text:
Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 7

Religious, political and scientific
I believe these adjectives fairly and accurately portray the controversy. It is political in that it is being waged in the courts, school boards and legislatures across the country. It is scientific, in that, there are scientists involved, on both sides of the controversy, albiet more heavily favored on the evolutionist side. Nevertheless, science is involved and is part of the controversy. Religion is most certainly involved, it is the crux of the matter for the creationists and a matter of disagreement among theistic evolutionists and creationists. Ben, I urge you to reconsider your position against this part. --JPotter 02:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * Joshua, what does this mean? are you saying there's no disagreement about the origin itself, just over the implications?  Ungtss 03:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there's no disagreement that an "origin" exists. It's the implications of the origins that people posit that is the crux of the disagreement. This was made as a compromise because I agree that the religious, political and scientific parts of the argument exist, but I don't think the argument itself is religious, political, or scientific. The argument is really about implications. Joshuaschroeder 03:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, although your addition of "various ideas" is an improvement it needs to be further clarified and expanded in the article. For example we need to retool it to be specific to the group who make this debate a political issue. Perhaps something along the lines, "This scientific disagreement, originating from a very small group of scientists not associated with evolutionary fields of study; is based on a religious minority who see the literal interpretation of religious text as correct. To this effect a minority of citizens, predominantly in America (maybe include Australia) have made this a political issue with court challenges."

 * We do want to reflect the reality of this issue, and in so doing we must be precise as to the cause, effects, motivations and who really is accusing evolution as having implications to their religion. To say this is a "scientific" matter is to imply there is scientific evidence contrary to evolution. This is not the case. The fact there are "scientists" on the other side of this issue does not make this a scientific debate. At best it is scientific misinterpretation by a handful of scientists; even then, in some cases, calling them scientists is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 * So I support both Ben in keeping the implication that this is a "scientific" debate out of the article, while at the same time we should mention limited "scientist" support. There are scientific gaps and disagreements that exist in evolutionary theory, but that's what makes science what it is... exciting, progressive and seeking the unknown. But a scientific "debate" it isn't; which is what Ben was gruffly trying to clarify to everyone. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 03:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest that we should report in the article what actual scholars have said about the controversy. Keeping the implication that this is a "scientific" debate out of the article is an interesting piece of personal research, but that is not what published scholars actually say.  What do you say?  Let's do NPOV and report what published scholars actually say. ---Rednblu | Talk 06:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No. It is not personal research. You may be hard pressed to find scientists saying exactly that, but you will find plenty of examples of them stating "scientific" arguments against evolution are disingenous, outdated, incorrect or outright lies. What would be difficult is coming across a valid scientific argument against evolution. I looked, hard, couldn't find one. Not one. Some certainly seem valid at first glance, but they are not.

 * Which "scholars" are you thinking of? I suggest that was a poor word choice since scholars, I don't think, have much to say on evolution that is worth consideration. I am a very open minded person (Wikiphilosophy: inclusive) ... and perhaps we should create a scholars section, but every single quotation would need clarification and contemporary scientific context. Indeed the fact they would be quotations would make them more suitable for Wikiquote, but that would not be the appropriate place for providing context to any quotes. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 18:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Which scholars? I recommend two scholars, there are many others, in the References list to the article (Kutschera 2004, Pennock 2003).  Kutschera and Pennock have both written about the controversy.    Might I remind us all of what you know already: There is a big difference in writing about science and writing about the "Creation-evolution controversy."  And might I remind us all again of the strict Wikipedia policy against personal research.  If there is 1) disagreement about what you write and if 2) you cannot provide a citation to a published scholar, then it is "personal research."  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * it generally seems like a bad idea to only focus on specific things 'published scholars' say since a) there are a lot of published scholars (myself included.. though not in any of these fields), and b) they say a lot of things. since it isn't hard to quote someone out of context, you can make anybody sound like they're saying just about anything if you have enough quotes (i.e. einstein). and just because a scholar says something, and you quote him here, that doesn't mean it's NPOV.. since you chose the quote. Mlm42 09:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * While we may not agree that some research regarding problems with evolutionary biology is sound science, it's POV to say that it isn't science. Remember, this is Wikipedia. Michael Behe's piece in the New York Times this week and other Intelligent Design researchers makes it clear to that there is a body of research that claims to be science that deserves mention in the debate. Again, upon examination, we might not define Behe's arguments as science, but he and a number of others do. Remember, articles should not be written about what is so, but what people say. --JPotter 16:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * While scholars who engage in the debate make scientific statements, the debate itself isn't scientific. It may have scientific implications, but a scientific debate (like the Shapley-Curtis debate, for example) has a definition (within the scientific community) that this controversy does not fill. I haven't seen Behe claim that he was engaging in a scientific debate, even. His Darwin's Black Box even makes the explicit claim that there is no scientific debate, a fact he laments. Joshuaschroeder 17:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. If scientists make scientific statements while engaging the debate, how is the debate not scientific? Rememeber, we don't own the word "scientific" --JPotter 19:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * WoW. Excellent explanation. I'm gonna keep my eye on you. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 18:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The creation evolution controversy can not be called a scientific disagreement; this disagreement is anything but scientific. Similarly, the debate can not be called religious or political. The best we will agree upon is that it is a disagreement. Until consensus is reached regarding any of these mislplaced adjectives, I will remove them. Bensaccount 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * But shouldn't we note attempts to make it so with the disclaimer it isn't? At least those that are notable like uh, that teacher or school board that got sued or something; but the guy... with the Bible. LoL! I forget. And I striked out my mistatement on "scientific disagreement". My bad. :' ) - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 18:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe as a subtopic, but including them in the intro would be digressive. Bensaccount 19:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "We are trying to describe the debate not take part" Well said Ben. --JPotter 19:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Digressive... explain, because I'd have to disagree at this point. Creationists do assert there are scientific arguments against evolution, they happen to be wrong, but it is an essential component of their position; and I believe essential to some maintaining its "controversial". - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 01:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Digressive means it is of superficial relevance if any. Anyways, make your edit and then we can discuss it, because I don't know what we are arguing about. Bensaccount 17:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it never ends with this guy.
i'm sorry, fellas, but if a guy won't stop vandalizing a page, we have to keep talking to him until he either gets bored or realizes how wrong he is.

(Moved meaningless polls to bottom of page.)
 * explain why they are meaningless.

This section has nothing to do with the nature of the controversy.
 * explain why.

Having a section dedicated to one persons POV is unacceptable. There are views beyond the dichotomy, but this is not the best presentation.)
 * provide a better one to supplement this cited one, if you can.

Whether or not there is actually conflict in any of these fields is questionable. If the debate is political, here is how.)
 * why does the debate have nothing to do with any of those topics?

Untssian evasion (encompasses the merits).
 * What the hell is an untussian evasion?

now, i'm reverting to the consensus of EVERYONE ELSE here until YOU and YOU ALONE can explain why YOU and YOU ALONE are the SOLE SOURCE or truth and reason on this page, and why after 3 months you haven't grasped the concept that wikipedia is NPOV, not BPOV. Ungtss 20:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The polls are meaningless because the subject is not one that can be described by a survey. As it happens, most polls are meaningless. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. " --Benjamin Disraeli Bensaccount 17:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's one pov on statistics, but not a fact. why are they OBJECTIVELY MEANINGLESS IN AN NPOV SENSE? Ungtss 18:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe "meaningless" was overstating it. They may have some meaning, though very little at best. This subject is not straight-foreward enough to be represented by a simple survey. Bensaccount 18:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the perhaps we should qualify the poll by saying right before it, "since there are a spectrum of ideas, and the possibility of many more, no poll could fully and accurately describe the debate. however, gallup took a survey ..." Ungtss 19:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying that the subject can't be represented because there is a "spectrum of ideas" is a non-sequitur. The "spectrum of ideas" is not related to representing the subject with a survey. Bensaccount 19:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * never mind. i had a flash of hope that you might start making sense.  my bad.  Ungtss 19:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that I am discussing the polls while you are trying to impose your POV. There is a spectrum of ideas on origins, but they are outside the creation vs evolution debate, in which there are only two. Bensaccount 16:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Motion to restore the "Nature of the controversy" section
I move that the "Nature of the controversy" section be restored to the article, reverting the deletion that was made in this edit. The only justification offered for this deletion of a whole section was "This section has nothing to do with the nature of the controversy. Therefore it is pointless evasion (borderline comparison of views) and will be deleted." The "Nature of the controversy" section should be restored for the following reasons.
 * 1) Surely a section on "Nature of the controversy" is relevant to an article on the "Creation-evolution controversy."
 * 2) The scholars quoted, paraphrased, and cited in the deleted section are highly respected evolutionary biologists.  And in the quotes, paraphrases, and citations in the deleted sections, those evolutionary biologists give their view of the "Nature of the controversy."
 * 3) The article quoted, paraphrased, and cited was from Naturwissenschaften, a peer-reviewed journal.
 * 4) Surely for an encyclopedia, the published opinion in a peer-reviewed journal should prevail over the mere personal research of any Wikipedia editor that the scholar's view is "pointless evasion."  The proper forum for that argument would be the Naturwissenschaften journal.
 * 5) Other views should be added to the restored "Nature of the controversy" section with citations if other views are needed.
 * 6) Let us all keep in mind that Verification and Citation are official policy in Wikipedia.

