Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

Summary of most recent archive

Gallup survey

a gallup poll was removed because it was framed in a highly distorting manner of what the facts actually are

Mendel as creationist

is irrelevant because although mendel, was a monk and a creationist, he was at a time when evolution was a radical theory not some standard scientific thing that demanded opinion. What NPOV insight on "whence we all came" could I get from knowing about Mendel's faith?

evolutionism as pov

Evolutionism is a POV term used by Creationists and is not a term used by non-creationists. However creation myth is POV, story would be better, creation science is insufficient as it is only a subset of the views of creationists.

Section structure

The article could be broken down by creationist topic, or it could be split into sections on hypotheses and those on evidence criticism.

Totally Disputed

To be a creationist against evolution demands you disagree with the vast majority of scientists about what is good science and what is not, based pretty much on your faith. "both sides are equally biased" is a creationist POV in this debate.

Aldus

Please stop trying to put essays by one writer into articles. This isn't Wikiquote or Wikisource. Although Huxley articulates one thing, it is not necessarily his actual POV. The whole section maybe ought to be cut out as it doesnt add information.

aside

Some think True Religion is Just, others think that one should not confuse religion with truth as they are not the same and never have been. Due to the fact that Jesus knowing his destiny still chose death, and consequently some religions have glorification of the murder of a man on a crucifix by asphyxiation, Sadists would be an apt description.

Virus

Evangelical Christianity, particularly student groups, fits the definition of a virus, so does it care if it doesn't benefit the host?. a religion is completely dead as soon as the CRITERIA FOR SALVATION is that you believe what they say and go to their church.

paraphrasing huxley

Huxley's quote was taken out of context, quoting Huxley selectively to demonstrate a POV.

Hull & Butler

A quote that says "evolution disproves God" actually serves a creationist POV. It be nice to stick to the merits of evolution itself instead of the merits of evolutionists. But evolutionists are just as human as creationists. The majority consider "evolutionism" to be an extremely POV term. Rednblu is a Creationist who misrepresents himself to push POV by making the other side feel they are extreme. You ought to see - User talk:Rednblu#Good Faith_policy (adjourned)-which is now in an archive.

Inconsistency

Adam was the counter example to a creationist argument, so it was re-written. However, the re-write assumed that God was sentient, and that one would be god if one constructed an ant via molecular physics. Nethertheless the argument is actually a falsifiability for ID. Ockham's razor chooses Naturalism because it does not require intervention. Ockham himself was a monk, although this may have just been a way to get a good education, or he may have been gay. An intelligent being is not a naturalist thing, therefore cannot feature in a "natural" law.

Hydrostatic Equilibrium

According to theoretical physics, "Starting" the big bang has NO meaning, nor does the idea of subatomic particles having an origin. Path integral formulation is the REASON "natural laws" of physics arise. Aboigenesis could work via accumulations and encounters from a 1000000year Miller Experiment. Macroevolution is potentially a Creationist fallacy, science advocates a smooth change of scale, yet still has speciation. Star birth is due to the failure of an extremely cold gas cloud to resist gravity via hydrostatic equilibrium (some creationists edited the Stellar Evolution article to subvert this explanation also violating "no personal research")

Macro and microevolution

It is inaccurate to state that creationists "coined" the term macro and microevolution.

Birch and Ehrlich Quote

is taken out of context (as commonly done by creationists). What B&E are talking about is whether to guess first from evolution or to do more studies. ID has failed miserably to make falsifiable claims and some also argue that evolution has failed just as badly. However, some think that evolution is falsifiable as the fossil record might cough something up tomorrow that would stand evolution on its head.

falsifiability

We must distinguish between verifiability and falsifiability. Falsifiability is the means of pushing outward the envelope of your knowledge in an efficient manner. Falsifiability is used by men in fighting turf battles. A theory has essential flaws if it does cannot state its hypotheses in falsifiable form. The "Duck Billed Platypus" is one phenomenon that is consistent with evolution but not consistent with ID.

The point

Naturalistic explanations do not require an infinite cascade of assumptions, the only require the Zermilo-Frenkel axioms and the Path integral formulation of M-theory, and the axioms of Logic. Everything requires some assumptions (as Godel's incompleteness theorem shows). The problem of evil implies god is not nice, although "evil" and "nice" are human concepts. If God is a concept of Man then Ockham's razor demand we reject it, although this is irrelevant. We ought keep ourselves in a healthy state of agnosticism.

