Talk:Young Earth creationism/Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs archive

Purpose of this article

I have created a stub article here based on discussions on the Dinosaur article Talk page. Essentially, the consensus was to relocate detailed information about religious perspectives on dinosaurs into a forked article. Killdevil 00:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This article makes people seem really stupid. These ideas can't be real, please tell me this is all a joke. H2P 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said for articles such as astrology, but just because an idea is embarassing or wrong doesn't mean that it has no place in an encyclopedia. The real question is this: Is the idea widespread enough to be notable? I'd support putting a mythology tag on the talk page, though. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mermaid. Just because I'm interested in reading something in this encyclopedia, doesn't mean I believe it. - Cyborg Ninja 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To do list

Please help to expand this. We need to try to capture not just Christian creationist views but those of other religious groups with specific understandings of dinosaurs that differ from the interpretation favored by mainstream science. Killdevil 00:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's start by formulating a to-do list here.

---

Answering your call to "Add information about the views of other religious groups. It's particularly important that we reflect the views of non-Christian groups, where they differ from scientific consensus.", I have added a short passage about the religious perspectives on dinosaurs from a pastafarian perspective. This has certainly to be refined, but I share your concern that leaving out the views of any religion on this important question is not an option. For now, I have respectfully appended this view at the end, but if you feel it would fit in better in another position in the article, please move it as I am not familiar enough with some of the other religious beliefs presented to make an educated guess where it would righfully belong. Please feel free to comment. --Ministry of Truth 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be in here, especially since FSMism is officially a joke. --InShaneee 16:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. What do you have in mind when you say it is a joke rather than a religious belief ? --Ministry of Truth 16:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For starters, it says its a parody in the first sentence of the article. --InShaneee 17:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there is a rather complete demonstration how Pastafarianism meets all the criteria of a religion on the primary source I quoted.[5] Unless you can demonstrate how it does not meet standards required to be included here, I am confident that you will tolerate different belief systems, even if you do not feel comfortable with their doctrine. --Ministry of Truth 17:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT, given your edit last week [6]. — Matt Crypto 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to start a debate by the comment you're referring to, without result. Reductio ad absurdum is a powerful tool and it could help to keep all participants in this kind of disagreement intellectually honest by forcing them to look at the underlying principles rather than their personal point of view. That might have been part of the problem in earlier discussions. I am all in favor of an articulated debate, and therefore don't consider the POINT criticism to be valid in this particular case. --Ministry of Truth 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While I consider myself to be a Pastafarian as well, I agree with other users that FSM-related beliefs should not be on this page. Most Pastafarians don't really believe in FSM teachings, and just use it as a humorous way to express their atheism. Inclusion of FSM beliefs on dinosaurs in this article only serves to detract from the credibility of the page as a whole. --Ruebrylla 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

FSM clearly doesn't qualify as a religion because its adherents don't actually "believe" in it. It is an amusing spoof on religion, not a religion in itself. Doc Tropics 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article title states religious perspectives on dinosaurs. But, as it is the focus seems to be on only one noise-making fundamentalist christian group: YECs. Until the article is developed to include the full range of christian denominations, as opposed to just the grandstanding fundamentalists, and more importantly the views and positions of other world religions - it is POV. Also, if a particular group or sect has no published opinion or doctrine re: dinos, that also needs to be pointed out. Any group that accepts or agrees with the scientific evidence and interpretations also need to be specifically mentioned. I am not talking about popular polls based on the blather of the noisey few. What is needed is factual references to the doctrine and beliefs of the mainstream religions. Until this has been achieved, the page is seriously POV and ripe for afd. Vsmith 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir here, Vsmith. We all want to include more information on different religious perspectives; YEC is the obvious one, of course. Help us out. Currently, I'd say the article is incomplete, not POV. We're not deliberately excluding information on other religious viewpoints, you know. Here's a reference to dinosaurs in the Quran, for starters: [7]. — Matt Crypto 09:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Jewish views: [8], [9], [10]. — Matt Crypto 10:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I am going to put a merge tag on this article, suggesting that it be merged with the Young Earth creationism article. This is partly because the article, as it stands, should really be named "Young Earth creationist perspectives on dinosaurs. If you feel there's enough material to show various religious viewpoints on dinosaurs, the please add it and delete the tag. –Shoaler (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As time permits, I'd like to add more. I don't think this needs to be added to an article that is already far too long (YEC). agapetos_angel 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As it stands the merge is obvious, but it might be better to expand this. However, since nobody has after a bit of time, it seems unlikely in the near future. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this could be a great standalone article with a little more research. As is pointed out in the article text, dinosaurs constitute a popularly-understood and serious challenge to religious interpretations of natural history. Because of this, more than one faith group has specifically addressed dinosaurs.