Let's restore the "Nature of the controversy" section. What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 04:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

seconded. Ungtss 04:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ça, c'est un désastre, c'est tout! >LePierrotAnguille 09:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Granted... citation should be in the equation. I do seem to be confused how this is an evasion seeing as its describing quite accurately that creationism is fighting at the local level to have their views heard. But I would word it thusly:

 * "Scientists that reject creationism and comment on the controversy are known to point out that the campaign is not a scientific controversy in the sense that it isn't a real debate within the scientific community."

 * Should perhaps be:

 * "Scientists (who don't believe in creationism) point out this isn't a scientific controversy given there is no (scientific) evidence contradicting evolution and no way to test creationism."

 * I'm quite confident any scientist, including those who believe in creation or intelligent design... would have to concede that point; but if not one can add the (bracket) text for safety... just in case one "scientist" wants to be bold enough to disagree.

 * Frankly I find the direct quotations unnecessary; simply citing a talk.origins article or some news articles saying its local is sufficient for us to just say stuff about local battles. As to jeopardizing us as a species, right on... but a little melodramatic and over the top; jeopardizing U.S. dominance... that would be a better quote, but ultimately still not appropriate...? As to the textbook quote, the paragraph would be best served (I think) by a general comment on textbooks (censoring), and textbook review boards, being a battlefield in this controversy. Then something about "equal time".... half a dozen citations if ya want; and blamo!... unless I can get satisfaction from Ben as to why this is a bad idea. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 09:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I find it amazing that you would even think—let alone have confidence—that creationary scientists would agree that there is no evidence contradicting evolution! Philip J. Rayment

 * Careful sir, cause I'm no slouch. I am unaware of anyone that can be certified as a creation scientist; I've heard people call themselves that, but their lack of credentials and/or published research argues against that. (Yes, I'm aware you cite "evolutionary bias in the scientific community") No. It has more to do with their research (or I should say rationale) being sloppy and unscientific. This is true not only of older creationist arguments, which AiG rejects quite ably now, but is also true of new more subtle arguments from Behe, AiG, Morris and others.
 * You are either grossly ignorant (sorry, but that's accurate for anybody that claims to know something of the subject yet makes that sort of ludicrous claim) or are simply rejecting facts without reason. Either that or you haven't made yourself clear (see further comments below.)  You obviously know of people that claim to be such, yet offer no reason for rejecting their credentials, and your claim of them being sloppy and unscientific is also unsubstantiated.  Philip J. Rayment 14:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No problemo, I've read some of the archives of this talk and I'd say the same for some of your assertions. (eg. information & DNA) As to my assertions, I find them generally applicable and I made no attempt to provide a detailed analysis of the issues listed. Despite my current abundance of time I have no need to invest even more on a matter that, as you put it quite well in the archive2, would likely end in little progress. I stated things I consider valid to make my position known with which discussion (or derision) can follow, if you wish.
 * The only things I said in that section about information and DNA were by way of illustration, not as assertion. Yours were assertions, absurd ones at that, and unsubstantiated.  Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My assertions are matched by you're incomplete illustrations, which I make it my duty to correct. Difference is I concede at the drop of a hat if something I've said is demonstrated to be incorrect or misleading by you, such as biologists that are creationists. But when I clarify your illustrations as simplified and exposing ignorance on your part; you just create other analogies and assertions which is just are just as bad instead of learning from your fundamental mistakes. - RoyBoy 800 21:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * A scientist that believes in creation; the survey certainly demonstrates they do exist. My interpretation of the survey's scope does seem accurate. Now as to the reality of there actually being no (scientific) evidence that contradicts evolution... I'd be glad to hear you out. What are these actual scientists citing against evolutionary theory? - RoyBoy 800 01:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You said that you're not aware of any creationary scientists, but now you say that scientists that believe in creation do exist! Is there a distinction that I'm missing?  Evidence conflicting with the evolutionary view (taking that in a broad sense of more than just biological evolution) includes timescales that don't fit (e.g. comet lifespans), the severe lack of transitional fossils, and the severe if not total lack of mechanisms for adding new genetic information.  Philip J. Rayment 14:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe a distinction can and should be made. "creationary scientists" implies a person is a scientist working on the science of creation (creationary theory). There is no such thing, nor is there any such field of study in science.
 * Okay, I see the distinction. But "Creationary scientist" is not normally used that way, or at least not exclusively .  How do you know that there isn't any such field of study? Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You gotz me on the usage, but I was mainly going for variety just to entertain myself. :') Anyway, that's an excellent question! Which could be answered in about a dozen corroborating ways. The most mundane of which is I didn't notice it on the list of minors I could take in post-secondary education. I hope further explanation is not necessary on this subject. In case your wondering why I'm answering in such a peculiar way... has a whole lot to do with me listening to the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. (HHGG) - RoyBoy 800 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course being a minority view, and spurned by the majority of academia, it is not surprising that it wasn't on the list of courses available to you. Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A very minority view. Even in the nature versus nurture debate there was more than a meager 7% siding with one side or the other... likely a lot were in the middle. As you described quite well there is no middle ground between evolution and Biblical creation. The creationist camp of scientists is very small and continuing to shrink (in the western world, I'm sure its increasing in the Middle East... although that's a different creation, I think). I'm sure you'd maintain this is because of the bias not allowing creation to be taught, I'd correctly maintain it's because there is no science in creation to teach. Only scientists who have a religious awakening or upbringing seem to have a problem with evolution. - RoyBoy 800 21:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I do thank you for the examples given... although regularly I'd ask for elaboration on these subjects, but since you've taken the initiative to provide them and I've admitedly been lazy in showing corroboration for my above assertions (which would take hours and likely still not satisfy), I'll take the initiative on expanding on the points raised, and explaining their inherant weaknesses... and hence their impotence in causing trouble for evolution.

 * comet lifespans - I haven't heard of this one, so I'll have to look it up. Please wait... googling... talk.origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html (search "comet") If this does not address the issue, or is indeed not what you are referring to, please elaborate.
 * It "addresses the issue", but not satisfactorily. Essentially, the article is saying "it can be explained by proposing such and such hypothesis".  In other words, despite the fact that the evolutionists (i.e. those that believe the solar system evolved) can always suggest hypothetical explanations, this bit of evidence is more consistent with a "young" solar system than an older one.  Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Good thing I'm listening in HHGG, or I'd be perturbed at you baby! Let's clarify something... make it crystal clear to you. Because scientists don't know precisely the mechanism for the creation of new comets; does not mean creationist DO!!! The ONLY reasonable explanation is that new comets are created on a regular basis. The fact comets are short lived is agreed with by everyone, and their past existence is confirmed by meteor showers from their remnants (proving to those paying attention an old solar system, as does every other piece of actual evidence, rather than flawed reason, we can lay our hands, eyes and feet on). This isn't even debatable, you of course recognize this is yet another example of creationists moving their "evidence" to subjects which are yet to be explained by science, therefore hardly robust scientific evidence. This is arguing from the lack of hipster knowledge. (Of science on the precise mechanism that creates comets, and your personal knowledge of astronomy in the origin of meteor showers.) - RoyBoy 800 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Because scientists don't know precisely the mechanism for the creation of new comets; does not mean creationist DO!!!
 * Did I say that? No!  I said that the evidence was more consistent with the creation model than the evolution one.
 * LOL! You are inferring it by saying these comets are consistent with a creation model! No it isn't. We have evidence that comets do have short lifespans and they burn out. (meteor showers from previous comets, OLD SOLAR SYSTEM) Having comets now proves the comets are relatively young, not the solar system. You are jumping to conclusions and making a mockery of evidential inference. And it doesn't reflect well on your objectivity. Simply looking at the comets by themselves (and not within a broader astronomical context) is like taking scientists quotes out of context. Looks promising for creation, but amounts to nothing when scrutinized and explored.

 * Your explanation of comet production is only "reasonable" if you first of all accept uniformitarian ages. In other words, you are using uniformitarian assumptions of great ages to explain away cometary life-span evidence.  Hardly "robust scientific evidence".  And it is you that, in this case, is arguing from a lack of knowledge.  The evidence is that comets don't last as long as the purported age of the solar system.  You have no evidence of a new supply or a method of production, but you figure that there must be some such mechanism.  Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What you call "uniformitarian ages" any rationale person without a religious POV to push; would call corroborated scientific evidence. It is the evidence that matters. And my lack of knowledge is your lack of knowledge; your not exempt from gaps in human knowledge! Creationist explicitly choose these subjects to argue because of that GAP so they can say, well science doesn't know... so it must be consistent with creation. Argh!!! It's aggravating, sloppy, disingenuous and I guess to be expected. I think I'm going to cry now.