Theory claiming to KNOW more than it can FALSIFY

Creationists say that you can't falsify macroevolution because the only falsifiable argument is find life that can't be explained through stepwise development. Features are not normally explained by evolution as "well, we don't understand that..." since it is normally understood. The eye developed from pockets of light sensitive skin cells which slowly took on a more important role once predators had them too. The lens is simply a bit of thin skin, that got pulled by muscles, it later developed as animals where this happened had advantage. The iris is simply a result of that same process - the muscles in the skin which pull horizontally. All skin has a connection to the brain - the area was NEVER unconnected, just becoming more specialised and important. The eye of insects developed independantly but the principle is still the same - its a light sensitive patch of their exoskeleton.

Ezekiel;

GENES changed from eyeless to eyed, as basically the new genes are just appended to the old (which is also why humans show stages of development in the embryo in a similar manner to evolutionary paths). There is nothing radically different in sexual reproduction, it is exactly the same as it was in fish, just that the eggs are now internal, and the reproduction method has gradually become more intimate. Asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction via a copying error.

Male and female is an artificial definition, it should instead be A and B, as "Sexual reproduction" merely means the fusing of 2 cells into a new creature. In primative animals there is little difference between the genders, later animals having difference merely due to the gradual evolution of one cell becoming more the delivery method and one being more the source of nourishment. Mating of sexually reproducing bacteria and the like is via phagocytosis, just being a matter of trial and error until one works, not an "occurs amazingly close and simultaneously"

The dimple improved visual acuity due to the fact that a concave lense produces a virtual image, wheras a convex one is unfocused. When there is an advantage to seeing ANYTHING, there is a massive advantage in focusing light whether or not you can distinguish shape. Science has already produced computer programs via neural nets which can recognise faces, the development of visual recognition is no different. Since there is 0% change of observing god, and there is significantly higher chance of observing the development of the eye, occam's razor demands you reject clinging on to god.

Creationists have demanded complete proof at every step. Creationists demand intermediate forms and then when scientists show some, they seem not to notice, or they switch to other things and demand those be shown. Scientists think it counterproductive and even "perverse" to keep demanding tedious, complete demonstrations, and are more interested in finding the limits of the theory. Since when did they provide a similar amount of proof? Such as for how god created the eye, or how god exists, or how god functions, or that god exists, or a mechanism for god to exist or function. Scientists have noticed a pattern of endless specific demands from creationists and have concluded that no level of realistic proof will satisfy them.

The heart

The heart - developed as a bend in the aorta which gradually came to pump harder than the remainder of the arterial system - this is demonstrable by more primative animals - e.g. frogs who have a heart that has a passage between oxygenated and unoxygenated blood, and by the way it develops in an embryo. Veins have loads of chambers with one way valves, - ask a doctor. Frogs are part of the ancestral chain. The common ancestor had 3 chambers (like most amphibians). Earlier ancestors had just 2, which were really just bulgy tubes. The fourth arose from the 3rd splitting in two by the gradual growth of an intermediate wall, and associated alterations in shape - (providing the evolutionary advantage of less mixed blood and more purely oxygenated blood passing back into the body)

Blue Tits

Mammary glands derive from skin cells which release secretions (e.g. sweat glands, scent glands (particularly scent glands)) that the young started to take an interest in as they were otherwise malnourished, becoming more specialised, and more isolated to fulful this purpose. Its just a mass of cells producing milk, in a fat like body, which has a particularly sensitive and hardened area of skin at the tip, which has more cross glands than elsewhere on the skin - allowing it to seep the milk. There is no intricacy.

Spqrs

During cell splitting (for asexual reproduction), the chromosomes line up and pair off, sometimes swapping bits of DNA between the pairs. Then the chromosome pairs duplicate and then the cell splits taking one set into each new bit. The error simply occurs if they fail to duplicate and then the cell splits - thus taking one of each pair rather than one of each pair of pairs (producing the cells which form gametes). Phagocytosis by one cell of another similar enough not to be rejected will produce a new cell with the original number of chromosomes - thus sexually reproducing.

POV of a creationist (who won't admit he is one)

The alleged creationist apologises for all the ways that the anti-creationists have thrown falsifiable at creationists. The creationist thinks that it is intellectually dishonest to assert that it is FACT that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor without any way to falsify that statement. However, it is deadly when man turns to God instead of solving his own problems.

