Talk:Peter Stoner

Critique

I'm having problems finding a critique of Stoner's claims that is truly Stoner-specific (as he seems to have been basically unknown until McDowell). I could easily take him apart myself (there are many more errors in "Science Speaks" than have been mentioned so far), but presumably I'd fall foul of the "no original research" prohibition. --Robert Stevens 12:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed the second link as it is of no relevance to the topic.

Repeated deletions by user Kdbuffalo

The "Critiques of Stoner's Apologetics" section keeps getting deleted by user User:Kdbuffalo, who has refused to discuss the matter (he has also deleted my message on his personal Talk page). The reason, allegedly, is that it makes the article "POV" and "unbalanced": supposedly, deletion of all mention of the controversial nature of Stoner's claims is "balance". He's even added a link to an apologetic response to an article whose own link he keeps deleting!

In a biography of a person notable for making a controversial claim, it is customary to mention the controversy (and citations are provided). Granted, there's not a lot else here at present, but the solution to that is to expand the article, not delete all mention of the controversy.--Robert Stevens 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted your material as I did not find Stephen Carr or Jim Lippard to be notable critics nor did they have any qualifications which would make them relevant. Nevertheless, I decided to compromise rather than get in a edit war and left them in but I deleted your editorializing which had no footnotes. I also added this material in order to make the the "Critique section" more NPOV which I think you should have had in prior and I should not have had to add it:

Professor Stoner's work Science Speaks was reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group was found, in general, to be dependable, accurate, and convincing in regard to the scientific material and the probability material presented in regards to prophecy. [1] In addition, Christian apologetist JP Holding defended Professor Stoner's work in regards to its examination of Bible prophecy against the criticism of one of its critics. [2]

ken 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

You didn't actually mention that Stoner was a co-founder of the American Scientific Affiliation[3], which is probably worth noting in his biography, so I've made a separate heading for the ASA. Also, there is some doubt regarding the extent of the ASA's endorsement of Science Speaks, as Hartzler's testimony contradicts that of Jack Haas[4], who says that Stoner may have used his status as an ASA "insider" to bypass the usual procedure: it's probably safer to say that the book claims to be endorsed by the ASA (which may well be true, but at least the claim is certain). Of course, the endorsement only covers Stoner's scientific information and probability calculations, not issues of Biblical exegesis or historical accuracy (which is where most of Stoner's errors occur). More on Stoner's peer-reviewers can be found here:[5].

It also seems odd to mention Holding's defense before the criticism he's defending against, so I've reordered that section. Of course, neither critic was specifically addressing Stoner anyhow, and Holding didn't address Lippiard, so some qualifiers are needed. And Holding Skipped some of Carr's material too: agreeing with Carr about the Petra error, not addressing the Tyre errors (but repeating some), providing no evidence at all for his unhistorical claim that Nebby conquered Egypt, more-or-less agreeing that there isn't good evidence against after-the-event authorship or tampering, glossing over the failure of the Babylon prophecy... and so on. I'm not really sure that it qualifies as a "defense", though it's certainly a "response" to Carr. I've also reinserted "appears to have" (escaped the notice of critics), because a Stoner-specific critique might exist somewhere.

I've also reinstated a brief mention of the nature of some of the criticism, as this is appropriate (and evident from the citations). I might expand it to actual quotes later. --Robert Stevens 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are Jim Lippard and Stephen Carr? I don't believe they are authoritative or notable critics

Can someone tell me why Wikipedians should consider Jim Lippard to be a authoritative or notable critic of Professor Stoner's work? I don't think it is a mistake that Wikipedia does not have a biographical article on Jim Lippard.