 * However, you disagree with the reasonableness of the explanation because you are unaware or consciously ignoring the logic of comets coming from the Oort cloud or even outside the solar system. (your ignorance notwithstanding, it is reasonable, far more so than comets contradicting the rest of reality) Time and again in the history of man, from a vaccine against smallpox, to lightning rods on houses, people with religious agendas get science wrong, wrong, wrong. When scientists figure out how new comets arrive, it will NOT be different. - RoyBoy 800 21:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * severe lack of transitional fossils - I do not need to look this up to rebuke the point. How many do you expect? How many would prove/disprove evolution? I'm confident you know fossil creation is a rare phenomenon, couple this with transitional forms would have small, relatively short lived population, and the fact archelogists have explored a fraction of the fossil record... it should hardly be surprising there are few fossils formed and found. I also, to quote you, "find it amazing that you would even think—let alone have confidence—" to state this is in anyway a problem for evolution. Not only to transitional fossils exist; yes they are rare, as they should be; but transitional forms also exist in the platypus and ring species. I use ring species to illustrate merely that transitional forms do exist. They are usually extinct, and we have the fossil and genetic record to attest to their past existance.
 * Apart from the fact that I would expect to find many more than actually exist, the point is that a creation predicts no transitional fossils (between different kinds of living things), whereas evolution predicted many. The severe lack (or total absence) of them caused some people to propose a different model of evolution that would predict them to be rare.  In other words, you either have a model that predicts lots, and the evidence is opposed to that, or a model that predicts a result essentially indistinguishable from the creationist prediction.  But even with punctuated equilibrium, there should be some, and Gould himself acknowledged that they didn't exist.  Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh... what you expect is not pertinent, because you don't know what you are talking about. Period. For example, evolution does not predict many "transitional fossils"; it predicts many "transitional forms." A distinction you need to internalize, now. And please make up your mind if there are any trasitional fossils, this back and forth is strange, because I can tell you there are... and they aren't "trasitional light" expected in punk equilibrium. And what did Gould precisely say, and when did he say it, and what context did he say it in?

 * "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977, p. 14

 * Is this to what you refer? I can go into a detailed demolition of quote mining here, but simply put even the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" debunks creation. (Unless of course God put them there to fool people who understand evidential inference.) Then of course I should let Gould have a say himself:

 * "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge... are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'" - Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

 * BTW in case you missed it, I gave you a link which details the transitional fossils between larger groups. Creationists often quote scientists without understanding, or ignoring, the context and basic facts of their theory or hypothesis. - RoyBoy 800 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * ...evolution does not predict many "transitional fossils"; it predicts many "transitional forms."
 * Yes, but if there were transitional forms, one would also expect transitional fossils.
 * Okay, and they exist, so you're quibling over quantity or distribution... both, neither, all of the above?
 * And please make up your mind if there are any trasitional fossils,...
 * I have no doubt that there are transitional fossils between creatures of the same "kind" (e.g. between wolves and dogs, for a hypothetical example). But the exact boundaries of "kinds" are not always known.  And there are also fossils of creatures that have some features in common with two different kinds of creatures.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that the creature was transitional between one and the other.  So there may be some fossils of creatures that appear to be transitional between different kinds, but not clearly enough or numerous enough to build a convincing case.  That is why I am not being dogmatic about the total lack.  Dr. Colin Patterson put it as "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument" (emphasis added).
 * So because you personally cannot say with certainty if fossils which appear transitional are indeed so, and because you cannot define kinds... this argument from ignorance is sufficient to doubt evolution? (perhaps for you personally that seems sufficient, let me try to explain why I feel even that is incorrect) The fact is that where evolution can be verified, it has been so, and there is NO evidence against evolution. (Let me clarify: I asked you for "scientific evidence against evolution", your uninformed personal doubts, even if shared by other creationists, some with scientific PhD's... likely NOT in palentology, about fossil evidence does not meet that standard, and plant PhD's is even worse... they don't even specialize in animal's, let alone fossils.) Evolution has been proven time and again; the aspects of evolution that are theory (not watertight) will likely remain so for a long time (because indeed we cannot go back in time). This does not put other aspects of the theory, which are fact, in doubt... and does not reflect guesswork and gross uncertainty on other fields which corroborate assumptions evolution makes; like old Earth, changing climates and tectonics... etc. etc. which conclude evolutionary requirements are reflected in conclusive evidence about the world.
 * Update: As to the Dr. Colin Patterson quote, here is a page putting it, and creationist quote mining generally into context. Please stop misquoting real scientists. - RoyBoy 800 21:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Gould quote is one of the things I had in mind.
 * ...even the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" debunks creation.
 * Not if the very rare ones are disputable, as Patterson says. And note that Gould also said "The evolutionary trees ... have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.".  Intermediates are not at the tips of branches.  Most evolutionary trees I have seen do not have creatures at the nodes, if by that he means the points at which they branch, and even if they did, a dearth of fossils between those points and the tips means that the evidence for the nodes being intermediary is more imagined than real.
 * The nodes are intermediaries; that is basic reasonable inference. We see their similarities to multiple species which did not exist yet! (Inferenced from layering of fossils.)
 * Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
 * What does this mean? That we have pretty well no transitional fossils between two closely-related fish, for example, but plenty between fish and amphibians?  That seems to be the opposite to what is really the case.  Perhaps Gould was not being clear here.  Or perhaps he was trying to worm his way out of his earlier statement, not liking the fact that creationists were quoting him in support of creation?  In any case, he was not the only one to make statements like that.  See also here, here, and here.
 * You were going to quote him out of context; and you are blaming him for worming out! Exactly how am I to react to this... yes there is more transitional fossils between fish and amphibians... why? Because larger times scales are involved and differences are much easier to see! And you yourself said you can't even be sure if obvious transitional fossils are indeed the real deal, why would you swayed by fossils "between two closely-related fish"? That's illogical. Since they are closely related you'd simply call them the same "kind" and tell me I'm imagining things. (Which I could be, since they are so closely related the differences would be so small only a specialist in fish would know if there is a transitional difference... and the specialist would say, if you want clearer evidence of transitional fossils that does not require specialist knowledge, just general biological knowledge, they already exist. Oh you're a creationist; nevermind... then stop wasting my time.)
 * BTW in case you missed it, I gave you a link which details the transitional fossils between larger groups.
 * Which don't stand up to scrutiny. For one thing, as I said above, finding a creature that has some features of two other creatures does not necessarily make that a transitional fossil.
 * Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not an accurate summation of the evidence I sent, and what Gould was alluding to. (just was your mention of Gould was not accurate) They have found fossils with ambiguous and/or different features that are between two different "kinds". (not creatures, the link I gave you does not use "creature" extensively in its terminology) They stand up to scrutiny with people who don't have a religious POV effecting their judgement. To think otherwise without cause is crazy talk. Seriously Philip, if these fossils which CLEARLY have characteristics of multiple kinds are not transitional, then what would be transitional in your opinion? I mean do you need to personally see the fossils, inspect them to concede any ground? - RoyBoy 800 21:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * severe if not total lack of mechanisms for adding new genetic information - Make up your mind, which is it? And what does information mean... it is a non-specific word creationists use; like "macroevolution", "kind", "theory" or "soul".

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Mutations_don%27t_add_information