Designer ID

Intelligent design can be represented as all of evolution except with the addition of a designer. The god of evolution. Which is a violation of ockham's razor since it clearly adds something unnecessary. Naturalistic evolution does not require any additional mechanism. The perception that it is lacking in some mechanism is only held by creationists, who refuse to accept that it is a complete theory. Most scientists and indeed non-scientists, the world over, consider that the microevolution on a larger scale can and DOES explain "macroevolution".

Pseudoscientific

The pseudoscience accusation against ID, is the unnecessary element of the Intelligent Designer. If you looked out of a train and saw a black cow, what would you say of the observation? Cows around here are black, some cows around here are black, a cow around here is black, one half of one cow around here is black, or my brain is claiming that one half of one cow around here looks black

Falsify macroevolution

Let us take the grand hypothesis "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees." I will describe what I think are falsifiable forms of that hypothesis. To falsify the grand hypothesis, find a set of humans whose gene pool more closely resembles some species other than chimpanzee. Another falsifiable form ot that grand hypothesis would be To falsify the grand hypothesis, find a Human fossil that is older than the oldest chimpanzee fossil. Now let's see if we could come up with two similar falsifiable forms of the ID hypothesis. Shall we? :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"find a set of humans whose gene pool more closely resembles some species other than chimpanzees" only falsifies the more NARROW theory that "Humans and chimpanzees have very similar gene pools" - it fails to falsify the theory that "humans and chimps have a common ancestor." Ungtss 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i just think that evolutionism is just as unfalsifiable as ID, and therefore just as a priori and religious. Ungtss 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find that, when the question "How did life begin" is asked, that the answer "I don't know, but I'm trying to figure it out" is far simpler (and more honest) than "An undetectable, ultra-powerful being with an unknowable plan did it." --Yath 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

F equals MA

is NEVER true, as it is only an average. F=ma is a nice little lie. Like the laws of thermodynamics. However, the ID version of physics can, in a nutshell be expressed as "I think God is moving the objects around". Common sense is often wrong. There is no such thing as an intellectual coma, unless the originator of the accusation is in one.

Tibet

The voice of reason will return whenever china lets him back into Tibet without the threat of arrest. The Dalai Lama, like most buddhists, is an atheist. Buddhism itself being strictly NON-theistic, although most buddhists are in fact Atheists. "it flies" doesn't explain the quality of flight, however, picture a brick not hanging in the air, and imagining the opposite its a much better description which is far more vivid.

The "cleanup" tag should be removed

But a reader should be prepared for messiness, and the tag is needed because the text added is not wikified, and the structure of the article is a mess. It is not clear what is going on in each section.

Deism and Naturalism as falsifiable

Occam's razor dictates that the theory that makes the smallest number of assumptions to explain the evidence is the most reasonable.

Evidence is NOT proof. It only affects opinions as to the truth of the thing in question. The Reimann hypothesis has masses of evidence to back it up, but it is still considered the greatest unproven statement in mathematics. CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doctor Who

There are four broad possibilities for the origin of the universe - Naturalism, Deism, the universe only existing for the last second, Ancestor simulation and similar. The last is the simplest of all, as it is MINUS the assumption that it is real, it is just the least satisfactory. Ockham's razor is UNvAlUable in the issue, leading to an unhelpful starting point as predictability gets thrown away, therefore it is better to ignore its conclusions and start from an assumption that on this issue it is wrong. It is possible to consider it wrong on the issue of God or on the last possibility, but that is cowardice (see Why I am not a Christian and Escapism).

Now, for the falsifiable propositions

a) If all things originated from purely natural causes, one would expect further research into the causation of natural things to lead to FEWER assumptions and unknowns.

NO. Z->ZZ+1 is a simple assumption, but it is profound - it produces the entire Mandlebrot set, which led to MORE unknowns and MORE research.CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

b) If all things originated from AGENCY, one would expect further exploration into the causation of natural things to lead to MORE assumptions and unknowns, because that "original cause" we are assuming under occam's razor would be MORE complex than the universe -- possibly even infinitely complex.

NO. Not if the exploration is by those who have a philosophical axe to grind in the first place (such as for example, those trying to proove there is a god). CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, lets start with all of them, and discount the impossible combinations. CheeseDreams 14:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People are less individual than you think/hope. Statistical analysis of human behaviour produces nice normal distributions, not a series of evenly distributed spikes. What do you think the sum total is? Average=sum total/total number. CheeseDreams 23:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ID and falsification -- fresh start!

