User talk:Thunderkatz/sandbox

Is this list current or outdated? Thanks... human^{be in} 20:52, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

... current. I update it when I remember to, or when someone bugs me. Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:56, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, ok. I wonder why it lists ACD:37? Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Do you generate this with a search script of some sort, or manually? human^{be in} 21:13, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Manually. I go into Special:Wantedpages, highlight everything that has at least three links, then copy and paste into Excel. Excel automatically puts each line in its own cell in one column. Then, I auto-alphabetize, and put an asterisk in every cell to the left (using auto-fill). I copy that, then paste back to my sandbox. Thunderkatz^Ho! 10:26, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Wow, that's a lot of work, cool. I think Tmt fixed ACD:42 - it might never have properly been in the ACD: space. (he deleted and recreated it). Might I make two suggestions on the wanted pages sub list? One, that you paste in brackets in Excel so they are links, and two, sort by descending order of inlinks rather than alphabetically? If only we could make an automatic version and run it in the RW namespace... Thanks! human^{be in} 12:27, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Actually, it takes about thirty seconds total. Adding brackets would be more trouble than it's worth (since number of links ends up in the same cell as name of page). An automated version would be cool, but is way beyond my skill. And aren't you basically describing Special:Wantedpages? Thunderkatz^Ho! 13:29, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, you're right. I forgot that that was sorted by inlink number. nevermind :) human^{be in} 13:43, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

your side by side/Biblical scientific foreknowledge

I ran into a similar pile of tripe in a homestupiding textbook I own. I managed to find some article to wedge it into, I think. Ah, yes, this one probably. human 20:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I thought you might like to have a copy of this handy:

Criticism and discussion of Wow! -- 57 Unique Benefits of Homeschooling by Some Poopieheads.

Introduction
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29
30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57
Wrap up

Watch the numbers, there's something wacky about them ;)

human 21:10, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, but I'm think I'm fine just going by tens. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Want help?

If the answer is no, I'll help anyway, here are some I can answer without reading the verses or aren't typical creationist crap:

2. (about atoms) Even if the verse did state that matter is made of invisible things, it makes no distinction on it being continuous or not (as it would be divisible to the point of undetectability).

3. (about Noah's ark) No vessel can be made at that scale with wood. (Don't know if the proportion part is true).

14. (about humans being made from the same elements as soil) Soil is very varied, and its no wonder that the elements we're composed of are also found in ground (and many other places), plus so are the other animals.

17. (about the universe having a beginning) A coin flip can answer that question with a 50% certainty.

18. (about the earth being a sphere) It isn't, plus, it wasn't believed that it was flat, in fact its diameter had already been established. It is also contradicted by the "earth having 4 corners" verse.

20. (about the rainbow) Just a bizarre non-sequitur.

23. (about sexual immorality being harmful) Suddenly a sin brings immediate, physical consequences.

25. (about there being a lot of stars) No shit, one doesn't need a telescope to realize that. You might also want to point out how no successful predictions have been made from Biblical foreknowledge even though they should be clear and infallible.

You might also want to point out how some verses require a literal interpretation while others require a metaphorical one.

That's a lot of good stuff, especially that second to last sentence. I can't add them right now, but I can add them later, though you're more than welcome to add them yourself. If I mainspace this, will other people be more willing to add on? Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:48, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, "no successful predictions have been made from Biblical foreknowledge" is a key argument. If the claim is that the Bible is full of scientific facts that preceded the science being worked out, one legitimate test would be to list one that science hasn't confirmed yet. These lists tend not to bother with that effort... human 11:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Watching you proceed... the argument against virtually every one of these is what I quoted and said just above. All they do is take some clearly pronounced science, and try to find a poem/parable/hallucination that sort of resembles it. In no way could the "original" have been used to define or predict anything useful about the scientifically discovered "reality". I mean, come on, DNA predicted in the Bible? Maybe that we share a common "pattern", but not the nucleic acid itself, or what makes up the bases, or... etc. human 19:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree, but I still think it's worth it to be able to look at each and every claim and say "that's bunk, and here's why." And lots of them are bunk for different reasons. Some like the DNA and Ice Age ones, are about ridiculous amounts of reinterpretation, some, like the anti-evolution ones, are plain lies, and some, like the abortion one, don't even show what they claim it shows. Also, it's my first real chance to piss off an entire organization. Also also, when this is (hopefully) finished and (hopefully) mainspaced, I'd like someone with a YouTube account to place it here: [1]. Finally, we have to show these people that we're not going to let anything slide, we're going to refute every piece of crap they excrete into the internet, and we're not going to let them lie. </rant></soapbox> Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:41, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Yup, that's our job. To do the homework and place the blame, or stupidity, where it belongs. I admire your effort! human 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Format

Perhaps you should format the biblical quotes as quotes or put them in italics so that they stand out from the rest of the text?--Bob^{bing up} 11:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. That's a probably a good idea. And thanks for helping. Thunderkatz^Ho!

Holy shit

You're up to #61? You depraved basitd, you! ħuman 01:29, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

On the bright side, I have less than 40 to go. Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:53, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Some more for your sanity (I would add them myself but then I would have to figure out how to use the side-by-side thing): 70: It would be the same as #8, but this time it doesn't even follow from the cited scripture, "[God] gives us richly all things to enjoy" doesn't mean "God gives us the ability to feel joy".