If you check a few versions back it was a far more succinct demolition of this creationist fable. I found it literally in 20 seconds after I read your archived mention of this point. I hoped you would bring it up again and hence I maintain loudly, and correctly, there is no scientific evidence against evolution. (which is part of the reason why there is no such thing as a "creation scientist"... sure creationist scientist is okay I guess, but still implies things which are far from reality.) - RoyBoy 800 03:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind, which is it?
 * Mutations, if not neutral in effect, destroy information. There is a vanishingly small chance that they may extremely occasionally slightly increase genetic information, so there may not be an abolutely total lack of new information by chance, but that would be the exception to the rule, and such a minor exception that it would have no significance in the overall scheme of things.
 * Wrong. It doesn't "destroy" (implies elimination), damage or change would be more accurate. As to your perspective on the overall scheme of things, since you have been alive for a few decades during stable period of time... its not terribly illustrative dynamic evolutionary processes that take a touch longer.
 * Now who's arguing from a lack of evidence (again)? If the damage is severe enough, it is effectively destroyed, especially if natural selection subsequently eliminates it.  Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would do so if that is the case, otherwise if it is neutral or beneficial natural selection would keep it. I'm glad your getting the hang of this.
 * And what does information mean... it is a non-specific word creationists use;
 * Another bald assertion without substance. Information is data carrying meaning.  In this case, instructions for the manufacture of proteins, organs, etc.
 * Oh cry a river! I asked for clarification; on a word that has NO specific biological meaning. Protein Folding. It is also a fact that genes will copy themselves, hence in increasing the size of the genome, which by any measure is an increase of information... even if it has yet to be made functional.
 * What is DNA, if not genetic information? A copy of something is not an increase in meaningful information.  To reuse an analogy, copying an encyclopedia does not increase the information you have. Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why I wanted you to define for me what you meant by information. Do you mean "meaningful information", or just information? I cannot read your mind all the time... although through experience I had a feeling that's what you meant. And to correct another incomplete analogy of yours; if you have two physical copies of an encyclopedia... that means more people can reference+ it, change* it and improve** it. (analogous to gene expression+, mutation*, and natural selection**) If the two encyclopedias are now isolated they can evolve on their own (each illiciting new and different contributions), alternatively they (or their descendants) could continue to interact and improve in parallel; or one of them (original or new encyclopedia) like Nupedia isn't necessary, nor efficient and it becomes defunct. - RoyBoy 800 21:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * ...like "macroevolution", "kind", "theory" or "soul".
 * Those words also have defined meanings, your ignorance of the meanings notwithstanding.
 * Indeed, they have several defined meanings; choosing one is the tough part, your confidence notwithstanding.
 * The linked evowiki article does a very poor job of demolition. It is essentially a series of unsubstantiated claims that information can increase.  For example, If some particular mutation X can transform sequence A into sequence B, there is another particular mutation Y which can transform sequence B into sequence A.  Is there?  Where is the evidence?
 * They have a discussion page, use it. I can tell you it's likely just clarifying that such a thing can occur. There is nothing stopping reversion from happening; requiring us to see it happen is missing the point.
 * You don't want to discuss it? Hmmm.  Yet you repeat the unsubstantiated claim without providing any substantiation.  How do you know that there is nothing stopping it happening?  Requiring evidence is missing the point?  Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would discuss it at length if I had the background to do so. If you are actually interested in learning more about it, instead of leveling cheap criticism at it... perhaps asking a question or two there would assist in your understanding. And this lack of substaintiation is quite tiring from someone who misquotes Gould (he is not worming out of ANYTHING, you are), doubts transitional fossils (without reason to do so), and maintains comets agree with creation (while ignoring realistic explanations because they are unproven, well I'm sorry we don't have satellites @ 14,000 AU's observing the Oort cloud). You broke my irony meter Philip. And yes, you are missing the point, I explained already. - RoyBoy 800 05:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * ...I maintain loudly, and correctly, there is no scientific evidence against evolution.
 * And I'll maintain otherwise. To take another quote from the evowiki article:  No matter what example is offered as evidence that mutations can generate an increase in information, Creationists naturally have rationales for regarding that example as a case of loss of information.  I would make a similar claim against evolutionists.  Creationists have made this claim against evolution for some time, but one "rebuttal" that keeps getting thrown up is this:  A mechanism which is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, where a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations which change one or both of the copies.  So if I make a new Wikipedia article by copying an existing article, then make a few random changes to that (so, for example, "The creation-evolution controversy (also called the creation vs. evolution debate and the origins debate) is a disagreement over the origin of the universe, life, and humanity." might come out as "The areatfon-evolugion conuroverse (alsk called the sreation vs.vevolutcon debatk and the qrigins debrte) is a disagreement cber thenorigmn of tho univmrse, lefe, axd humanity."), I have added to the information available on Wikipedia??  Oh, of course I have, because I haven't defined "information"!
 * Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How embarrassing, you didn't apply natural selection to your analogy. Your example is a simplification (like the comet reasoning) and caricature of the evolutionary process (like the Gould quotation). But the answer to your question is, yes, there is more information. It's not terribly functional (as English goes, a system with specific syntax and rigid predefined functionality known as words, biology is a bit more flexible than Engligh, or a stereo system Jehovah's Witnesses use as an analogy in their "literature"), but that isn't a requirement for "information". Anything else Philip? - RoyBoy 800 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Natural selection does not provide new information. It culls, not adds.  Natural selection, if anything, would have eliminated the defective copy.  How is there more information?  Again, I am talking about information as meaning, not as random bits.  No new meaning has been added, thus no new information.  Biological information is actually more rigid than English, which is very loose and sloppy.  I don't need to add anything else as what I said still stands.  Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it culls what has been added by other mechanisms; if its garbage... which I assume yours was it gets removed. Natural selection eliminates defective (non-functional) copies and keeps the rest, be it neutral or beneficial. And you are incorrect about biology being more rigid than English, the Spelling of DNA is far more rigid, but the Functionality, the Syntax is not... even if you allow English spelling to be loose. "skill" "skil" "skillz" "skilz" about a dozen or so spellings which 'survive' communicating meaning right? "skillful" etc. is a different meaning, although even with these derivatives biology outclasses English in its flexibility. How many genes (DNA spellings) would succeed in making blood clot? Hundreds, if not thousands. (and yes, you could have far more different spellings for longer words... but the longer the gene, the more successful combinations you have for that as well) - RoyBoy 800 21:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just some ideas.
 * 1) I personally don't have a preference of what the message of this page should be.  But I would like to have the page be 1) clear and 2) accurate.  I can see that your changes of wording may be more accurate for your point-of-view--but is that what the evolutionary biologists actually wrote?  Not in the articles I have read.
 * 2) The joy of working this whole series of pages is that they are "melodramatic and over the top."  I would say the whole controversy is "melodramatic and over the top."  If a couple of well-known and respected evolutionary biologists say "jeopardizes us as a species"--that is dramatic.  I like that--if a couple of well-known and respected evolutionary biologists actually wrote that in a peer-reviewed journal.  I think I would want to know that if I visited this page as a high-school student.  And I am sure the creationists can find cogent and appropriate "melodramatic and over the top" statements by well-known and respected creation scientists in retort.  8))  That is what the Creation-evolution controversy is like--is it not?
 * 3) On a controversial page like this one, it seems to me to be 1) clearer and 2) more accurate if the certainty about the controversy be in quotes--because the certainty is debated, is it not?  It seems to me your paraphrase has a lot of certainty that is not justified--because that is not what the evolutionary biologists actually wrote--or said--or even implied.  What they actually said is "jeopardizes us as a species."
 * 4) But then I'm not here to work the message; I am here for the "melodramatic and over the top" part of what the controversy is in reality.  You decide.  Or someone else here decide.  Why not report in NPOV fashion what the proponents actually wrote?  But that is just my opinion. 8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 10:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Please stop presuming that because I wrote something it is personal research. If you want a citation, ask for it, or look it up yourself. ---Such opinion polls are questionable because they ask loaded and leading questions. (If national opinion polls actually drove Santorum’s politics then he would favor legal abortions because nearly 60% of Americans do.)  But perhaps the more important observation is that nearly 100% of all working biologists would say that there exists no scientific evidence against evolution.  In fact, a poll of scientists in Ohio from all disciplines found that 93% were not aware of “any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution.”---  And even that 7% did not stipulate there is evidence against evolution, just that another theory was possible given the evidence. This could serve to tweak my above drafts (mention biologists? but 93% of all scientists is pretty high), with the mention of biologists; however the concensus is evolution has nothing even challenging it. As to creationism (or even intelligent design for that matter) not being testable, that's simply a fact you should be aware of already. (I am aware some creationists insist or have insisted certain aspects of some creation theories can be tested; and if they happen to right or create something on the fly to be tested it invariably turns out be wrong. Yet the creation theory persists because the test wasn't "essential" to the theory to begin with.)
 * 2) For the most part the controversy isn't melodramatic... its creationists getting things wrong, scientists correcting them, creationists ignoring them and eventually people start name calling. I think Wikipedia can skip the name calling part and the drama. :'D
 * And yet you do it (name-calling) yourself in a subtle way in that very sentence, by artificially contrasting "creationists" with "scientists" as though they are two separate groups. They are not.  Philip J. Rayment 08:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But there is a disconnect. Because the vast majority of the scientists who believe in creation are not in biological fields. So I don't consider it appropriate to even imply they have a valid scientific perspective on the issue of evolution. (Now if a scientist took it upon themselves to learn biology and publish evidence against evolution, that would be satisfactory.) Furthermore I was referring to people who challenge people on evolution and attempt to forward creation (and create "controversy") in public are predominantly, as I understand it, not scientists. Such is life. - RoyBoy 800 02:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are not in biological fields either. So what?
 * True, but that side-steps my point since not everyone can be a biologist... whereas the huge ratio of creationist scientists not being in biology is a fair point to raise when it comes to their competance to critique evolution (which the vast majority do not attempt to do, at least in scientific literature.) And it indicates their creation tendencies come from ignorance rather than scientific insight.
 * Is it really that huge a ratio? I know it's a small sample, but three of the eight scientists employed by Answers In Genesis in Australia are biologists.  (The link below is to speakers.  AiG Australia also employ a scientist not listed there, but detailed here.)
 * Yes, big ratio, but I dunno what it is. But I won't get hung up on it since the evidence those who do believe in creation bring up which is pertinent. N'est pas?
 * The vast majority of evolutionary scientists don't work (or write) in the field of evolution either, but plenty of creationary scientists do critique evolution. The fact that they don't usually do it in the secular scientific journals is more because of not being allowed to than anything else.  Your claim of their ignorance comes from your own bias, nothing more.  Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No it comes from crummy rationale and examples which they, and then you cite. They aren't valid, nor reasonable. This is why they would not get published, peer review would reject it. Not because of bias, but because of flawed reasoning and jumping to conclusions. I'm well versed on scientific (political) bias... I'm aware it exists. It did for example in the nature vs. nurture debate where the feeling was nurture was predominant, as to follow the prevailing philosophical context of everyone being equal (women liberation and such). Yet despite this bias research indicating the contrary was published and eventually it was acknowledged that nature does play an important role. Also I see the bias in Abortion-Breast Cancer research and what gets a thorough critique and what doesn't indicates a bias. However, science by its very definition should be secular and doesn't seek to prove atheism or disprove God, it seeks to rigorously examine the world. Does politics, money and such interfer in the process... it sure does! But bias isn't keeping creation from being published in science journals... bad unsubstantiated science is, which I elaborate on in discussing your evidence against evolution. - RoyBoy 800 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge that bias exists, but assert without reason that this doesn't apply in the case of creation, probably far more controversial than the other examples you gave. Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * LMAO! This is not controversial; I understand controversy quite well, I seek it out... this is not such an occasion. If there is a reason to believe this is controversial beyond creationist scientific fumblings; I'm still waiting to come across something more substantial than "this aspect of the theory isn't watertight," or "we don't know how these comets appeared," or "natural selection only culls information"... which is true but ignores the mechanisms geneticists (people who actually do research in the field, rather than tropical botinists) point to that create information. - RoyBoy 800 21:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) (PS: This is not controversial scientifically speaking. I acknowledge and agree there is controversy created by creationists, which should be described in this article. See Clean up tag)
 * There are creationary biologists. As an example of scientists promoting creation, most of the people who work for Answers In Genesis as speakers and writers are scientists.  (See, particularly the Australian list.) Philip J. Rayment 14:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Intriguing, what did they get their doctorates in? - RoyBoy 800 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Didn't you follow the links to see? Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I did, it said on the individual bios they got a Ph.D, but didn't say in what... is it the same thing they did their Bachelor in? Or something else? - RoyBoy 800 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. In the case of Dr. Catchpoole, I expect so (and I could find out if you really want to know).  In the other two cases, see  and  (the latter I had already linked to). Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thx. A few got some good educations! Do they have good objections to evolution? Sorry, can't help myself. :'p - RoyBoy 800 21:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Number three makes no sense whatsoever, even though I like the quote. Because you found a quote that doesn't remotely make it appropriate to use it. It is not the feeling of scientists, its the feeling of THAT scientist. A direct quote doesn't make it more valid. If you find a direct quotation that expresses the concensus in the scientific community, great, if you don't; well then don't be afraid to write it yourself. Which is what I did.
 * 2) Well I have decided melodrama should be minimized on controversial subjects. People don't seek it in an encyclopedia; although it can be an effective way to get a point across; one must take care the point is pertinent to the discussion. And whatever I feel about creationism, I'm not in any way concerned it puts humanity at risk. That would only be conceivable if it gained prominence, but that is unlikely if we accurately convey the status of valid evidence against evolution. Which is nil. This still allows for alternatives to evolution, but they happen to be untestable.

- RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 19:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We don't need this section; the entire article should be about the nature of the controversy. Bensaccount 17:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, so its redundant... yeah I agree. Oh, I think the following should be tweaked: "The legal status of creation and evolution in public education is the subject of a great deal of debate in scientific, legal, and religious circles." Removing scientific would be appropriate? Instead mentioning text books and such would be good for the intro? - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 19:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Taking Verification seriously
In my opinion, the current editors here have diametrically opposed views of the Wikipedia policy of Verification. One group of the current editors think #1 of the following is Wikipedia policy; the other group of current editors think #2 is Wikipedia policy.
 * 1) A human rights spokesman said that the incident was part of a wider pattern of violence in the region.
 * 2) Eliza Twisk, of Amnesty International, described the situation in an interview with Channel 4 news on July 8, 2000, saying that "This is all part of a growing trend in Europe of violent protest and equally violent response". [1]

Rather than revise Wikipedia policy 8))  I suggest the two groups of editors should both get a chance to develop their ideas to see what they can do. Hence, I move that we create a /temp page under this page as an experimental page where those editors who think that #2 above is Wikipedia policy can edit without an imposition of the #1 standard on Verification. In return, I would imagine that all editors would be willing to enforce standard #1 above on the current Creation-evolution controversy page. What do you say? Does everyone give us permission to develop a /temp page using only standard #2 and NOT standard #1 above? Please give your objections now if you have any? 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * People who think option 2 is correct have obviously never read an encyclopedia before. One doesn't write encyclopedia articles to be cited quotemines. Joshuaschroeder 23:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You may be right. 8))  But we should try it out to see; you might even like it.  Would you mind if several of us apply standard #2 above on the /temp page?  You would be invited also--if you apply standard #2.  8))  What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Joshuaschroeder, Wikipedia is not a normal encyclopedia. I think that Rednblu goes too far with his calls for citations sometimes, but Wikipedia does require it in certain circumstances.  You are correct that a normal encyclopedia wouldn't do it this way.  But a normal encyclopedia is written by recognised experts (unlike most at Wikipedia) who sometimes insert their own POV (which is a no-no on Wikipedia).  Thus Wikipedia asks for citations when there is dispute over something, as a method of achieving NPOV.  If you don't like that, I suggest that you either (a) try and change Wikipedia policy, or (b) go and write for another encyclopedia.  Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * As a mathematician, I am generally a fan of this, since it is similar to separating the statement of the theorem and the proof of that statement.. and in a controversial article such as this, it seems more likely for people to demand proof, and therefore more likely to delete segments which seem false to them when such a proof is not present. Mlm42 02:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, more references and footnotes should be present for subjects that are deemed by some, or even a minority, as controversial. As to the idea of a temp page Rednblu, I vote no for two reasons. One I think it would be a lot of effort on your part that is unnecessary, and more importantly I don't like loose pages in Wikipedia that are destined for deletion. If you still want to carry forward on this idea of testing (which I encourage), use your personal sandbox. (I may have to do that myself to test some additions for this page.) - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 17:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I vote Yes for the temp page. It will give us a fresh start. JPotter
 * I doubt that, which is why I was against it. It's the same issues simply on another page. Creating a subheading here -Temp- or -Experiment- would have been sufficient. - RoyBoy 800 05:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Rednblu needs to define exactly what he disagrees with. There is no point providing a citation if there is no disagreement. Rednblu shouldn't be allowed to remove content based on "what do you say we provide a citation". Before a citation is required there needs to be some disagreement other than a duplicitous dislike disguised as an adament love of Wikipolicy. Bensaccount 16:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

My only disagreement is whether this page should proceed under the Wikipedia Verification standard #1 or standard #2. Standard #2 proceeds by always quoting, paraphrasing, and citing any statement of certainty that any editor challenges. Standard #1 proceeds by replacing what scholars actually said by what the editor thinks is true. Here are two examples of standard #1 and #2.
 * 1) A human rights spokesman said that the incident was part of a wider pattern of violence in the region.
 * 2) Eliza Twisk, of Amnesty International, described the situation in an interview with Channel 4 news on July 8, 2000, saying that "This is all part of a growing trend in Europe of violent protest and equally violent response". [1]

So I ask you, Mr. Ben, do we have your permission to open a /temp page under the Creation-evolution controversy page where those editors who wish to employ Wikipedia Verification standard #2 can proceed without having someone replace a statement like #2 above with #1 above? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Does this mean that at the temp page every statement will be of the form as 2. In other words, will every statement necessarily be a quote or a paraphrase of a quote and cited? No statements will be allowed that aren't cited?

Secondly, what if the cited quote is incorrect? For example, what if we wrote, "John Doe of XYZ Institute, describing the condition of the sky stated, "It is a lie that the sky is blue." [1] Will the person objecting to this quote have to find someone else who states that the sky is blue? Joshuaschroeder 20:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Great questions! You are very generous to engage with the idea.  I will wait until some of the other editors come back from their weekends in the country to engage with your great questions.  8))  But in the meantime, I will suggest that the Shroud of Turin page illustrates the balance between statements of type #2 and unattributed statements.  It seems that the quotes in style #2 are used only when disagreement among the editors requires making an objective statement so that someone could verify 1) what scholar said it and 2) what the scholar's data and reasoning was. In my opinion, each and every one of the claims for the specialness of the Shroud of Turin is "incorrect" as you use that term of art.  But there are many people apparently who believe that the Shroud is more than a just a fake.  So type #2 statements about that controversy make for a good dramatic encyclopedia page--even if the whole basis for the page is incorrect, irrational, and superstitious.  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let me get this straight. If ANYBODY has an objection to a point being made, a cited quote must be included? I only ask this because I think this could degenerate into a POV battle. For example, if I write the statement: "The sky is blue." and someone disagrees with this statement, I have to cite it as above? It may be difficult to find a quote for a statement that is common knowledge or obvious. Un my opinion, there is a substantial amount of material that creationists have objected to in the past that have been of that sort.
 * On the other hand, almost every quote that is currently in the article about creationism I could find nitpicky objections to. I think, however, it is in the best interest of an encyclopedia to allow some degree of development of an argument (even if it is faulty) without challenging it at every step of the way. If we were to go about doing this, I'm pretty sure we'd have an out-and-out war on our hands as I began to ask for citations to every assertion made by creationists. Ungtss, who tends to get out-and-out petty about my incredulity will probably counter with demands for citations to very banal and uncontroversial statements of the kind such as "The sky is blue." For example, Ungtss has questioned and reverted some of my editting of Creation beliefs when I removed statements that were either entirely incorrect or sometimes simply redundant. I got the impression there that the challenges were made because he gets "pissed off" because of my edits. I really don't want to get into a contest of that sort, but I do think that I have something to add to the article.

 * On the other hand, almost every quote that is currently in the article about creationism I could find nitpicky objections to. This seems kind of amusing, because this is exactly what you've been doing. I find the sheer mass of your edits amazing. It's as if you've decided you own this page and others on this theme, and nothing whatsoever escapes your instant reaction and spin to bring it into your own POV. No view but yours can be allowed. I certainly don't have time to deal with this constant nitpicking. There is no consensus and I doubt there will be, in view of this obsession. Pollinator 02:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hear hear!
 * How's this: If you say "the sky is blue", and someone disputes that, they have to provide evidence that it is disputed.  If they do that, then you have to provide a citation to support that the sky is blue.  Is that reasonable?
 * Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess my major concern is that we could waste all of our time building up the quotemine and come nowhere closer to getting to a consensus. Joshuaschroeder 21:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Good points. In my opinion, we could make a good page that is 1) clear and 2) accurate without using too many quotes.  Too many quotes, of course, would slow up the "read" of the page.  We don't need a quotemine, I agree.  I see the quote as being an appropriate way to make a really outrageous statement like the following from the Shroud of Turin page.

 * In 1203, a Crusader Knight named Robert de Clari claims to have seen the cloth in Constantinople: "Where there was the Shroud in which our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday raised itself upright so one could see the figure of our Lord on it" (Codex Chartularium Culisanense, fol. CXXVI (copia), National Library Palermo).