About how the "intelligent designer" constructed the first humans and first chimpanzees, the creationists respond that at least, 97% of the dna in the human genome has no known function. falsifiability depends on the definition of "conventional wisdom". "life will never be observed arising from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent designer" would kill all the forms for creationism, and make theism logically untenable under occam's razor. However, ID requires the PARADIGM shift that there IS a creator. There is agreement to remove the Birch & Ehrlich (1967) quote because it does not criticize evolutionary theory and has no relevance. A suggestion to also remove the theodosius quote, for even handed-ness, was rebuffed as the remaining quotations wouldn't then be distorting or accusing the other side of distortion.

Dobzhansky

The Dobzhansky quote is a perspective on the debate about the tactic of "quote mining", whic is certainly one the creationist side continues to use. However it is really connected to the unfair tactics that either side uses when they have lost ground and have not the intelligence to string together good English to say anything in the debate. It perhaps ought to go in a separate section with a title like "Dirty tactics used by both sides in the debate".

Tidy up Lucretius's English

Lucretius was converted into english as the original translation was poor.

Macroevolution Refactoring

The section should be consise and to the point.

Issues in "Perspectives on the debate"

The quotes are like part of Wikiquote not an encyclopedia article. The psalms quote is not about the debate. Some of pauls letters were first alleged not to have been written by paul by Origen in the 2nd/3rd century, therefore "alleged". The bible is not commenting on the debate and it should not be quoted. "it is an unscientific dogmatic belief" and "it is a justifiable belief" are mutually exclusive according to the rules of english language.

ending the insanity.

fine. you're right, and everything i've ever believed is wrong. there is no god, but he's evil. occam's razor demands we believe we're living in the matrix, and also that there is no god. jesus died so we could all cheer his murderers on. religion is stupid, but still worth spending all our time attacking relentlessly. you're right, mr. cheesedreams. truth is falsehood and light is dark. i only wish i'd heard your wisdom earlier. i've learned my lesson now, tho, so i'm gonna stop discussing things with you, return to the real world, and convince everybody else of all the wisdom you've taught me, so they can shoot themselves (or even better) each other. thank you. thank you so much. Ungtss 01:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to the bible, Jesus was told by an angel of his purpose. He chose to accept it and die for it. Some people think that is worth celebrating. Some canonise Judas as a saint for carrying out god's purpose. However, fundamentalists just don't seem to get it.

Giving up on a arguments thusly is simply an indication that one has a closed mind and is unwilling to contemplate the validity of counter-argument.

I don't approve of guns.

Though darkness is light, and in falsehood there is truth, this is not my wisdom.CheeseDreams 02:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair warning announcement

I am posting this alert so that everyone has fair warning. I am in the process of organizing a Wikipedia-wide discussion of what, in my opinion, is the repeated dysfunctional behavior of several Wikipedia editors on the Creation vs. evolution debate page and Creation according to Genesis page. This is a systems problem, in my opinion--specifically a systems control problem, and does not reflect on whether or not any editor in the History file has acted in good faith, bad faith, or in no faith at all. 8)) I am only using this particular History file as a case-in-point to illustrate the problem and discuss changes to Wikipedia policy to deal with this systems control problem. ---Rednblu | Talk 10:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Basically, in the Wikipedia-wide proposal, I am characterizing the actions of several Wikipedia editors in the History file as generally making destructive edits of no value, such as 1) removing or defacing good NPOV citations, quotations, and paraphrases, 2) making unreasonable demands, 3) inserting nonsense into the page, 4) repeatedly misusing Wikipedia policy and standards to disrupt progress, and 5) scrambling page contents destructively. And I am proposing that Wikipedia establish some standard method of dealing with this situation and similar situations that occur on many pages throughout Wikipedia with many different configurations of editors. Any ideas? ---Rednblu | Talk 10:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The discussion of the Wikipedia-wide proposal is at this link ---Rednblu | Talk 13:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

totally disputed tag

i would like to alter this page in such a way as to make the maximum number of people happy ... Mr. DuncHarris ... i noticed that you put a "Totally Disputed" tag on -- i was wondering what facts in the text you disputed, or what comments you found to be pov, so that i can make the appropriate changes? Ungtss 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

beliefs and scientific theories

i see there's been a bit of an edit war going as to whether evolution should be considered a "scientific theory" or a "belief." may i suggest that "scientific theory" is the most accurate and npov description of evolution -- because "scientific theory" does not imply truth or falsehood -- only that it is an interpretation of the evidence -- while "belief" is less accurate, because "evolutionISM" may be a belief, but "evolution" is a theory? any thoughts? Ungtss 00:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

look, cheese.