I suggest letting it stand for now. Perhaps somebody more Wikipedia-skilled than me could advertise in the appropriate places that this is a religion article that needs help? Killdevil 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree for many of the reasons stated above. It's a separate topic from YEC if 'religious perspectives' are discussed (a stub is not necessarily a reason to merge). Maybe if it's not expanded, in say 30 days, it should be merged with dinosaurs instead? agapetos_angel 03:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos, the backstory on this article is that it was created to resolve an ongoing controversy over at the Dinosaurs article. Basically, it was decided over there that religious groups' perspectives needed to be forked into a separate article -- this was a compromise of sorts. If we move it back then a several-months-long debate will reignite. So I'd be very much against merging with the Dino article. 24.63.83.203 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly--MWAK 09:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are exactly two articles with "Religious perspectives on ..." in WP, the other one being about Jesus. Now either we are in an urgent need to produce more articles such as "Religious perspectives on Archeopteryx" or any other random fossile that might daringly fail to line up with various religious beliefs - or not.

Creating this article to get rid of a debate in the dinosaurs article was a Bad Move and merging it back there would obviously make things worse. Instead, whatever worthwhile content lives here should be gently integrated into the article of the religion in question and this article then quietly join the fate of the dinosaurs before this page gets nominated for whackiest article in WP. --Ministry of Truth 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that this article should be merged. It is very informative, and I enjoyed reading it. Even worse would be if this article was deleted. dogman15 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Other religious perspectives

could we have some non-Judaeo-Christian perspectives? if there are any, that is.

Does this belong?

"Young Earth Creationism is, according to critics, a form of the appeal to authority fallacy. [11][12]." I think this sentence belongs in the Young Earth Creationism page, not the dinosaurs page. This article is dedicated to beliefs of other religions on dinosaurs; it seems that a critique of just one view, the YEC theories, is out of place, especially on the main article. I will thus delete this sentence.

not to get into a deep theological arguement over the fact that dinosaurs co-existed with man, but prehistoric caveman had drawings in the caves of dinosaurs. prehistoric cavemen weren't archeologists and didn't dig to find fossil records of these dinosaurs, but still knew about them and what they looked like. So they had to have been able to see them first hand.

Midevial times had stories of fire breathing dragons, and many knights were sent out to slay the dragons. If these are real stories, and they weren't sent out to kill dinosaurs.... i dunno what they were sent out to kill.

Also there are still dinosaurs living on earth today. Crocodiles and alligators are types of dinosaurs which have survived to this day.

For those people who do believe the Bible, if they read Job 40 and 41 they will read about 2 creatures (behemoth and leviathon) who have characteristics of creatures that if you look at all the characteristics, they describe a brontosaurus and a pleseosaurus.

Granted all of these evidences are based on faith, but then again that's what religion is....... having faith in things you cannot see.

There's a few problems with your statements:

i) Dinosaurs were NEVER represented in cave art. You probably have them confused with mammoth or woolly rhino. And not to nitpick, but archaeology and paleontology are two entirely different things.

ii) It's very possible that legends of dragons and monsters could have originated from fossil discoveries, or tales brought back from far-away lands of giant lizards, snakes or crocodilians. People in medieval times believed loads of things that we would find totally crazy these days.

iii) Crocodiles and alligators are NOT dinosaurs. Close relatives, yes, but not dinosaurs. Dinosaurs do survive though, in the form of birds.

iv) The idea that Behemoth and Leviathan were living dinosaurs has been floated, but is subject to much controversy. Depending on your reading of the passage, they could just as well refer to modern-day living creatures; refer to the Wiki pages on Behemoth and Leviathan.

