Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 6:54 AM
26 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, RAZD (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,137 Year: 5,174/19,786 Month: 1,296/873 Week: 192/460 Day: 8/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1296 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 226 of 312 (502579)
03-12-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Taq
03-12-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Copyrights and Such
quote:
I'm wondering if this is sort of a double-edged sword for them. That in order to prevent people from freely debunking their mis-use of facts they now have to fully admit that such things are merely creative ideas, and therefore do not necessarily have any basis in fact at all.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. If they are going to invoke copyright laws then they must also agree to Fair Use policies which allows small portions of the copyrighted material to be directly copied with appropriate citation. What is not allowed is wholesale copying of the material.


That was my understanding as well - the copyright statement that was copied to this thread mentioned that there was "no fair use waiver" or some such, but that's not the way the law works. No waiver is required for fair use - just as you're allowed to whistle a copyrighted song on the street regardless of what the intellectual property holder wants, you're allowed to quote passages of a creative work to discuss that work regardless of the author's desire.

quote:
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.

quote:
It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. On the contrary, fair use applies only to copyrighted works, describing conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, fair use does not come into play, since public-domain works can legally be used for any purpose.

And most importantly:

quote:
You can deny fair use by including a disclaimer. Fair use is a right granted to the public on all copyrighted work. Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.

The author of the work does not get any say in whether fair use applies or not. It always applies to copyrighted works, and you cannot disclaim fair use, unless a binding contract is used.

Whether the quotations from Creationist websites used earlier constitute fair use, well, I don't know. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis (much like the "reasonable person" standard used in things like sexual harassment cases).

For that, I would say that this is the most relevant bit:

quote:
The first factor is about whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.

Debate over a given "scientific" paper as is done on this forum certainly qualifies as stimulating creativity for the enrichment of the general public, and as this forum doesn't have any advertising and makes no profit, copied sections clearly isn't being used for personal profit.

I think we're safe, regardless of whether Creationist webhosts tell us not to ever quote their drivel for discussion.

But then, I'm not a lawyer, and those quotes were all from the Wikipedia "Fair Use" article. Take with a grain of salt, as always.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 11:46 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-12-2009 1:57 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 227 of 312 (502580)
03-12-2009 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coragyps
03-07-2009 4:16 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"That is simply UNTRUE! Creationists nearly always DISAGREE that, for example, the literal and figurative mountains of evidence for a planet that's several thousands of millions of years old is even evidence at all!"

You are failing to provide evidence of disagreement there.

I suppose you disagree. Point made. Even that fact, we don't agree on.

Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them. When they were formed is speculation based on observable processes. The conditions they formed under is speculation as well as the date. Since "mass" effects "time" then "time" may have been distorted as well during the rocks formation. Says Eisenstein anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 4:16 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Coragyps, posted 03-12-2009 12:27 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2009 12:28 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 232 by dwise1, posted 03-12-2009 1:04 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 228 of 312 (502582)
03-12-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Sarawak
03-12-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
I ask myself the same thing. I think we are too aggressive in our dealings with new creationist members, and pile on in too great a numbers. I'm not sure what the board can do about this really?

This is probably off topic, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Sarawak, posted 03-12-2009 12:01 PM Sarawak has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:21 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 229 of 312 (502583)
03-12-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 12:12 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
Says Eisenstein anyway.

Sergei Eisenstein? I thought he was a filmmaker. Ralph Eisenstein, the butcher, probably never said anything like that.:D

Welcome to EvC, Sky-Writing! I hope you enjoy yourself here!

Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them.

That's true. The dates are stamped inside (igneous) rocks as ratios of several different isotopes. We have a "dates and dating" forum here where you can learn all about it.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 12:12 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:05 PM Coragyps has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 230 of 312 (502584)
03-12-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 12:12 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"That is simply UNTRUE! Creationists nearly always DISAGREE that, for example, the literal and figurative mountains of evidence for a planet that's several thousands of millions of years old is even evidence at all!"

You are failing to provide evidence of disagreement there.

You need evidence that creationists disagree with geologists?

I suggest that you read up on creationism a little.

Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them. When they were formed is speculation based on observable processes. The conditions they formed under is speculation as well as the date.

You are wrong.

You should read up on geology as well as creationism.

Since "mass" effects "time" then "time" may have been distorted as well during the rocks formation. Says Eisenstein anyway.

Who is this Eisenstein chap and why does he talk such drivel?

It sounds like he's some sort of drooling halfwit who's heard of Einstein's theory of general relativity and is trying to twist it into a bullshit creationist argument.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 12:12 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 12:55 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 231 of 312 (502590)
03-12-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dr Adequate
03-12-2009 12:28 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
I was thinking that the point was that Creationists disagree among each other. I guess that wasn't the point. Creationists don't have strong disagreements about what Geologists turn up in their data. Usually about the conclusions reached.