what do you want out of that last section? you contributed to it, discussed it, developed it, and now you are unilaterally insisting that it be removed. present a solution other than insisting on vandalizing the page. Ungtss 05:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I am insisting it be moved to Wikiquote. It has no structure, no connecting prose, no narrative. It is solely a (excessively large) collection of quotes. Which is the purpose of wikiquote not wikipedia. I have no problem contributing to wikiquote, which is why I discussed it and contributed to it. I remember always pointing out that it does not belong in wikipedia though. CheeseDreams 08:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i am willing to add structure, connecting prose, and narrative, but given the course of events thusfar, i fear you will simply revert it. are you willing to work together on solving the problem in a mutually agreeable fashion? Ungtss 14:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

as the tag states - if you can edit it so that it becomes an encyclopedia article, then do so, and THEN remove the tag, not before, (a) the purpose of the tag is to point out the lack of such a state, (b) and to list it in the corresponding category so that editors who like converting quotes into articles might attempt to do so, and (c) to state the consequence of the changes not happening. CheeseDreams 19:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much better darling. CheeseDreams 20:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Betrayal of Knowledge

I'm sure most here have heard of Haeckel's Embryonic Recapitulation (Comparitive Embryology). Well what you didn't hear (though you probably did) is that ALL the drawings were made up and ALL the EVOLUTIONIST Scientists REJECTED his theory and yet still today his drawings and theory is presented as "truth" in our science books.

I have absolutely never heard of Comparative Embryology and have never seen a single textbook or drawing on this subject presented either as "truth" or as fiction.CheeseDreams 08:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not to metion Darwin refuting everything he wrote about evolution while on his death bed. (everyone doubts but to the point where they refute their life's work??)

Some things are bigger than their creator. Darwin couldn't cope. CheeseDreams 08:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also (I'm new to wikipedia discussion so I didn't know how to post in this old topic.) on the whole "evolutionism" is a POV term only used by creationists, that may be true but using the word "evolution" assumes its truth (because its not saying its a belief, it says evolution plain and clear as if its definatly true) while "creationism" assumes its a belief which may or may not be true. So I think we should use "evolutionism" to stop the subliminal bias. Of course evolutionists dont say they belive in evolutionism because they think its true they'll say evolution and creationists DO NOT refer to the belief as "CREATIONISM" they refer to it as "THE CREATION" which is somthing entirely different to "creation"

"evolution" is no more a POV term than is "creation". To think that it is is rather an extremist view. CheeseDreams 08:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gelsamel (how do you do this user link thing and the time without having to copy it from someone elses post?

welcome to wikipedia! you've presented some very interesting ideas, which would be very valuable in the discussion here. but one of the cardinal rules around here is that if you want to present ideas like that, which will be controversial to many, they have to be backed with a ququote and cite from a credible, published source -- it is a bit extra work, but it helps us sort through all the controversial ideas into a single article -- because there are a lot of people around here who disagree with everything you said -- but if you find somebody who said it, you can put the QUOTE in there, and nobody will be able to dispute that THAT PERSON SAID IT -- it also helps us improve the level of discussion around here ... because as you're researching for cites, you're bound to come across lots more interesting stuff along the way. so please -- go out and find folks that wrote books saying what you're saying, and give us quotes and cites!

oh -- and to do the timestamp, you just put four tildas (the little squigglies) in a row. enjoy! Ungtss 04:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

towards POV and factual accuracy.

Right, it is quite clear that this mess has been written by a creationist. "The origin of life remains elusive to science", etc. This is factually wrong, and describing Creationism as a "hypothesis" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Overview of my objections:

The title omplies that there is some kind of debate going on about creationism and evolution. There isn't, atleast not within scientific circles.

if the title said, "creation vs. evolution debate within scientific circles," i would agree with you that it was patent nonsense. however, it does not -- and there IS an ongoing debate between creationists and evolutionists ... as indicated by the talkpage, where a creationist and evolutionist debated for a bit:). just because one perceives one side of a debate to be irrational and stupid does not mean that no debate exists -- where there is vocal disagreement, there is debate. would you agree? Ungtss 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use of prejoratives e.g. "evolutionist".

i've never thought of that as perjorative -- could you recommend a more npov alternative besides the more perjorative contrast between "scientists" and "people-that-think-they-are-creation-scientists-but-are-actually-morons-and-fools?" Ungtss 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Content that is factually incorrect; I am not an expert on abiogenesis, but I do know that the content here is wrong, and seems to be written by someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about at all.

