonar
The Bonar Bridge site provided the best point to ford the water without having to travel too far west to cross a bridge. Thus it was the preferred place to cross while droving cattle from the north and north-east to market further south. The fording point lies slightly downstream from the current bridge, more or less where the "Bonar shot" salmon fishing station was, below the old ice-house below Dornoch Road.

First bridge
Construction of the first bridge across the Kyle of Sutherland at Bonar Bridge started in September 1811 and completed in November 1812. The engineer was Thomas Telford and the builders were Simpson & Cargill. The components of the bridge were cast in Denbighshire and assembled there, before being taken apart and transported to its site for re-erection. The New Statistical Account for Scotland explains that consideration was given to sites at Meikle Ferry (referred to as Portnacoulter, Port a' Choltair in Gaelic, named for its shape like a "coulter" the blade of a plough) which was considered too wide, at Creich (also considered too wide) and at Portinleck (between Culrain and Invershin) which was further up the estuary and required a longer journey around and also a second bridge across the River Carron.

A plaque on the Ross-Shire side of the bridge was engraved with the following text: "Traveller, Stop and Read with gratitude the Names of the Parliamentary Commissioners appointed in the Year 1803 to direct the Making of above Five Hundred Miles of Roads through the Highlands of Scotland and of numerouse Bridges, particularly those at Beauly, Scuddel, Bonar, Fleet, and Helmsdale, connecting those Roads!"

This cast iron arch bridge carried the Great North Road, and was the prototype for several other Telford bridges, including Craigellachie Bridge, Mythe Bridge and Holt Fleet Bridge. The bridges all employed diamond-shaped bracing in the arch spandrels. Spanning 45.7 m (150 ft), Bonar Bridge cost £9,736 to build, and lasted for 80 years. Historian Roland Paxton stated that it "combined elegance with economy and strength to an unparalleled degree".

The bridge was swept away by a flood on 29 January 1892, a winter of many great floods in the North of Scotland. Apparently this event occurred as predicted by the Brahan Seer.

Second bridge
The replacement bridge of steel and granite was "built by The County Councils of Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland 1893 Opened 6th, July, 1893" (taken from an engraving in a marble plaque on the Bonar end of this bridge).

Third bridge
The third bridge built at Bonar is the currently standing bridge. It was designed by Crouch and Hogg consulting engineers and was built alongside the older bridge while it was still standing (but considered weak and needing renewal). After it was opened to traffic on 14 December 1973, the second bridge was dismantled.

Dornoch Firth Bridge
Traffic and commerce through Bonar Bridge has decreased since the construction of the Dornoch Firth Bridge, further down the estuary to the east, and other roads direct to the north-west from Dingwall.

Toponymy
The Scottish Gaelic word for ford is "Àth" (pronounced "Ah"). The Kyle of Sutherland had a ford here and it became called "Am Ban Àth", "Ban" meaning 'fair', which would be "Fairford" in English.

Over time "Ban Àth" became recorded as:
 * – "Bana" – on this 18th-century map as part of "Bana Ferry").
 * – "Bona" – on this 1730 military map ).
 * – "Bonar" – on this 1744 map ) as part of "Bonar Ferry".
 * – "Bonar" – after the 1812 construction of the first bridge at this site.

Thus the evolution of the name reflects the evolution of the water crossing at this point: FairFord -> FairFord Ferry -> FairFord Bridge

Locals refer to the village as "Bonar", usually dropping "Bridge".

Flora and fauna
Atlantic Salmon, Sea Trout, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, Buzzards, Osprey, Grey Seal, Oyster Catcher, etc.

Economy

 * Crofting and Farming
 * Forestry
 * Sporting salmon (rod) fishing on nearby estates and rivers
 * Deer stalking
 * Salmon netting (formerly)

Tourism
Most years, the village celebrates it Gala Week or the Salmon Queen Week, in August.

Nearby places of interest for tourists visiting the area include:
 * Ardgay
 * Carbisdale Castle – a folly castle built by the dowager duchess of Sutherland and was from 1945 until 2011 a Youth Hostel owned and run by the Scottish Youth Hostel Association
 * Croick Church (map ), with its evocative engravings on the church windows from sufferers of the Highland Clearances in the Amat area. Undiscovered Scotland Page
 * Culrain – below Carbisdale Castle
 * Dornoch – a picturesque Royal Burgh with famous golf course (Royal Dornoch), a great beach and camping area, and others.
 * The Falls of Shin – where you may see salmon attempt to jump up the falls on the way upstream to spawn
 * Invershin
 * Lairg
 * Ospisdale
 * Rosehall
 * Skibo Castle – which is now a luxury hotel/retreat known as the Carnegie Club
 * Spinningdale

Sports

 * Bonar Bridge/Ardgay Golf Club— a 9-hole woodland-style course in beautiful countryside overlooking Migdale Loch.
 * Bonar Bridge F.C. Football club

Notable people

 * Ishbel Ross (1895–1975), newspaper reporter and nonfiction author
 * John Murray (1898–1975), theologian

title: Bonar Bridge