71: Multiple things happen when one dies that won't get fixed just by reintroducing something you needed for survival (for example, your brain suffers permanent damage from lack of oxygenation whether you die from poisoning, bleeding drowning or whatever). Additionally, it is not outstanding that a population that couldn't resurrect people would think it is impossible to do so.

72: (Unless the verses say something different to what the site says, this one is just idiotic) Humans invented music, they invented it by making sounds they liked because they liked them. There's nothing complicated about this and evolution doesn't have to explain this anymore than quantum mechanics have to explain the origins of tic-tac-toe.

75: Evolution doesn't say things should be getting better! ^{— Unsigned, by: NightFlare / talk / contribs}

76: Plants come from seeds? No shit, sherlock. The basis of agriculture was written ages after it began.

77: The first one doesn't follow from the cited verse. As for the second one, it is not extraordinary that civilizations that practiced agriculture would realize that planting seeds made the seed "die" (note how this is taken figuratively).

Note that once again I didn't bother looking through the verses. You might want to check them to see if they even support what they say.

---

Not seen your masterwork before.

Just dived in haphazardly:

• 56: evolution says nothing whatsoever about creation of life.
• 61: (leprosy) Who says it was "long before ..."? Simple cause & effect analysis would show the link. (they, presumably, knew that intercourse preceded birth by 9 months& would therefore be capable of deducing other cause/effects - anyhow who would want a festering leper hanging around? (no offence to lepers intended))
• 65: They recognized depression, so?
• 66: Not to mention that found meat would probably be suppurating, stinky & revolting to the senses. (it gets warm in the Middle eastern daytime)
• 67: Fat was probably more valuable as a lighting fuel too.
• 69: Sounds like a crocodile + scary tales to keep people away from them.
• 71: Again evolution makes no claims about biogenesis
• 72: Take it from the rhythm of the heartbeat in the womb onwards
• 73: (primitive)

Good job btw   ^Contribs_Talk

---

MOAR:

80: When you form a non-ambiguous hypothesis about the exsistence of that third heaven and conduct an experiment that validates the hypothesis, THEN you can start talking about the Bible predicting things.

82: The passage would be interesting if it even gave a hint to just how complex the human body is, instead, it says it is nice. Additionally, it makes the distinction between humans and other organisms when in reality neither is, biologically speaking, more complex than the other.

84: Deliberate deception? How can you say physicists don't understand what binds atoms right after saying the concept's name? The strong nuclear force is what holds gluons together which in turn hold protons and neutrons together, not Jesus. Also, this implies atomic bombs are stronger than Jesus.

85: How do you get atomic fission (i.e. separation of an atom's protons producing two other atoms as well as releasing energy) from the quoted verse? It seems to say, rather, that things melt which is not exactly the most revolutionary concept in physics.

87: Just like many above, it tells you not to do something while at the same time not telling you why. [I'm not sure the dead animal part was unknown at the time, you might want to check]

90: Animal instincts is one of the things evolution explains best; just like muscles, organs, etc. an organism's behaviour is affected by genetics which is subject to mutations and of course subject to natural selection, resulting in beings with behaviour suited for their own survival. In the butterfly's case, a better answer than "goddidit" is that migrating animals have organs capable of detecting the earth's magnetic field, allowing them to navigate.

Usual disclaimers apply. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 11:58, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks to both of you. I really appreciate the help. NightFlare, I love the line about quantum mechanics explaining tic-tac-toe (and I liberally plagiarise from you, if you haven't noticed). It makes me wonder, what would a game of quantum mechanical tic-tac-toe look like? X's that are simultaneously O's? Anyway, thanks to Susan as well, both for the science and the spelling, which normally I'm pretty good at. Feel free to look at earlier points too. Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

No need for thanks, it's been fun to contribute in this. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 16:18, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

CPR

Hope you don't mind me adding a little sentence, but that's what immediately popped into my head when I read their part of #71. Zmidponk 16:02, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

It's fine. Actually, it's better than fine. Feel free to add anything else that pops into your head. That goes to anyone on this site (except for ShahB (because he won't change his name back)). Thunderkatz^Ho! 16:05, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Done, but not finished

So, I've successfully gone through all 101. It's been tough, wading through that pool of crap. Thank you to everyone who helped me with this. But I still need your help. I need as many people as possible to go through this, checking spelling, fixing typos, and adding more information and refutations. If you can think of something you want to add, add it! Don't be shy! Would others feel more comfortable contributing if I put this in main space now? Also, what title should it go under? I'm hoping that no one has objections to this being mainspaced, but if you do, speak up! Once again, for everyone's past and future help, thank you. Thunderkatz^Ho! 16:21, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I approve. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 13:50, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

foreknowledge?

Actually there is another point here. I think that quite a few of these could not be regarded as "foreknowledge" even if they were true. Should they start off with a bold "Not foreknowledge"?--Bob^{bing up} 17:03, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Possibly. Probably. Can you say which ones specifically? Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)