Jump to content

User talk:Aunt Entropy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Aunt Entropy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!} . . dave souza, talk 09:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationist misrepresentation of Schweitzer's work

Since there is dispute on the following contribution, I thought I would post a draft here and see if we can reach consensus on the appropriate language.

Another piece of evidence cited by YEC advocates that points to at least an inconsistency in the dating of dinosaur of fossils is the discovery of soft tissue in Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil bones.[1] "[2]

  1. ^ Carl Wieland, “Have blood cells ever been found in dinosaur fossils?“ Creation Magazine, 19(4):42-43, Sept./Nov. 1997
  2. ^ Helen Fields, “Dinosaur Shocker” Smithsonian magazine, May 2006

Does the qualifier "cited by YEC advocates" address your NPOV concern?--Nowa (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The tissue was not flexible until rehydrated. There is no evidence that the tissue was unfossilized, and soft tissue has been known to fossilize. Stokstad, Erik. 2005. Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue raises tantalizing prospects. Science 307: 1852. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Can you incorporate your points in the above draft?--Nowa (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"One the one hand, the site where the bones have been found has been dated to 65 million years ago. On the other hand, there is no known mechanism for preserving soft tissue for this length of time." This is a non-sequitur. Not knowing the mechanism for preservation of soft tissue doesn't change the fact that fossilized flexible tissue has been found in specimens dating to 300,000 years, which is by a couple of orders of magnitude too old for any YEC justification. It's weaselish and makes an implication that doesn't hold up.Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, NPOV includes requirements regarding NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" all of which have particular relevance to such topics. Highlighting this specific creationist claim gives it undue weight in an article about the topic as a whole, so removing it from the Young Earth creationism article is correct. If it does appear anywhere it has to be put in the scientific context of the overwhelming majority expert opinion on the subject. However, Wikipedia isn't aiming to duplicate An Index to Creationist Claims, which unremarkably enough does cover this specific claim.[1] Nonetheless, thanks for highlighting the Smithsonian article, which is interesting about the subject, and also includes her comments on creationists – “They treat you really bad. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” Just so. . .. dave souza, talk 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dave, Great links. I agree that "Wikipedia isn't aiming to duplicate An Index to Creationist Claims". I would imagine, however, that some articulation of creationists claims is necessary for the YEC article to be meaningful. Which ones should be included and how should they be presented? What is the overall goal of the article?--Nowa (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion that's best raised on the article talk page, there's already some mention of creationist claims under the various headings, but perhaps they're such a major part that a section could be devoted to them. One possibility would be removing the "criticism" heading and making the :Scientific" subsection into a new main section about such claims, with the theology section becoming another main section. A bit of rethinking would be needed, so best to discuss it with the regulars first. .. dave souza, talk 14:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dave, Those are excellent suggestions. My thought on vetting these issues here first was so that I would be more prepared for future discussions on the talk page.

It appears to me that the issue of surpisingly well preserved tissues in mineralized bones is important to YECs. It came to my attention while watching a recent program on Discover about the possibility of "recreating" dinosaurs. I was curious to see how YECs viewed this but didn't see anything in the article about it. This seemed like an omission considering how much coverage Dr. Schweitzer's discoveries have received. Hence I did a bit of my own investigation and hoped to make a minor addition to the article. Apparently something in my wording has created a POV problem and I was hoping to understand what it was.

Let me phrase my question differently. The following excerpt from the current article appears acceptable.

For many years, YECs referred to supposed associated human and dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas as proof of coexistence, though most now have abandoned these claims, as careful scrutiny has shown them to be either fabrications or spurious phenomena.[1]

Do you see any difficulties with the following proposed addition to immediately follow?