You are welcome to theorize on my drool, but that's a bit off topic for me. Love the name calling, by the way. Shows who I'm investing my time reading.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2009 12:28 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 232 of 312 (502591)
03-12-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 12:12 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them. When they were formed is speculation based on observable processes. The conditions they formed under is speculation as well as the date. Since "mass" effects "time" then "time" may have been distorted as well during the rocks formation. Says Eisenstein anyway.

Na Eisenstein, nyet. Einstein ("monolith") auch nicht. Sondern Schwarzschild. (pardon the mixing of Russian and German)

The formula for gravitational time dilation is given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation as:

quote:
t0 = tf*SQRT(1 - 2GM/rc2) = tf*SQRT(1 - r0/r)

2GM/c2 is known as the Schwarzschild radius, which for the earth is 9mm.

So, with r = 6 371 000 000 mm, t0 = 99.9999998587 % of tf. Ie, time within the earth's gravitational field passes only extremely slightly more slowly than outside of it. It would take close measurements of the difference between atomic clocks placed outside our gravitational field (or at least partially outside it) and one on the ground to detect any difference. BTW, that difference and their speeds is factored into the GPS satellites' calculations, since time is an important factor in their navigational calculations.

But then, the rocks have never left the earth's gravitational field and we are within the same field so time has passed at the same rate for both us and the rocks. So your attempt at a claim is moot.

Welcome to the forum. You should always remember to check your sources and to do the math.

Edited by dwise1, : Russki

Edited by dwise1, : it doesn't like Russian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 12:12 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:13 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 233 of 312 (502592)
03-12-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Coragyps
03-12-2009 12:27 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"The dates are stamped inside (igneous) rocks as ratios of several different isotopes."

No they aren't. Just ratios and theories about the ratios. We can only date things accurately to the beginning of written documentation. And even that's assuming what was written is accurate. The rest is historical speculation based on processes that may or may not be duplicated accurately. As far as I know, no lava flows have produced accurate "creation" dates of the rock formed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Coragyps, posted 03-12-2009 12:27 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Coragyps, posted 03-12-2009 1:27 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 242 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 2:02 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 234 of 312 (502595)
03-12-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by dwise1
03-12-2009 1:04 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"But then, the rocks have never left the earth's gravitational field and we are within the same field so time has passed at the same rate for both us and the rocks. So your attempt at a claim is moot."

Don't bother doing the math unless you've been watching those rocks and documenting the conditions yourself. Because I won't accept your assumptions that you are so sure of. It's history, after all.

History is known to be written more by the writer than by the facts. I'm sure you would use that logic against MY sources of information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by dwise1, posted 03-12-2009 1:04 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Vacate, posted 03-12-2009 1:20 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2710 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 235 of 312 (502596)
03-12-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 1:13 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
Welcome to EVC Sky-Writing, you may be glad to know there are other Last-tuesdayists who frequent this board. I am sure you will feel at home.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:13 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:31 PM Vacate has not yet responded
 Message 249 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:14 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 236 of 312 (502597)
03-12-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Dr Jack
03-12-2009 12:17 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
"I ask myself the same thing. I think we are too aggressive in our dealings with new creationist members, and pile on in too great a numbers. I'm not sure what the board can do about this really?"

I find the desire to pounce...very revealing as to the security of ones belief system. I don't recall using such tactics.

I think I'll use that observation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 12:17 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 237 of 312 (502598)
03-12-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 1:05 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
No they aren't. Just ratios and theories about the ratios. We can only date things accurately to the beginning of written documentation.

You are not just mistaken, but spectacularly mistaken, Sky. Click on www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=1 ,read a bit, and then we can discuss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:05 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:40 PM Coragyps has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 238 of 312 (502599)
03-12-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Vacate
03-12-2009 1:20 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
Last Tuesday is a Christian punk band hailing from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Not my style. But keep tossing those labels. Maybe one will stick Dude.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Vacate, posted 03-12-2009 1:20 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 2:06 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 239 of 312 (502601)
03-12-2009 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Coragyps
03-12-2009 1:27 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"You are not just mistaken, but spectacularly mistaken."

Yawn...read it all before. I OBSERVE that even written documentation based on LAB experiments can be adjusted to result in what the researcher wants to see for a result. Don't think you've been involved, first hand, in more involved in scientific research than me, cause it's not likely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Coragyps, posted 03-12-2009 1:27 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Coragyps, posted 03-12-2009 2:00 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 246 by Dman, posted 03-12-2009 2:10 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 402
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 240 of 312 (502604)
03-12-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rahvin
03-12-2009 12:06 PM


Re: Copyrights and Such
I think we're safe, regardless of whether Creationist webhosts tell us not to ever quote their drivel for discussion.

I believe you are correct. The creationist attempts to misrepresent copyright law are as dishonest as their science. Surprising? I think not.

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2009 12:06 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019