Hai ren 19:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaurs HAVE been seen in cave art! One that I have seen on video is in an Australian aboriginal cave painting. ^rossnixon 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Any pictures to back up your claim? Even if the art does resemble an extinct dinosaur (or pterosaur, or plesiosaur, or whatever), we cannot discount the chance that the art is based on a complete skeleton being suddenly exposed through erosion. One doesn't have to dig deep to find dinosaur fossils; sometimes one just has to be in the right place at the right time to find relatively intact fossil skeletons exposed at the surface.

Anyway, I say that whether or not prehistoric man encountered dinosaurs is of no relevance to religious perspectives on dinosaurs. Hai ren 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

good evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted

I believe there is a large amount of evidence pointing to dinosaurs and man coexisting. I think this information should be included in the Wikipedia article:

- Trained scientists reported seeing a dinosaur.[13]

- 1,000 people had seen a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang accrording to the Chinese publication, China Today (see: Lai Kuan and Jian Qun, ‘Dinosaurs: Alive and Well and Living in Northwest China?’, China Today, Vol. XLII No. 2, February 1993, p. 59.) [14]

- An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph that pointed to dinosaurs and man existing [15][16]

- The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." [17]

- The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, appears to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. [18]

- On May 13, 1572 a dinosaur may have been killed by a peasant farmer in Italy (pg 41 "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" by Paul Taylor ISBN 0-89636-264-7) [19]

- It has been stated that dinosaurs are in the Bible. [20][21][22]

- There is other evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted.

Of course humans and dinosaurs coexist. Something like 8,800–10,200 living species. See Aves. Guettarda 05:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

-^^^^^Citing a bunch of fringe websites doesn't exactly support your claim. As far as I'm concerned, saying that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time is rediculous. You can think it, but all the objective evidence says otherwise and the only reason to believe it is to protect a fragile literal interpretation of the Bible that you and I both know is false. Sorry if I'm being intolerant. Oh, and another thing, this time directed at a post below me. Stop with all this talk that Christians are repressed, because you're not.

All of the sightings where faked! Wikapedia is fact not junk!:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.224.214 (talk) 6:07, March 13, 2007

Couple of things. Sign your posts. Don't get too upset by what is written here. And lastly, none of the above is verifiable, so it's not in the article. We pretty much ignore posts like that. Orangemarlin 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA?

I find the attitude of the three posters above quite repugnant. If the article exists, (and as far as I'm concerned any article describing a widely-held belief has the right to exist) then those who support the view have a right to contribute and/or discuss its content. --Amandajm 09:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently up for deletion for a reason, namely, that it is already in Young Earth Creationism. Titanium Dragon 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't attack something if you don't know much about it.... I have heard of "evidence" of dinosaurs coexisting, so if there is, it should be included. Seriously, this website is pretty pro-atheist.

Yoda921 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Yoda Yoda please find and present the evidence that dinosaurs still are with us. I for one would be most pleased to see a living dinosaur. Maybe there are some dinosaurs out there - its just that evidence in favour of it is very very light....pictures of glows in the night sky, rock paintings, Nessie - its under the heading crypto-zoology and the sooner we have some dino DNA to study the happier I'll be. SmithBlue 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ermmm...you guys do know that the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago (and evolution, at that) have been pretty much...well...proven? You do know that, right? Frankly I find the belief that man and dinosaurs once co-existed laughable. So if they did...why are they extinct now? Are you trying to say that a pre-industrial human race managed to wipe out the entire therapod sub-species? Give me a break