the content was copied verbatim from The origin of life and is consonant with everything i've ever read on the topic. your input would be very welcome in bringing it up to date. Ungtss 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In which case it should be deleted as an article already exists covering it. The article is The origin of life. It should be replaced with a short summary with a main article link pointing there. CheeseDreams 00:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

if the origin of life page covered the creationist opinion of abiogenesis, such action would be appropriate. it does not, however. would you suggest inserting the creationist pov onto that page? Ungtss 00:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the origin of life page fails to include the creationist opinion, then it is not NPOV. CheeseDreams 18:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The result of that is a favourable comparison between a Creationist "hypothesis" against a strawman of science.
The rest of it is half-apology that has little to do with evolution.

I support the above argument CheeseDreams 23:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

if you would like to improve the "straw-man," feel free to flesh him out. i do not think it appropriate, however, to label the majority of human beings as fools and prevent their point of view from being heard because you disagree with them. Ungtss 00:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to vfd it as patent nonsense.

However, I do not support this. The article was seperated from the Creationism page to reduce its size, and make it a summary article like Evolution. As such, it is inevitable that this page in some form will be created. Because it was originally on the Creationism page, it developed a rather unchecked pro-Creationist POV (since pro-Evolution editors, unfortunately, generally ignore the Creationism series of articles). CheeseDreams 23:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

if you check the history, you will find it was checked every step of the way by mr. cheesedreams. Ungtss 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I only checked the edits, not the full article.CheeseDreams 00:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you were here before the article was an article, and worked with me to piece it together, step by step. Ungtss 00:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think I was. I was only here watching your edits for POV. It was the OTHER article (Creation according to Genesis) that was step by step. CheeseDreams 02:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, there is a possibility of an article, perhaps creationism and abiogenesis, creationism and evolution, and maybe even creationism and geology. These should principally list the biggest problems creationists perceive with science. Dunc|☺ 23:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That seems a sensible suggestion. However, the abiogenesis part should actually be moved to a subsection of Creation according to genesis (which also originated on the Creationism page). And, having reviewed it, I still think the "perspectives" section is patent nonsense that should be in wikiquote. CheeseDreams 23:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, abiogenesis should be separate as it includes intelligent design arguments about which are still Creationist but are distant from the book of Genesis. Dunc|☺ 23:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, ill add the tags.

those may be appropriate articles too. however, i think it's only appropriate that there also be a "creation vs. evolution debate" page, as there is, indeed, a "Creation vs. evolution debate." Ungtss 00:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ungtss, darling, the perspectives section is still, on review, a series of quotes, now loosely held together by a thin framing, but it still looks like an art gallery. Ive put the tag back, don't remove it until it actually resembles an article. CheeseDreams 23:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In fact I've just added a VfD tag to the two sections CheeseDreams 00:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i find it difficult to understand why it is essential to have the "creation vs. evolution" debate" written entirely from the evolutionist perspective. but i truly cannot fathom why you did not object to that section for the whole time you worked with me on it, contributed quotes of your own, and then suddenly decided that it no longer suited your purpose, and needed to be destroyed. darling. Ungtss 00:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I seem to remember continuously complaining about that particular section being needed to turn into a proper article. In addition, it was Fleacircus who contributed quotes to it, not me. CheeseDreams 02:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it is COMPLETELY beyond me why you would continue to add quotes to a section you wish to be removed, as you just did. Ungtss 00:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because since the section exists, it continues to be read, and I will not stand for such an offensive POV quote as that by Morris to end the article without an equally powerful counter argument by Betrand Russel. CheeseDreams 02:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what relevence does that quote have to the creation vs. evolution debate whatsoever, sir? it is nothing more than a polemic against religion. Ungtss 03:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It acts as counter to Morris, who is clearly fascist, and highly offensive. CheeseDreams 11:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the morris quote is related to evolution, and part of an NAS quote related to evolution which portrays him as fascist. your quote, by contrast, relates to evolution or creation not one bit. Ungtss 14:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"my" quote relates to morris 100%. It stays for as long as the morris quote does. CheeseDreams 16:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you should know, sir, that one of the reasons people find evolutionism to be so frightening is the degree to which is is associated with petty, small, arrogant people who censor, condemn, insult, speak irrationally and hatefully of all that is good, ignore the obvious, and, quite simply, act like fools. if you would like to persuade me that rationalism is the best basis for rational behavior, i suggest that you begin acting rationally. Ungtss 16:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bertrand Russel said Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. ... A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. CheeseDreams 18:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)