More recently, YECs have cited the discovery by Mary Higby Schweitzer of organic tissue in Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil bones as evidence that these fossils are at most a few thousand years old.[2] Dr. Schweitzer, however, has vigorously protested this interpretation of her discoveries citing the geological age (65 million years old) of the site where the bones were recovered.[3]

--Nowa (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest moving it to the talk page. There's a tension, in that something more concise would be appropriate for what's just one example. At the same time it's important to cover the point that the impression's given that they broke the bone open and found soft tissue with blood on it, when the article describes her as dissolving the fossil fragment in acid and looking at it through a powerful microscope to find the remains of "soft tissue". You've already edited Mary Higby Schweitzer with this info, I'll suggest some more sources on the talk page there. In terms of the main YEC article, the point needs to be in the context that they make many such claims, and these are just a couple of notable examples .. dave souza, talk 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So moved. It will be interesting to get the input of other editors.--Nowa (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hello - thanks for fixing the vandalism on my user page. The vandal battle was intense today! Thanks again - cheers Geologyguy (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Info about an important Big Bang feature removed by Aunt Entropy

The great achievement of Big Bang cosmology has been to show that matter can be created continuously out of nothing or destroyed into nothing. It has been shown that the principle of conservation of energy can't be valid in an expanding uiverse. Something that is now taught to all general relativity students around the world. If the principle of conservation of energy were valid then the universe couldn't be expanding and yet most astronomers maintain that it does.

So why are you trying to fix texts without understanding what they are about? Are you trying to promote your personal opinion about the physics? Jim (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Since when does the BB come from "nothing" --- presumably you have a source for that? --Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say that "the BB come from 'nothing' "?
I said though (see above): "It has been shown that the principle of conservation of energy can't be valid in an expanding uiverse" and "If the principle of conservation of energy were valid then the universe couldn't be expanding" which you may check it in any general relativity course in any university where it is taught by a physicist or a mathematician. Jim (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Creation

Did you read what I wrote on the discussion page. Once you do you should realize that you are vandalizing this site. How can you possibly prove to me that creation is not a scientific theory any more than I can scientifically prove to you that evolution (or just the big bang)is. The world began at one point and nobody (no human) saw it happen, so therefore any account of the world and universe's origin is a theory. And how in the world can you tell me it is not a theory when a theory is like this website says (as I stated on the creation discussion page) an analysis of facts. Creation is certain people's analysis, and evolution is other's people analysis. You are vandalizing this site by being biased against creation. And if you agree with your own advice then you should be banned from editing. If you have not read what I wrote on the discussion page of Creation, please go read it. As a result of the fact that Creation is an analysis, not scientifically provable, yet an analysis, I will change the page back. MusicFoot822 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Musicfoot,

Adding information that is untrue, after being told it is untrue repeatedly, is vandalism. And I repeat myself by saying that "Creation" is in no way a scientific theory.

A theory is not an idea, or guess, or conjecture. From the Wiki page:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

...

According to the National Academy of Sciences,


Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Now, if you can explain how "Creation", a widely-emcompassing term, is a scientific theory using reliable sources as outlined here WP:SOURCE, capable of being tested and verified, please add your findings to the Talk page. But I must tell you, "Creation" is not considered a scientific theory by the community of scientists, and according to WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE the definition of what constitutes science will be determined by the mainstream science community, not by fringe POV-pushers. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

YEC needs to be corrected or deleted

If you look at my other edits, you will see that I have WP's best interests at heart. YEC either needs to be self-corrected by us or deleted before there are problems. It is best to expose the problems ourselves and to fix it. Otherwise, it appears to involve malice with no mechanism for self-correction. That is how other publications have gotten in trouble. As a person that has been in litigation for a decade, believe me, we don't want to go there. It would be a shame to see WP going down over people who are basically trying to say: "Creationists are stupid" and misusing published information from icr.org and its principals, who rasie millions of dollars per year as a 501(c)3. I don't like what icr.org does either, but this is an encyclopedia. If xyz wants to say "Creationists are stupid" and our editors are not playing dual roles, that's fine to enter as an encyclopedia. However, our editors have no conflict-avoidance statement in place. Please note, I am fully disclosed as being doug@youvan.com, my actual name. WP Anonymity is transparent in a court of law of competent jurisdiction. Please also note that I am a biophysicist, yet a Calvinist, and not a lawyer.50MWdoug (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you gaurding the Hrafn page post his retirement? I authentically invited him (Richard Dawkins and / or his apologists) back. Why do you know me by my real name and deposit it only in edit tags? I am informed that any tie between WP and our government - with any kind of POV which is unconstitutional - such as freedom of speech and /or separation of church and state - is tantamount to sedition. Where is Raoul? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Creation Edit