Can someone tell me why Wikipedians should consider Stephen Carr to be a authoritative or notable critic of Professor Stoner's work? I don't think it is a mistake that Wikipedia does not have a biographical article on the Bible skeptic Stephen Carr ken 23:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Holding is not an authoritative source either (a former prison chaplain with no relevant qualifications whatsoever). Should I remove him? Lippard and Carr have peer-reviewed articles published by a site which DOES have a Wikipedia page devoted to it. --Robert Stevens 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard are scholars. You certainly have not given any credentials for them which would leave me to believe they are scholars. I could find no biographies of them which would make me believe they are scholars. Secondly, JP Holding is a notable person. This was discussed at Wikipedia and it was determined that Holding is notable. Lastly, I don't believe you have given compelling evidence demonstrating that Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard are notable. By the way, I think the following quote from JP Holding in regards to Stephen Carr asking his readers to do research because he did not read a particular book was rather telling: "Well, this is a hoot! Asking the readership for help in the text of your publication? I can see it now - Einstein writing an article in Physics Journal: "Schroedinger says that quarks are made of whipped cream. This is from 'Quarks: Our Friends and Neighbors.' I do not have this book. Does anybody know what theories it refers to?" Some books are rare and hard to get, but Carr needs to at least make an effort here." [6]

ken 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Under what definition of "notable" is J.P. Holding (pseudonym of former prison librarian turned online evangelical) notable and I'm not? (I'd say either we both are or aren't.) Likewise, under what definition of "scholar" does Holding qualify and I don't? I wrote "Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah" while in the doctoral program in philosophy at the University of Arizona. I didn't finish my dissertation (I earned an M.A., passed my comprehensive exams, and wrote one dissertation chapter before making a career change from academic philosophy back to working with computers), but I've published book chapters, magazine articles, and multiple peer-reviewed journal articles; several of them are cited in Wikipedia articles (e.g., in the entries for "Free Zone", "Scientology versus the Internet", "Ian Plimer", and "Henry M. Morris"). Does Holding have any academic credentials? BTW, note that Peter Stoner's grandson, Don Stoner, is the author of _A New Look at an Old Earth_, and holds quite a different view from his grandfather. He contacted me with favorable comments on my critique of his grandfather's book. Lippard 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sauron, an anonymous user at a Internet Infidels discussion board, is not a authoritative or notable source

I am sorry but we have no real evidence that "Sauron", an anonymous user at a Internet Infidels discussion board, actually contacted Mr. Haas at the ASA. [7]. I would rather take the testimony of a professor (namely Peter Stoner) and H. HAROLD HARTZLER, Ph.D. Secretary-Treasurer of Goshen College, Ind. [8] , than take the testimony of an anonymous user at a Internet Infidels discussion board. According to Professor Stoner, who cites H. HAROLD HARTZLER, Ph.D. Secretary-Treasurer of Goshen College, Ind., Professor Stoner's work Science Speaks was reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group was found, in general, to be dependable, accurate, and convincing in regard to the scientific material and the probability material presented in regards to prophecy. [9] I hope you are not saying that "Sauron", an anonymous user at a Internet Infidels discussion board, is a authoritative source that should be used at Wikipedia. ken 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I did not present that information in the article. I presented it to YOU, personally, on this page only. It was background information that I thought might be of interest. --Robert Stevens 08:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can effectively use an anonymous poster at a Internet Infidels discussion board as background information in order to exclude information for the article. He is not notable or authoritative. However, with that being said I am revising my contribution to make it more accurate. I formerly wrote:

Professor Stoner's work Science Speaks was reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group was found, in general, to be dependable, accurate, and convincing in regard to the scientific material and the probability material presented in regards to prophecy. [10] In addition, Christian apologetist JP Holding defended Professor Stoner's work in regards to its examination of Bible prophecy against the criticism of one of its critics. [11]

Here is the more accurate information:

Professor Stoner's work Science Speaks was reviewed by a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group and has been found, in general, to be dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented and the probability material presented in regards to prophecy. [12] In addition, Christian apologetist JP Holding defended Professor Stoner's work in regards to its examination of Bible prophecy against the criticism of one of its critics. [13]

ken 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Undue weight and POV deletions

I see that you have again deleted the links to scholarly, peer-reviewed criticism of Stoner. But you've left Holding's response to the material you removed: giving undue prominence to an incomplete, inaccurate and unscholarly article. I shall continue to revert this. As for the ASA's "endorsement": it needs to be made clear that this is just their opinion, not fact (actually, Stoner made scientific errors too, and misused probability). And the partial nature of their endorsement seems to have disappeared too, even though they seem to have carefully limited the scope of their endorsement (as they apparently had no historians or archaeologists among the reviewers).