Weasel Words

The article uses a fair number of these, the main culprit being 'some people' without specifying who. If there's no objections I'll clear up the introduction to briefly explain the major groups that disagree rather than being vague. Anyone have an issue with such a change? --Davril2020 13:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Why not religious perspectives on trilobites? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Why- Because anyone can see that dinosaurs are bigger stubbling blocks that trilobites. That's like kinda obvious! --Amandajm 09:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconding this confusion. Shouldn't this article be Religious perspectives on extinct animals? Why just this specific group, is it the only one creationists have opinions on? Kotengu 小天狗 06:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Or like the guy down below points out, Fundamentalist Christian perspectives on extinct animals. Shame that the only appropriate title is so long and unwieldly. Unless someone wants to add the POV of theistic evolutionists and every non-Christian religion under the sun, of course. Kotengu 小天狗 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this article is under consideration for deletion; the discussion on it is on the relevent page linked from the top of the main article. The reason is not so much the mislabelling (as that'd just be renaming or digging up more stuff) as it is that this already is elsewhere and isn't independently notable; basically, its just a lot of junk and some stuff from elsewhere. Linking to Creationism and Creation-Evolution Controversy and deleting this page would be far more appropriate, as the topic isn't notable in and of itself. Titanium Dragon 07:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't Religious perspectives on extinct animals because there hasn't been much religious ho-ha about any other extinct creatures. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's only dinosaurs. Besides if I saw the heading Religious perspectives on extinct animals, I would be inclined to think it was about modern extinct animals, dodos for example.70.21.216.114 04:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this article relevent?

Honestly, this article isn't religious perspectives on dinosaurs; it is fundamentalist Christian perspectives on dinosaurs. The title should either be changed or other relgions added. Islam has some creationists among them. Even so, this still wouldn't be "religious perspectives on dinosaurs"; honestly, I think this article shouldn't exist and instead be merged into Creationism, Intelligent Design, ect. as appropriate. Titanium Dragon 10:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only way to make this article neutral is to describe that every real scientist in the world believes in evolution, and that Dinosaurs died out (OK, I'll accept birds as descendants). The rest of this article would fit in with the Creationist tales. Or in fantasy dinosaurs like the Flintstones. Anyways, can I watch how you kill this article or merge it into one of the other articles on mythology, say Creationism. OrangeMarlin 09:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So I'll comment, since I created the article originally. Basically, there were two years of constant tussling over the presence and nature of a religious views paragraph in the main article on Dinosaurs. Relocating the content here was a compromise solution, and one that has almost entirely prevented subsequent conflict in the parent article.

Would I personally prefer that "religious perspectives on dinosaurs" not be a topic covered by Wikipedia? Surely; but I also personally think that kowtowing to Biblical literalists by being overly inclusionary is not a useful exercise.

However... the presence of this article has contributed significantly and positively to the quality of the parent article since I started editing it in January 2006. Killdevil 02:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

POV forking is not allowed under wikipedia rules; there are far better ways of dealing with vandals. Titanium Dragon 08:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

POV forking is allowed if the minority view is culturally important (read: notable) in and of itself. Persistent vandalism of the nature described here is but one of the signs that another view should be accomodated in a separate article. This is why Bigfoot isn't part of the primates article and why flat earth isn't part of the earth article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