Aunt Entropy, if you think you are right then explain to me WHY my edits are disruptive. I can clearly see that your edits that undid my edit are disruptive, and I told you why, so I request you to tell me why. Your edit denies a conclusion which cannot be disproved the right to be called a possible answer to ours and the earth's origins. Therefore you are being unequivocally biased, and therefore disruptive, vandalizing, and disobedient to the policy that you tell me I am disobeying (when I am in fact not). Your edits to the one sentence I put on the "Creation (theology)" are not neutral, and therefore not allowed to take place on this website. As I said I would like you to explain to me why my edit is wrong. If you do not I explain, I will take it that you don't have an answer. Without an answer, all you have is bias and not neutrality. MusicFoot822 (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You should consider WP:AGF regarding your attacks on me.

Undoing nonfactual edits is not disruption or vandalism. Neither would undoing say, an edit to the Jesus article that added "Jesus was married and had four children." Some people may believe that is true, but it is not considered true by the relevant experts.

The experts of what constitutes a scientific theory are scientists, and the scientific community does not accept "Creation" as a scientific theory.

It may be something with which you don't agree, but it doesn't change reality.

I've been trying to tell you this from the beginning, even showing you the theory page. You did read it, right? It clearly explains how a concept or idea becomes a theory: through the gathering of large amounts of evidence and vigorous experiment. I don't think I've left you in the dark here.

Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

MusicFoot822: Aunt Entropy is correct, and so is the other editor (John D. Croft on the "Creation" discussion page) who has responded to your concerns.

In undoing your edits, Aunt Entropy is not being disruptive, biased, vandalizing, non-neutral, or disobedient to the policy. She is simply reverting an unsupported/unsupportable claim, and maintaining the accuracy of Wikipedia articles is a primary goal of editors. If she hadn't been around to revert it, I would have, and for the same reasons.

There are several things wrong with claiming that "Creation" is a "scientific theory". Aunt Entropy and John D. Croft have already given reasons why, and directed you to links which further clarify the point, but since there still seems to be some confusion, I'd like to clarify a few key issues:

  • The term "scientific theory" has a specific meaning, with specific requirements that have to be met before something can actually qualify as a "scientific theory", and "Creation" does not meet those requirements. You've been given descriptions and links which explain what the phrase "scientific theory" means. Here are a few more that might help clarify it, this time from Brian Dunning's excellent "Skeptoid" podcast: "A Primer on Scientific Testing" read, listen, and "How to Spot Pseudoscience" read, listen.
  • A "scientific theory" is much more than just "an explanation", or "a conclusion", or "an account" or "an analysis", or even simply a plain "theory" (without the "scientific" qualifier). When you argue that "Creation" is those things, it does not help make a case that "Creation" is a "scientific theory", because none of those things are enough by themselves to qualify as a "scientific theory". If you can't actually make the case that "Creation" actually has *all* the features which are necessary for a thing to be a "scientific theory", then it is quite simply not correct to edit the Wikipedia to declare that "Creation" is a scientific theory, because it isn't. Period.
  • Furthermore, even if *you* could lay out such a case, that's still not good enough. Wikipedia doesn't present the view of any one editor (or even many editors). It presents material that can be properly supported or sourced to the world at large, not the private views of the editors. And like it or not, the consensus of the scientific community is the source that gets deferred to when it comes to determining what is or is not accepted as a proper scientific theory. And unless you can find some statement from some major scientific organization that we've all missed, in which the scientific community at large has indicated that it considers "Creation" to actually be a "scientific theory", then you have no business trying to insert into Wikipedia your own personal POV that "Creation" is somehow a "scientific theory" after all.
  • Even if you do insert such an edit anyway despite the lack of a proper citation supporting it, all other editors have a responsibility to revert it.