I'm not sure what can be salvaged from that mess, so I'm reverting. Try again. --Robert Stevens 10:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Paris Hilton has a Wikipedia page. So you'd consider her to be a notable authority? And yet, if she wrote an article that presented factual information and passed the Infidels peer-review process, the article would qualify regardless of who wrote it, as it would no longer be "original research". --Robert Stevens 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is being written by a teenager. With an educated mind thats puts me above beyond(in debated issues) because of scholars like Stoner. The only reason why the liberal media wouldnt except Stoners "theories", and I say "theories" because they werent theories they were fact proved then reviewed and approved by scholars above him,anyway its not accepted because it challenges what they belive in. People are just too blind to subject to the teachings that have an inkling of religious belief in them.--Pedro Carreras 12:33 13 October 2006

Stoner was an astronomer, and his work doesn't demonstrate any real knowledge outside that field (other than basic high-school probability math). Indeed, the astronomical stuff in chapter 1 is the only material that's mostly correct (not entirely, but it was written half a century ago: his dismissal of the nebular model of solar-system formation, for instance). His Biblical interpretations are wrong: for instance, Genesis day 6 refers to the creation of all land animals, not "mammals" as Stoner claims (and he's way off on his date for the emergence of mammals anyhow: they were steadily evolving from the therapsids before the dinosaurs, and well before birds). And his history was even worse: he managed to get just about every detail wrong on Tyre, for instance (it was on the island, Nebby beseiged the island for 13 years, Nebby failed to breach the walls and take Tyre, Alexander took Tyre but didn't destroy it, Tyre still exists on its original site). I think these are more plausible reasons why Stoner's work fell into obscurity. --Robert Stevens 19:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Stevens wrote: "I see that you have again deleted the links to scholarly, peer-reviewed criticism of Stoner." I don't believe Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard are scholars. You certainly have not given any credentials for them which would leave me to believe they are scholars. I could find no biographies of them which would make me believe they are scholars. Secondly, JP Holding is a notable person. This was discussed at Wikipedia and it was determined that Holding is notable. Next, I don't believe you have given compelling evidence demonstrating that Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard are notable. By the way, I think the following quote from JP Holding in regards to Stephen Carr asking his readers to do research because he did not read a particular book was rather telling: "Well, this is a hoot! Asking the readership for help in the text of your publication? I can see it now - Einstein writing an article in Physics Journal: "Schroedinger says that quarks are made of whipped cream. This is from 'Quarks: Our Friends and Neighbors.' I do not have this book. Does anybody know what theories it refers to?" Some books are rare and hard to get, but Carr needs to at least make an effort here." [14]

ken 00:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

For what it's worth, I've been published in the journal Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith, the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, the organization Stoner co-founded in 1941. Has Holding? Lippard 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not they meet YOUR definition of a "scholar". Check out the Wikipedia rules on "original research": specifically, the advice on publication. ANYBODY can write an article that can be used as a source for a Wikipedia article: IF they can get it approved and published by a reputable source. Most of the individual contributors to the Encyclopaedia Britannica don't have their own Wikipedia pages either: yet any material therein is regarded as approved by a reputable source, and can be used as such in a Wikipedia article. By contrast, has Turkel/Holding ever submitted an article for peer-review by any source other than himself?