POV forking is by its nature forking an article in order to preserve a POV - you're doing it to try and protect POV text from being NPOVised by the editors on the original article. Content forking/new articles are certainly allowed, and that's why Bigfoot, Flat Earth, ect. have their own pages. Same goes for 9/11 conspiracy theories - it was not done as a POV fork but because the section was getting undue weight in the original article, so it was split off because it was a subtopic. Titanium Dragon 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a cultural phenomenon, at least among certain evangelicals. Just do a google search on dinosaurs and the bible. I think a million hit qualifies for a controversy. That said, the article should state evolution is the prevailing view. —70.21.216.114 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the problem with this article is that it was created as a compromise. It's just too weird: how ALL religions view a small piece of history? It would make sense if all religions tended to have a similar viewpoint on the subject, but doing a little reading after seeing this makes me believe that they in fact do not. I think in matters like this religions can have entire wiki's dedicated to them. Maybe each religion can have its own category and people can create multiple pages about what issues are dealt with or important to that particular religion. This particular issue is obviously of not very much importance to a lot of religions.Angelo 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard the vast periods of time spanned by these extinct animals as being a "small piece of history", neither would I regard the issue of explicit mention of these creatures in books that claim to come from an omniscient God as being irrelevant. It may well turn out that there is little material in this article due to limited source material in religious texts but surely that in itself is a point of some significance ? If I am an open minded person in religious beliefs then this silence might be influential in the formation of my own opinions.GoldenMeadows 10:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I knew someone was going to catch that. I really meant "narrow in scope" instead of "small piece of history" -- but I knew I meant small something. As for your second comment... I think that was my point: there doesn't seem to be much of any other religious "opinions" on dinosaurs. So the article is a minomer. If you're saying that "religious texts" = "religious opinions" then I'm right ;) So I guess I'll try to be a little clearer this time: it's not that I want to exclude this information from Wikipedia, but it would be nice to see it better organized. The way that information is categorized seems to have been turned on its head for this article. Let's be clear and honest with ourselves first: this was all because certain religious people of a very small segment of the English speaking world had a problem with what was being presented on dinosaurs in Wikipedia. But the existence this article is awkward to say the least. Since most of the significant information in this article has to do with certain Christian sects, I think the information contained in this article belongs more under a specific title, or in another article. So prove me wrong, and find some other religious information on it! (I looked and didn't find much for Hindu.) As for your last comment: Wikipedia's purpose is information, not influence. I don't mind if it happens to be influential, but trying to make it influential is exactly what I hate: people using Wikipedia in a self-serving way. Angelo 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you point about it being to narrow in scope and it should really be "Religious Perspectives on fossils" - see my comment on this page. If a particular religion is silent on the matter, a form of "we don't know", then that's o.k and worthy of note. The fact is fossils have been the subject of discussion in the past from a religious perspective, from the ancient Greeks down to our own times. Its not just simply a recent argument between Christian YEC and science. I like to read what the Greeks thought of them, what people like Da Vinci thought of them, the polemics of the 19th century and why did creationists feel challenged by the findings of science and so on. I personally don't need or want any scientist or religious person with strong views filtering out information they rather would not have me see because of their own fundamentalist disposition. The article may have a limited interest to people, I don't know, but even so this should be one of the advantages of an on-line encyclopaedia, i.e it does not have the same economic constrains as a printed version. Finally yes like to read articles that contain good solid information, that are accurate, truthful and unbiased. They do indeed influence my view on subjects. What I don't like is people seeking to influence me towards their own personal bias on knowledge by suppressing pages, destructive rather than constructive contributions and so on. GoldenMeadows 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I see a couple of other angles too, but I don't know how I would approach them. First, is geology and how at least with the YEC situation, geology is viewed differently. (For example, I don't think there should be a Religious Views on Geology article in addition to this one.) The second angle is how other non-religious cultures viewed things like dinosaurs, and how their remains may have been the source for the legends about dragons and such. I think both of these issues are related to this article and may be close enough to make into one article. But like I said, I'm having trouble organizing it mentally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abertoll (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Do you think it could or should be broadened to something like "Cultural views on ..." ? Angelo 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The point you make about fossils being a possible source for dragon myths etc. is very good. We have recently added some info on the Greek myths and the theory that they creatures they describe have their origin in dinosaur fossils. If you have some material relating to dragons from other cultures then try and find out if their mythology was an integral part of their religious beliefs, as it was with the Greeks, so that it can be justified within the limits suggested by the article title. I think if it was widened the article would go under with the weight of material, and the complications, that could be included. By looking at the historical debate on this issue down through the ages I think I can see the potential of good article even though I thought at first it would be difficult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldenMeadows (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Support for the continued existence of this article

This article which deals with a major point of conflict between Scientific and Religious thought has a real purpose. It has as much right to exist as any other article dealing with an aspect of religious or scientific thought. The fact that some people might consider the theories discussed here as ridiculous and ridicule those who hold them is not good reason why such ideas should not be described and discussed.