Finally, in order to be a "scientific theory", among other things an explanation needs to be specific and detailed. When you attempt to edit the introduction to the "Creation" article in order to declare "Creation", type unspecified, a "scientific theory", it doesn't even make much sense. WHICH "Creation" scenario, exactly? It's at least possible in principle for *some* specific "creation" scenario to meet all the requirements of a "scientific theory", even while the thousands of other Creation scenarios (e.g. Hindu, Greek, dozens of Native American, etc.) don't. It makes no sense to say that "Creation", period, is a "scientific theory", because there are so *many* Creation scenarios across different cultures and historical eras. In order to have any meaning at all -- in order to meet the specificity and testability requirements of being a "scientific theory" (to just name a few), it would be necessary to identify *which* Creation scenario, in detail, is being declared "scientific" among all the possibilities. Scientists would never be so sloppy as to say that "gravity" is a scientific theory, they would instead refer (albeit perhaps by implication) to a *specific* gravitational model. "Creation", as a concept, cannot possibly be a scientific theory -- it's way too broad, it covers too many contradictory viewpoints, it's far too nonspecific.

--Ichneumon (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Evolution controversies

Hi. I noticed that you recently made edits concerning this category. You may wish to participate in the CfD on it on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 10. HrafnTalkStalk 11:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to be cautious about removing this category from articles while the CfD is under consideration -- WP:CFD states: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." It's a pain I know, but strict adherence to rules can often ensure that these processes go smoothly. HrafnTalkStalk 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor had not just added a new category, he had modified the original Category:Evolution. I consider that vandalism, and reverted it. The category itself was not at issue with me. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock notice

Hi AE, this is just to let you know I removed the sock template from NCdave's user page per the comments, and as someone who has been following the situation. Ultimately the IP's actions are much more consistent with the user who originally put the template on NCdave's page, not with NCdave. If there are any issues feel free to let me know; Raul would have more information, but otherwise I imagine you'll see there wasn't anything to this. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR and talk pages

I'd say yes, but I'd probably want to bring it up on ANI first. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, give him a 24 hour block for disruption, and take it to ANI to see if it should be longer. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you aren't? Never mind, then =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, why aren't you? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, nm, I see why. Goodness, we must edit all the same pages, I thought you were much more experienced. My apologies, keep up the good work! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? --Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You, dear. Is all clear now, or do I need to explain? Sorry for being confusing, I did not intend to be. Its a gift, some days. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment (blush). I'm not much of a writer; I just try to keep the crap to a minimum so the writers for the Reality Cabal don't burn out (as fast anyway). --Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

The article is in Category:Documentary films. If it's in this category, we call it a documentary film. The fact that it is a disgusting, propaganda polemic does not mean that it is not a documentary. We also avoid making value judgements in the first sentence. FCYTravis (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for false inclusion in sock puppet list

My sincere apologies, Aunt Entropy, for my misguided inclusion of your username in my sock puppet list on Talk:Theistic Evolution. I misunderstood your edit of 05:45, 27 April 2008. I've removed your name from the list. I shall check more carefully in future. -- Jmc (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome

Please do not randomly reinsert erroneous information, as you did on Da Costa's syndrome. If you have something to say, use the talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You reverted material with cites from reliable sources. I can see no reason for such an edit other than the fact that it doesn't square with your POV. I am aware of your conflict of interest here, and if not a direct violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, certainly a violation of the spirit inherent. May I suggest you stick to editing articles that you have no apparent COI in. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Aunt Entropy, for your support in Da Costa's syndrome. Let me encourage you to be involved in the article; please don't let this terse and IMO inappropriate "warning" from an editor (who has a history of being blocked for exactly this sort of edit warring) scare you off. Your participation is welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no such history, thanks. Please stop your continuous personal attacks and don't put lies and insults in your edit summaries. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Your block log is visible to any editor, Guido. you were blocked for edit warring on 13-Dec-2007, 16-Jan-2008 and 01-May-2008. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Besides being completely irrelevant and not constituting a 'history', block logs, like all things on Wikipedia, can be misleading. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
However no misleading that WP:3RR is not a licence to revert against consensus of other editors upto 3 times and I've blocked GDB again for edit warring (progressive step up of 1 week). Also warned re incivility, as per start of this thread. David Ruben Talk 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not reverted against consensus, and have not been editwarring, thanks. Why do you leave user's false claim that I have a COI with this article unaddressed? Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Aunt Entropy, have we met? I think I recognize you from evo/creationism pages, but I was surprised to see a vote of confidence from someone who I can't really peg a memory to. Usually I'll get that rosy glow of affection or deep red penumbra of rage if I know a user, but I don't believe we've ever interacted directly.