Incidentally, I note that you haven't challenged the fact that Stoner's material contains errors (and this is rather easily checked). So, will YOU find appropriate criticism of Stoner's claims from sources YOU approve of, or will you continue to make excuses for deleting all references to any criticism of Stoner at all? --Robert Stevens 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't shown that Stephen Carr's work was approved by a reputable source. As I stated before JP Holding said of Carr: "Well, this is a hoot! Asking the readership for help in the text of your publication? I can see it now - Einstein writing an article in Physics Journal: "Schroedinger says that quarks are made of whipped cream. This is from 'Quarks: Our Friends and Neighbors.' I do not have this book. Does anybody know what theories it refers to?" Some books are rare and hard to get, but Carr needs to at least make an effort here." [15] Come now, do scholarly writers ask their readers about information in a readily obtainable book? I don't believe there was any scholarly review process by reputable reviewers. ken 13:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The Secular Web Library is itself a notable and reputable source, used for citations in many Wikipedia articles and references. Whereas I note that you still haven't presented any evidence that Turkel/Holding has ever been through ANY peer-review at all. I am reverting (again). --Robert Stevens 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken Holding has been published by Creationist publications which use peer review. This is a irrevelant point though. Wikipedians decided that Holding is notable. Thus, he is in the article. ken 15:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

So, before he had a Wikipedia page: he wasn't "notable", and therefore was never entitled to a page in the first place? How does that work, exactly? Your "Paris Hilton criterion" is useless. And you still seem to have trouble grasping the fact that a publisher can be "notable": even though this is spelled out in Wikipedia:No original research, and even though this one has its OWN Wikipedia page. And Wikipedia contains thousands of citations and links to articles by persons who don't have their own personal Wikipedia entries! Furthermore, Carr must be "notable" because Holding says so, as you're quoting Holding's response to Carr! --Robert Stevens 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I merely was pointing out earlier that Holding is a notable person according to Wikipedians. I made no comments about Holding's pre-Wikipedia vote status. Now if you want to include Carr/Lippard you have to demonstrate they are notable. You haven't done that. In addition, Holding critiques very obscure skeptics at his website as can be seen of his review of skeptic bud's work [16] Holding's critique of Carr's work in no way makes Stephen Carr notable. Lastly, although there is an article on the Secular Web, the Secular Web's featuring of an article by a person does not make them notable. For example, just because Wikipedia features an article on New Orleans Times-Picayune does not mean that Wikipedia should have an article for everyone who ever wrote for the New Orleans Times-Picayune. ken 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

AFAIK, the New York Times-Picayune has no academic peer-review process. Furthermore, if the paper published an editorial on a specific topic, that WOULD be a suitable source for citations. Why have you still not read the Wikipedia guidelines on publication? Do you ever intend to do so?

Also, when defending Holding's page from deletion, you argued that Holding was notable because his critics mention him. Do you now wish to retract that argument? --Robert Stevens 08:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You failed to mention that I had several arguments in favor of Holding being notable. Secondly, I wrote that "Many well known atheists disparage Holding". I don't believe you can come up with several well known Christians who disparage Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard. ken 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Do I have to be disparaged by well-known Christians in order to be a notable atheist? That seems rather silly. I've been criticized by Holding, but I've also been complimented and favorably cited by leading young-earth creationists for my integrity in criticizing misrepresentations by some who have attacked creationism on poor grounds (see the Wikipedia entry on Ian Plimer and my article "How Not to Argue with Creationists" in the Creation/Evolution journal). I don't think there are many (if any) other atheists who have published in Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith, the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation--the same group Peter Stoner founded and which endorsed the math in his book Science Speaks. Lippard 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Professor Stoner was a old earth creationist. this is the most descriptive description of Peter Stoner.