 * That quote seems to me better than saying, "Some thirteenth century visitors claimed that they saw the Lord Jesus Christ move the Shroud to stand upright." Would you agree?  The direct quote is rather dramatic, clear, and accurate as to that the Codex said the Knight said that.  And of course the Shroud of Turin page cites clear and accurate scientific measurements that indicate that the Shroud and the Knight's story are fake.  I would call that masterful NPOV.  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems like you have a good idea for when quotes can be used to the advantage of NPOV. However, what I cannot ascertain is how this will be applied juciduously to this particular article. There is nothing wrong with providing a quote in an article, but this doesn't make the problem go away. An uncontroversial claim about what a Crusader said in the thirteenth century is far different than somebody demanding, for example, a quote to back up the observed fact of the sky being blue. Joshuaschroeder 23:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe. Let's try the idea out--as an experiment.  We could open up a paragraph here that you and I could edit.  What is it you want to say about creationism that is like unto "The sky is blue"?  Probably what you say about creationism, I will personally agree with.  But let's see if you and I could work up a 1) clear and 2) accurate NPOV paragraph on that point.  Shall we try it?  What is it you want to say about creationism that is like unto "The sky is blue"?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Practice paragraph
This paragraph is not for inclusion in the article, nor any article in particular. It is just for practice.

Science is properly based on empiricism, observation, and evidence. It cannot be used to prove or disprove metaphysical paradigms such as faith because such designs are based on additional assumptions beyond empirical study. Creationism and its derivative, creation science, are based in part on the assumption that faith necessarily informs science. That is to say, fundamental beliefs of creationists are founded upon accepting truths unequivocally and without question -- assumptions which runs counter to the inherent skepticism of science. For example, creationism rejects the scientific model of human evolution because it is incompatible with the creationist's accepted creation narrative and, accordingly, is interpreted by them to be in strict denial of their fundamental belief in a special place in creation for humanity.

Discussion

 * Nice example. Nicely put.  I see no problem with that paragraph.  But I do notice your well phrased paragraph is very certain.  For example, the phrase "creationism rejects the scientific model of human evolution" is nicely certain.  8))  Are you adamant that you want to exclude from this page the point-of-view of some creationists that "creationists claim that creationism is more scientific with more factual support than Darwin's Origin of Species"? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The above is an example of an obfuscating argument. It would be like a believer in UFOlogy claiming that his design for a UFO spaceship was more reasonable than the spaceship described by Tsiolkovsky. Joshuaschroeder 02:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * For example, the phrase "creationism rejects the scientific model of human evolution" is nicely certain. It's also silly. The majority of creationists, including evolutionary creationists, synthesize rather than reject. Pollinator 02:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * <<"The above is an example of an obfuscating argument">> you say.  I agree!  8))  But that is because we are outside of that box!  So could we allow into our NPOV encyclopedia some quotation from Mr. Creationist making his obfuscating argument?  That is the first question.  ---Rednblu | Talk 02:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The example paragraph is misleading and POV:
 * It cannot be used to prove or disprove metaphysical paradigms ... is correct, but misleading because Creationism doesn't claim this of it. (On the other hand, evolutionists often claim that science has disproved aspects of the creation model.)
 * ...fundamental beliefs of creationists are founded upon accepting truths unequivocally and without question ... is also misleading, as creationists don't say that you can't question things, and do say that evolutionists say that you can't question things, for example, evolution itself.
 * For example, creationism rejects the scientific model of human evolution ... assumes the POV that the evolutionary model is scientific.
 * ...because it is incompatible with the creationist's accepted creation narrative... ignores that creationists also claim that it is incompatible with the scientific evidence.
 * Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Views beyond the creation-evolution dichotomy
There are many views beyond the creation-evolution dichotomy. The article needs a section on these views and how the creation-evolution debate is a false dichotomy. There was a section for this before Rednblu used his faulty take on NPOV to change the section describing these views into a section dedicated to E. Scott. Hopefully now that Rednblu is occupied on his own pet project, this section can be restored. Any objections? Bensaccount 00:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We will all edit the current Creation-evolution controversy page according to the Verification standard #1 above. You still need a citation to support and explain your idea of the "false creation-evolution dichotomy."  What scholar other than E. Scott talks about the "false dichotomy"?  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's one: An interesting example of an attempted false dichotomy usage was at the 1981 Arkansas Act 590 trial, where one of the lawyers for Arkansas, whose name was Wilson, tried to get Francisco Ayala to agree with the "two-model" argument. Ayala replied, "My name is not not-Mr. Williams. This courtroom is filled with people whose names are not not-Mr. Williams."

 * And another: "The false dichotomy of "either the universe arose naturally, or it arose from the Christian god" is a common one among creationists." -- Nathan Urban

Joshuaschroeder 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So what is the point of this "False dichotomy" section? What would you like a high-school student to learn from this "False dichotomy" section?  ---Rednblu | Talk 01:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In the public debate, it is often stated that there are only two alternatives: creationism and science (or Intelligent Design and science, etc.) This is not the case. The alternatives are scientific theories and non-scientific theories. Joshuaschroeder 01:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok. Is that the only valid view?  ---Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, if you believe that something either is or isn't, yes, it's the only valid view. However, it's ultimately a truism. We could also say that the only alternative to creationism was anti-creationism, but like the science/non-science dichotomy, that's throwaway. The false dichotomy is saying that the only alternative to evolutionary biology is creationism and vice versa. Joshuaschroeder 02:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe. But aren't there a lot of people who disagree with you?  Not just one or two--but thousands--millions--billions who disagree with you.  You and I say they don't understand simple Boolean algebra and complementary sets.  But they still disagree--even disagree with Boolean algebra the way we understand it.  So the question for us in Wikipedia is whether we will make a 1) clear and 2) accurate statement of their disagreement.  It is up to you!  8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 03:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The question was about validity which is well-defined. If someone (or large group of people) disagrees with a statement they don't understand (for example, "When traveling at a subsonic speed during the last one hour of hypersleep, the first vector of the Romulan nebula will suffer the wrath of the impenetrable quickening.") it's not encyclopedic to report that. Joshuaschroeder 03:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * From an anthropology standpoint, what is "valid" is recording the truth. And the truth is "The natives think that creationism is better science with more factual support than Darwinian speciation."  So we should record that truth should we not?  We don't have to say that the natives are right.  In fact, so that we do not mislead our high-school readers, we should report also that the empiricists say that the "natives" are wrong.  Would not that be NPOV?  ---Rednblu | Talk 03:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The anthropolgical stance on validity takes a very strange POV approach. Dealing with the observer in anthropology has never quite been resolved, and anthropological approaches are therefore necessarily not NPOV. The proof of this is that here, the "natives" talk back about being characterized. So, no, this approach will not work. Joshuaschroeder 14:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

This might actually be getting somewhere. The problem with "the only alternative to evolution is creation" is that the terms are not well defined. If you are using "evolution" as a synonym for "naturalistic origin" and "creation" as a synonym for "supernaturalistic origin", then it becomes a truism and is not a false dichotomy. And I believe that when people say things like "the only alternative to evolution is creation", they sometimes mean it as naturalism vs. supernaturalism. However, it can be better stated.

 *  If you are using "evolution" as a synonym for "naturalistic origin" and "creation" as a synonym for "supernaturalistic origin", then it becomes a truism and is not a false dichotomy. --> Not necessarily. "Naturalistic origin" can mean that there was no influence of non-natural forces. A non-natural force need not necessarily be supernatural. For example, it might be hallucinated to exist. Hallucination isn't necessarily "supernatural". More than that, there are also points of view that are opposed to the scientific bent of the discussion. In other words, there are those who reject science as it currently exists as an endeavor (to take an extreme example, they wish to see Newton's Laws no longer taught as true). These people don't necessarily accept supernatural explanations so you have again painted the false dichotomy.Joshuaschroeder 14:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The principle still applies. I don't normally use "natural" and "supernatural", but rather "designed" and "chance".  Whether or not between them the former cover all possibilities is a valid criticism if we are concentrating on those words, but if that is a problem, other words can be chosen.  However, I'm not sure how hallucination fits into the picture.  Surely we are talking about things that are and how they came to be, not about hallucinations.  As for science and Newton, what "non-scientific" possibilities are there that don't fall under the one of the headings that I used? Philip J. Rayment 02:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, sceptics have been known to get muddled over this point also, albeit the other way, when they argue that "if you are going to teach creation in schools, you also need to teach every other creation myth". The problem with this thinking, is that those proposing teaching creation in schools are (normally) not proposing teaching a particular religious creation myth, but merely scientific evidence that favours a supernatural explanation over a natural one. See, I just described that in a way that covers all possibilities. The "other" creation myths that sceptics claim would need to be taught are in fact just variations of either natural explanations or supernatural explanations (or combinations of both, if that's possible), so their charge fails.