Anyway, I would like to say thank you for your vote of confidence - I've long been curious about a RFA for all the wrong reasons; I want to see what the gossip would be. That someone I don't 'know', knows me enough to venture a positive opinion on my talk page goes far beyond flattering. I'm touched, and heartened that someone thinks I'm doing a good job. Thanks thanks thanks, and thanks! I'd trade in all my barnstars, even my socratic barnstar, for an opinion out of nowhere that I'm doing a good job. And that's what I got! So thank! Do you like pie? I've the best recipe for pie crust EVAR, and 'tis the only way I can say thank you in the information age! WLU (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here :). I've seen your work, and wish I could contribute as well as you and some of the other better pro-science editors on wiki. I'm just the evening cleaning lady, trying to keep WP from becoming a FRINGE paradise. BTW, are you still adopting? Because I've been wanting to be adopted by someone like yourself. I've also been trying to register my email here, but they send me a confirmation link that won't work.
Anyway, my email is my name at Yahoo with a dot in between the two words. Feel free! Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm ashamed, that wasn't even archived that long ago.
I don't think I'm particularly remarkable in contribution quality, I've just done it a lot. 24K worth of edits I'm not ashamed to brag about. You'll get there, just keep reading the policies!
Regards adoption, I now don't feel there's much value added in adoption - if you find someone who is on wiki daily or near so, and willing to answer questions, you've got the best part of adoption right there. User:SandyGeorgia has never turned anyone away, even when it was to her detriment I believe. I am also quite happy to answer questions to the best of my ability, I always love a chance to show off my shortcuts. But if you'd like something official, feel free to update your page and mine with adoption notices. My starting advice is always a) install POPUPS, WP:TWINKLE or some other editing tool, b) read this and c) become familiar with citation generators. I'm thinking of modifying my final point to say "bookmark diberri and put links to them all on your talk page." In case you're wondering, here's my standard paste.
  • Citation templates
  • Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities) but the citation template isn't as neat and it does not fill in ISBN or pubmed numbers
  • ISBN searchable database, used in conjunction with Diberry to find, and generate citation templates
  • pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the [www.pubmed.org pubmed] number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubemd or ISBN
Really, adoption only seems useful if a third-party is seeking info about the adopter or adoptee; anyone listed on WP:ADOPT is going to be willing to ask questions so 'agreeing to adopt' via the userboxes is kinda pointless. Though it does up your edit count.
I'll try sending you an e-mail from my account, I don't know much about the e-mail system so unfortunately that's one area I can't help you with! WLU (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gods and memes

I have been reading Mr. Dawkins book he specifically points out "I am only talking about supernatural gods." Page 20. I think this selectivity should be pointed out in this entry. Also things he selectively (consciously or unconsciously) skipped in his book dealing with questions of the [past history (morality)] chemistry and physics. What do you expect barbaric, unobjective, primitives to envison and express thousands of years ago accurate science and critical history? Mythology and brutality is the language of the area and time. Give me a break. Memes is the answer. Yeah sure. Let's see a meme in a microscope. Kazuba (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
  1. ^ Edwords, Frederick. "Seeing the Light". Humanist.
  2. ^ Carl Wieland, “Have blood cells ever been found in dinosaur fossils?“ Creation Magazine, 19(4):42-43, Sept./Nov. 1997
  3. ^ Helen Fields, “Dinosaur Shocker” Smithsonian magazine, May 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aunt_Entropy/Archive_1&oldid=1124040535"