I don't believe that it should be merely said that Professor Stoner believed the earth and universe are billions of years old. I say this because I believe the record shows that Peter Stoner was a old earth creationist. [17] ken 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. He seems to use the word "evolution" to refer only to naturalistic evolution: "We shall refer to that particular theory of evolution which supposes that life, in its most simple form, either developed on this earth spontaneously or was transplanted from some external source". Maybe he believed in some sort of divinely-guided common descent: I don't know. I did not specifically revert the claim of Stoner's possible Old-Earth creationism: but if you make such changes while also perpetrating vandalism, don't be surprised if some stuff gets lost in the inevitable revert. I will put this back in my next revert. --Robert Stevens 11:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

...Ah, this appears to clinch it: "Since the same God created at least the basic forms of plants and animals, certainly we would expect to find great similarities of anatomical structure. Life is told in the scriptures to reproduce after its "kind."" Standard OEC fare: belief in separate "created kinds". And the arguments in Chapter 1, attempting to correlate the Genesis "days" with scientific claims, is also standard Old-Earth creationism. I think this is sufficient evidence to add the "Old-Earth creationism" and "Creationists" categories. --Robert Stevens 14:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stoner critisism

Hey all, I've got a question concerning the critisism section, it appears that the two links provided demonstrate just one critisism, that Stoner's account of prophecy did not line up with the viewpoint of two athiests on some minor points. Are there more citations to back up the claims in the article or is what I'm seeing as deep as it gets? --Home Computer∴Peace 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the existence of Tyre isn't just "the viewpoint of two atheists": I imagine the tens of thousands of residents of Tyre might have an opinion, if asked! But this is easily verified from other sources. It's just that most Tyrians, being unaware of their "nonexistence" according to Stoner, haven't made citable comments on this. Such are the limitations of Wikipedia rules. --Robert Stevens 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about the works of one man and whether or not we can dig up any more reviews of his work. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, as McDowell didn't incorporate the whole of Science Speaks into Evidence that Demands a Verdict, the links provided don't address great chunks of Stoner's material. I haven't found a source that specifically comments on (for instance) Stoner's "mammals" error in chapter 1. --Robert Stevens 13:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got a copy of two of the McDowell books in front of me right now, thought I've never noticed the name Stoner till this article came up. Maybe I'll dig and see if I can come up with more. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that you put in a "citation needed" tag. As I said earlier, "I've also reinstated a brief mention of the nature of some of the criticism, as this is appropriate (and evident from the citations). I might expand it to actual quotes later" - but I haven't done that yet. I could pull out quotes from the cited articles, but that would boost the size of the criticism section which Kdbuffalo wants to delete altogether... --Robert Stevens 14:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well don't worry about others, lets make this a good article together. So far we've got mentions of Stoner's work, 2 non-notable athiests, McDowell and the ASA endorsement. I support leaving the athiest comments in simply because it's all we've got to work with right now but I wonder if there's not more info available. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Side note, I'm not sure that including all the info directed at other authors would be entirely appopriate here. I't obvious what the athiest position on the subject of Bible interp would be but I'd like to keep this article focused on the Subject of the man Stoner. Know what I mean? --Home Computer∴Peace 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments above why Stephen Carr and Jim Lippard are not notable or authoratative critics. ken 22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I've changed "Atheist critiques" to "Critiques". While Lippard and Carr probably are atheists, the points they raise could just as easily have been raised by "liberal" Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or whatever: they're not especially "atheistic" in nature. Also, I was searching for critiques which mentioned Stoner by name, which was probably unnecessary: where Stoner makes a claim, it should be permissible to argue against the claim without referring to the man who made it. And there are Christians who reject Stoner's claims.

As for keeping the article "focused on the subject of the man Stoner": yes, this is an issue that seems to crop up quite often with people who are notable only for their authorship of a specific book. In most cases, there simply isn't enough material to justify separate pages for the man and the book. Ezekiel, for instance, was recently merged with "Book of Ezekiel": and Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory" is dissected on his biography page. --Robert Stevens 12:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The online edition of Science Speaks has moved

Due to the discontinuation of Yahoo Geocities, the online edition of Science Speaks has moved to: ScienceSpeaks.net Please make the necessary revisions. -Don Stoner (stonerdon@yahoo.com / dstoner.net) 71.107.114.224 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Stoner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012131030/http://cresourcei.org/ezekieltyre.html to http://www.cresourcei.org/ezekieltyre.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)