 * those proposing teaching creation in schools are (normally) not proposing teaching a particular religious creation myth, but merely scientific evidence that favours a supernatural explanation over a natural one. --> which supernatural explanation? How does one chacterize evidence that favors a supernatural explanation? And further more, I don't think this has been as universally applied as you believe. The court-cases most-often cited revolve around creationism that uses the Genesis account. Joshuaschroeder 14:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No they haven't. They have generally called for the scientific evidence for creation to be taught (and that excludes such Genesis-specific things as creation in six days, the names of the first man and woman, etc.), or they have called for ID to be taught (and ID does not, as a movement, base anything on Genesis).  Which supernatural explanation?  None in particular, but simply evidence that fits with the idea of a creation.  Misrepresenting it as teaching a particular religious view is what the sceptics dishonestly do, which is the point I was making, and you have just repeated that misrepresentation.  That is one of your problems; your knowledge of creation is based on what the critics say about it, rather than on what it actually is.  Philip J. Rayment 02:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the creation/evolution controversy. That is the common title (one of them anyway) for the controversy over natural vs. supernatural explanations. As long as the article makes clear that it is a false dichotomy if defined in narrower ways (such as six-day creation vs. neo-Darwinian evolution), then the article need not be at all misleading. Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The point is that creationism has to be defined in a way that is broader than most normally suggested. This would imply that panspermists, UFOlogers, New Age practitioners, theosophists, homeopathists, and generally any crackpot that had any alternative whatsoever to science. If you're willing to be that "big tent" about this, then I think we should be entirely up front about that. Joshuaschroeder 14:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I consider this to be simply empty rhetoric of the very kind that I was attempting to counter. Panspermists are generally evolutionists; at best they leave the question open and unanswerable in some other part of the universe.  New Age followers are generally evolutionists.  I'm not aware of the others having any particular views of origins, but if they did, I reckon that they would be mostly be evolution.  Perhaps you can counter with some specific examples of "other" creation theories that attempt to be scientific?  Philip J. Rayment 02:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your POV here is that the only "creation theory" that attempts to be scientific is your own. I can find you quotes of plenty of UFOlogists, for example, who believe in the Zoo hypothesis and reject modern biological evolution. (For example, consider James McCanney or Nacy Lieder). They too believe they are scientific, just like you. Joshuaschroeder 02:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Zoo Hypothesis does not appear to me, according to the Wikipedia article, to be an alternative creation theory. It says that it's an explanation of why we don't see evidence of aliens; it doesn't say that it's an explanation of our origins.  In fact, to go further, it claims that the aliens do not want to interfere in our development.  You can read into that that adherents would go along with the idea of our evolutionary development, rather than rejecting it.  Philip J. Rayment 06:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heres a view outside the dichotomy for all you closed minded "creationists" and "evolutionists" who have such a hard time admitting there are views besides your own:

'First of all, the Void (Chaos) came into being, next broad-bosomed Earth, the solid and eternal home of all, and Eros [Desire], the most beautiful of the immortal gods, who in every man and every god softens the sinews and overpowers the prudent purpose of the mind. Out of Void came Darkness and black Night, and out of Night came Light and Day, her children conceived after union in love with Darkness. Earth first produced starry Sky, equal in size with herself, to cover her on all sides. Next she produced the tall mountains, the pleasant haunts of the gods, and also gave birth to the barren waters, sea with its raging surges-all this without the passion of love. Thereafter she lay with Sky and gave birth to Ocean with its deep current. Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus; Thea and Rhea and Themia [Law] and Mnemosyne [Memory]; also golden-crowned Phoebe and lovely Tethys. After these came cunning Cronus, the youngest and boldest of her children; and he grew to hate the father who had begotten him. - Hesiod, Theogony.

No, this isnt creationism. It was the ancient Greek explanation of origins. Since people were born, why shouldn't the creation of everything else involve birth.

Just admit it; there are more views than the creation-evolution dichotomy. Bensaccount 15:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Now that's what I wish there was more of—a specific example instead of just broad and repetitive claims of "false dichotomies" and the like. I have something to respond to.
 * First, I'm not close-minded. I know that there are views other than my own.  I have always acknowledged, for example, that some people believe in evolution and "something from nothing".
 * Just based on what you have written there, I'd agree that it isn't creationism. It says that the Void "came into being".  Apparently out of nothing.  That sounds rather like the Big-Bang to me, so it fits the naturalistic (evolutionary) idea.
 * Therefore, it is a variation on the naturalistic idea. Sure, the details are different, but I've never claimed that the only two views are exactly the current version of evolution and the YEC understanding of creation.
 * This view makes absolutely no attempt to describe the origin in a scientific way, unlike the usual models of evolution and creation.
 * Philip J. Rayment 02:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Unlike evolution, but very much like creation.

Anyways, this view and the views presented by Joshua above illustrate that the creation-evolution dichotomy is in no way jointly exaustive. Even the two alternative points of view, creation and evolution are not black and white options. There is a spectrum of views on these topics ranging from a belief in young earth creationism and disbelief in evolution to a belief in both athiesm and evolution. Neither are these views necessarily mutually exclusive as shown by the belief in evolutionary creationism. Bensaccount 18:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Im adding this section. Bensaccount 15:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conflation of science and religion
This will be my final addition to this page. Would anyone like to contribute to this section? Bensaccount 22:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Points for this section:
 * "Divine revelation from the Creator of the world states that He did it all in six days, several thousand years ago. The Bible is a book of science! It contains all the basic principles upon which true science is built." - Henry Morris (conflation of creation and science).
 * "The truth will set us free. Evolutionary truth frees us from subserviant fear of the unknown and supernatural, and exhorts us to face this new freedom. It shows us our destiny and our duty. The evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern the outline of the new religion that will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." - Julian Huxley (conflation of evolution and religion).

Two truths is also an option
If God is almighty and not bound by time; I see no reason, why the story about the creation of the universe, as told in Genesis of the christian Bible, and the scientific story about the appearing of earth, life and man should not both be literally true. I think this is an interesting concept to think about and I didn't see it anywhere in Wikipedia.

Assuming the biblical genese and the scientific genese both to be true literally; I can only speculate about the why and how of the emerging of the scientific truth. Maybe the scientific truth is also created by God in relation to human sin or maybe it is created by the wishes, beliefs and expectancies of humans. Whatever. Maybe the disbelief in the biblical truth removes that truth even further. The biblical truth asks believing; confirmation might come later. By seeking confirmation first, one might cause or find non-biblical confirmation. After all, the scientific story can hardly be seen as a story more in favour of man. The earth is a tiny spot in a gigantic universe, the durance of human existence is one moment in an enormous sea of time. Apes are our ancestors and our origin lies somewhere between a big bang and coincidence. Greetings, Ben

 * If God is almighty and not bound by time; I see no reason, why the story about the creation of the universe, as told in Genesis of the christian Bible, and the scientific story about the appearing of earth, life and man should not both be literally true.
 * First, the "scientific story" is no such thing. It is a worldview with some supporting scientific evidence, as is the Biblical creation story.
 * The reason they cannot both be true is that they are contradictory.
 * The Biblical story says that the entire world and all life were created in six days. The evolutionary story says that it happened over billions of years.
 * The Biblical story says that each kind of living thing was created separately, to reproduce "after its own kind". The evolutionary story says that all living things evolved from a single original living thing.
 * The order of events in the Biblical story differs from the order of events in the uniformitarian/evolutionary story.
 * The Biblical story has Earth and plants created before the sun. The evolutionary story has the sun, then Earth, then plants.
 * The Biblical story has birds created before land creatures. The evolutionary story has birds evolving from land creatures.
 * The Biblical story has death of living creatures not occurring until after man was created (and sinned). The evolutionary story has death of living creatures as part of the process leading to man.
 * These are just a small sample of the contradictions. There are those that believe that God used evolution ("evolutionary creationists" or "theistic evolutionists") and they do get mentioned on Wikipedia, but they have to ignore or explain away the contradictions listed above.  In almost every case they do so by ignoring or explaining away the detail of the Biblical story, not the evolutionary story.  Thus they accept virtually the entire evolution story, and add that "God did it".  So it is hardly as separate category needing significant discussion anyway.
 * Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello Philip, Thank you for your reaction but you did not understand what I was talking about. I was talking about two truths, both literaly true, being acceptable if you accept the existence of an almighty God not bound by time.I guess this concept is not mainstream enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. I just wanted to share it because it is such an inspiring idea to me. It is all right with me if you delete our discussion. Too many idle words inhabiting the earth. Greetings, Ben

 * I'm not sure that I yet understand. But if you are talking about two contradictory truths (as evolution and Biblical creation are) both being literally true, that is a logical impossibility.  Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At least for Philip who has received an e-mail from Jesus informing him exactly how the bible is meant to be read and interpreted. Bensaccount 03:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I please have an e-mail from you informing me exactly how that comment is meant to be read and interpreted? Or am I expected to understand the plain meaning of words?  It's the same with the Bible.  I read it and understand it according to the plain meaning of the words, so when it says that God created in six days, I don't understand it to mean long undefined periods of time, but six days.  Wow, isn't that an extraordinary way to read it?  Philip J. Rayment 03:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You do not know exactly how the bible is meant to be read and interpreted. Bensaccount 04:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And I guess you do not know exactly how my comments are meant to be read and interpreted. So therefore we should do away with language altogether, as it is impossible to know exactly what the users of the language mean.  Either that, or we accept that words have meanings and use those meanings to understand what was written.  Philip J. Rayment 02:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I never said I do--and you obviosly have no grasp of my meaning. Are words coveying meaning to you? Apparently not. Bensaccount 05:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you don't understand me, so you figure I can't understand the Bible! That's a real good non-sequitur!  Philip J. Rayment 14:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I have just had a vision; the exact meaning of your words is: "Non-sequitors are good." Not only do I understand you, I now have an exact interptretation of your words. And furthermore, it is the only possible one allowed. Bensaccount 17:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't base my understanding of the written word on visions nor on invented meanings. You are essentially arguing that because some people may have trouble understanding some writing, therefore nobody can be sure of anything written down.  That is itself a non sequitur.  Philip J. Rayment 02:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes words or parables can have more than one possible meaning. If everyone was as close-minded as you, the world would be a much worse place. Bensaccount 14:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * But most of the time the meaning is quite clear, else communication would be impossible. Your disparagement of me is not becoming.  Philip J. Rayment 14:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whereas you say most of the time, I would say seldom, and certainly not in the bible. Even if every parable in the bible has only one possible exact meaning to you, it may not be so clear to someone else.

PS. If I misjudged you, I apologize.Bensaccount 17:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You did, so apology accepted. I was not referring to the parables in the Bible, but to the history.  Philip J. Rayment 14:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The difference is only in your mind. This is why I call you close-minded. Bensaccount 02:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm curious as to what reference God was using to track the passage of time? Why should we assume God was using an Earth day? Additionally, if he was using Earth (or the Sun, which hadn't been created straight away)... why should we also assume an Earth day was exactly the same as today? Add to this the fact language changes and evolves over centuries... I cannot understand certainty in such matters. - RoyBoy 800 07:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * God was communicating to mankind, so it is logical that God will use terms that mankind understands, i.e. if he says "six days", it will be "six days" as the hearers understand the words "six days". God intends us to study his Word, and that would be pointless if the terms used therein had meanings known only to God.  An Earth day is the time taken for the Earth to rotate once on its axis (approximately), so unless that rotation time has altered (and it may have very slightly), what reason do we have for thinking it might have changed?  Besides, what is the point of questioning it?  To see if it is possible that the "days" were 48 hours long?  Or 78.34 hours long?  Or to try and accommodate the millions and billions of years postulated primarily by people that reject the Biblical record anyway?  If it is the latter, it raises more problems than it solves, such as birds existing for millions of years before the plants they fed on, and for Adam and Eve who were created on the sixth day, lived through the seventh, and died at less than one thousand years of age.
 * Belief in a six-day creation is not because of an arbitrary understanding of the term "six days" as six 24-hour periods, but on the full understanding of the use of the word and other terms in the Hebrew language, and on consistency with other passages of scripture. Attempts to understand the term "six days" differently—and there have been many—end up with hopeless inconsistencies unless one is prepared to go the whole way and ignore what the Bible records anyway.
 * Philip J. Rayment 02:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds reasonable. The fundamental problem I have with such matters is God isn't communicating directly with humanity... meaning God at best is being interpreted by a few humans; and it is They, not necessarily God, that would put things into terms humans understand. And if I can indulge further in the metaphysical; I find it curious God would need to rest and it would take a week to do things. Certainly one can maintain the week is the length it is as a result of God's work schedule; but it seems more plausible to me it was a reflection of humanities calendar... rather than God's creation schedule. - RoyBoy 800 03:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * But if the Bible is God's communication, then it is with not just "a few humans", but with the millions that have access to it. God didn't get worn out.  He didn't need a rest in that sense.  The Hebrew indicates a ceasing from work, not a period of recovery.  There is no reason to think that God needed to take a week.  Rather, as God Himself wrote in the ten commandments, the week that He took was intended as a basis for our week.  In other words, God deliberately took that long, rather than doing it all instantly, to set the pattern for our week.  Philip J. Rayment 14:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the Bible is God's direct and uninterpreted communication that would be the case. However, given the Bible was cobled together from various writers it seems reasonable to think that even if God was speaking to them... their stories are an interpretation of His Word. And since you are reading a second hand account... you also are interpreting them. At minimum there is two interpretations; and this isn't including the rewritting we can infer which was common for religious documents in that time period.
 * Your opinion that the Bible was "cobbled together" is just that—an opinion.
 * I thought it was general knowledge the various books of the Bible were written by various writers and brought together in what we now know as the Bible. As part of this there is disagreement as to what is canon and what is not... disagreements that originated long ago when this was being done. Books_of_the_Bible.
 * I acknowledged that there were multiple authors; it was your caricature of it being "cobbled" that I was disputing. Claims of disputation regarding the canon are vastly overstated.  Philip J. Rayment 14:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As to overstatement, so? Overstated or not the issue remains a testament (pun intended) to disagreement among the faithful on the authenticity of authorship. - RoyBoy 800 21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It claims to be authored by God (albeit by using human writers), millions (including very intelligent people) have believed that and many have offered arguments in support of that, and you have offered no evidence otherwise.
 * Many billions (some very intelligent) believed otherwise, before the Bible, in the early days of the Bible, and after the Bible. Since the proposed author and his helpers are not directly accessible for query, I indeed have no evidence. However referring oneself to be divine, or associated with the divine does not make it so for Sollog, L. Ron Hubbard, Jesus, The Qur'an, Caligula, Nero, Pharaoh's, and does not make it so for the Bible. So no evidence to the contrary is required to be in doubt of such dubious self-aggrandizing claims. Even though there is evidence, which manifests itself in conflicting divinely inspired philosophies.
 * Many billions believed that the Bible was not authored by God? Who are these billions that were familiar with the Bible and yet rejected His authorship?  Certainly claiming to be divine does not make it so, but I didn't make that argument.  But claiming that it is not so does not make it not so either, yet you say that that view does not require evidence!  Oh, that's right, scepticism doesn't require evidence, does it???  What "conflicting divinely inspired philosophies" are there?  Philip J. Rayment 14:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Muslim world (believe new testament to be about and by a prophet, but not God), other religions before and after being introduced to the Bible, agnostics and atheists. In List_of_religions you will find several very different religious beliefs; if you consider these all valid interpretations of the "divine", I'd agree... although my opinion of the "divine" is likely very different than yours. If you consider most of them misinterpretations of your God, I'd scoff. - RoyBoy 800 21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If written documents are as uncertain in their meaning as you seem to be implying, we should give up discussing this and give up on Wikipedia. Either that, or accept the fact that most of the time the meaning of words is sufficiently clear to achieve understanding.  As for the 'rewriting", it is known from history that the Jews were extremely careful to make accurate copies, employing various methods for checking that copies were accurate facsimiles.  They weren't infallible of course, but we know from the vast array of extant copies, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, just how successful they were.  Philip J. Rayment 14:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ancient "near perfect" documents making extraordinary claims are different than contemporary "in progress" documents describing the (and in some cases debating/exploring) mundane details of existence. When the Bible describes historical life and such, it intrigues me, when it claims Godlike authority allowed the Jews to massacre others... I skip it. My mention of rewriting was not referring to the copying process, but rather the conscious revisionist history people with POV can have in ancient times, as they do today. - RoyBoy 800 20:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What makes the claims "extraordinary", other than by comparing them to your own worldview? The Jews revered what they believed to be God's word so much, they didn't dare tamper with it.  Philip J. Rayment 14:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Being inspired written by a deity. Oh they revered it when it considered "done" by whoever wrote it. The static nature upon its completion does not translate in inerring authorship to begin with. - RoyBoy 800 21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * As to the seven day week I find the history preceeding the Bible to be a more likely explanation than God's seven day week; which could have evolved from existing traditions.
 * "The history preceding the Bible" is itself a POV, as the Bible claims to begin its record from the beginning of creation. I would suggest that what you find "more likely" has more to do with your worldview than any real evidence.  Philip J. Rayment 14:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, everything is POV except the Bible. A clarifying frame of mind, which is also POV. It's my understanding there is substantial evidence to show the pre-existence of the seven day week prior to the Bible, who's claims on creation are... rather unverified to say the least. I'd also mention its record beginning at creation doesn't mean squat. For example I could start a book right this minute called the Babyl, and it would also be a record of everthing since creation. Simple fact (corroborated by figuratively, and literally by mountains of evidence) is, lots of stuff happened prior to people learning how to write things that would later be included in the Bible, or the Babyl. - RoyBoy 800 20:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that everything is POV except the Bible. I'm not sure what "substantial evidence" you have in mind for the pre-existence of the seven-day week prior to the Bible, but if you mean prior to the Bible being completed (i.e. with the New Testament), then I have no dispute.  If you mean prior to Genesis being written, that begs the question of when Genesis was written.  Even if you propose a late date for that, it wouldn't change the argument that the seven day week originated with creation, because your evidence, by definition, could not predate creation.  Your claim that lots of things happened before people learnt how to write also begs the question of when that occurred.  It is an evolutionary view that man began primitive and gradually developed to (and beyond) the point where he was able to write.  It is a Biblical view that Adam was intelligent enough to be able to write.  Philip J. Rayment 14:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It begs the question indeed; your answer is a matter of faith in the Bible, not fact. - RoyBoy 800 21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * However even if I conceded the Bible is God's Word, and I have no reason to do so apart from the Word sayings its all that and a bag of chips, I find it important to emphasize something I picked up from an online spiritual guru... "It is not possible to express with words an absolute truth." I especially like it since it reminds me of the paradox: "This is a lie" although I'm unsure if they are equivalent in their contradictory nature. - RoyBoy 800 04:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So if the statement is self-refuting (which it is) of what value is it to this discussion (except as an amusing aside?)? Philip J. Rayment 14:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It illustrates the validity a statement can have by itself, which is none. This goes for my assertions and those of the Bible. (the number of people who believe a given assertion is irrelevant) Glad you asked. - RoyBoy 800 20:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Most statements are unlike those ones in that they are not self-refuting, so they illustrate nothing about most statements. Philip J. Rayment 14:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Granted, but it was a novel way for me to make a point. "My cat is cute." Not contradictory, but vacuous... it has no meaning except for that which you provide it. "The Bible is the Word of God." Meaningless statement without substantiation. For someone who keeps insisting I substantiate my beliefs; I request no less of you. Yet the basic point is these are held within us in our basic worldview. However I prefer my beliefs do have some foundation in fact, or logic (eg. eternal return) at least). If they don't those memes will fall by the wayside like defunct, outmoded genes... still a part of me, but no longer relevant and active. - RoyBoy 800 21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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