There has been a criticism that the scope of the particular paragraphs is too narrow. I agree. But Wiki editors are bound to write about that which they know about. Only someone with a good knowledge of Islam can write the paragraph for which only a heading currently exists. Likewise, other faiths. And when they do, if they do, do we ridicule them with a fit of HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!, or is THAT type of sh*t-throwing only reserved for Christians?

The article is unbalanced in the sense of not providing a diverse religious view. However, it is not unbalanced in the sense of presenting only a single view. I think, on the other hand, that the balance of pro/anti science is presented well.

--Amandajm 09:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick read of the article, and, without having taken in all the detail, I found it quite interesting. What interests me is that there actually is a religiousm perspective on dinosaurs, I'd liuke to se the article kept. BUT, it needs substantial improvement. Inparticular, it nneds to be much more forthcmoing on the meanings biblical schoalrs give to the terms "behemoth" and "leviathan" - there's much more to it than the article gives, and it's all really quite fascinating. Anyway,m good luck, but there's a lot of work to be done. PiCo 14:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was closed as no concensus to delete, defaults to keep. I respect that, the closer weighed the arguments and so it stays. Can't win 'em all so best of luck with it. And remeber to keep these thoughts to this page rather than being tempted to post on the dino article. MartinDK 14:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I agree that we don't use terms like HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA to argue our case. We refer to policy or shut up. MartinDK 14:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Reading through this article, the introduction does not scan very well. Does anyone else think it should be corrected? Hut 8.5 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinds=Species

User:Rossnixon is trying to use the old canard, Kinds=Genus, that is used by the Noah's Ark mythicists to convince people that fewer animals were taken on the so called ark than would be usually stated. However, if you're going to take the Bible literally, then be consistent, you cannot choose what to take literally what is subject to interpretation. clearly states that in human semantics, people can distinguish between species of animals, and that the first person writer of the Bible who used the word "kind" clearly means species. Gould is a verifiable, scientific source. The Creationist website is not a source. Orangemarlin 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about religious perspectives. These do not need to be rational, reasonable or logical. This is not an article documenting scientific knowledge. This article hopes to document how religions have responded to the existence of dinosaurs. The cite reverted (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp) clearly is promoting a religious perspective on kinds + genus. Why does your edit summary state "not verifiable" when I can click on cite and go straight to URL? Did you mean something else? What has "Kinds=genus is unproven interpretation of kind used in Genesis" got to do with the content of cited religious belief system? Are you saying that only thinking that you approve of counts as religion? SmithBlue 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

After putting "genus" back, in places of species - I saw the note not to revert before discussing. Sorry. Anyway, I feel justified as my ref had plenty of refs inside it for support. The people who change it back to "species" must supply a good ref showing that creationists mean that instead of genus. ^rossnixon 09:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edit - especially putting "kind" in there rather than species or genus. The request for discussion was about the "unbalanced" template. SmithBlue 14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I haven't been tracking this page. Remember this article is about ALL Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, which means from a worldwide view. Most Christian religions believe that Dinosaurs died out at the K/T event. That's it. The use of "Kinds" meaning genus or species adds undue weight. Orangemarlin 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This was an example of what "Bible literalists" believe. As such it needed a citation. ^rossnixon 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is an example of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Maybe some religious groups believe it, but only a minority. In fact, if you're a strict biblical literalist, then "kind" is not subject to interpretation, it is what it is. Remember this is not a religious article, it is just an article about a religious interpretation held by a small number of people. In addition, you used the "answers in genesis" group as a source. It's not a verifiable source. If you have a couple of serious biblical scholars who have an interpretation of "kind" then use it. Orangemarlin 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rossnixon, please quit placing your point of view in the word Kind. If you can gain consensus here, that's fine. But you're using a nonverifiable source that has its own goals in life, that is using kinds=genus to further the Creationist viewpoint of Noah's Ark and the Flood. I don't mean to be critical, but using Answers in Genesis as your primary source is not very useful in furthering your arguments. Orangemarlin 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again OrangeMarlin - as I understand the kinds/genus/species arguement: One or more groups includes thinking like "kind=genus at "Answers in Genesis"" as part of their perspective.

• Do you accept that groups with this perspective exist (or have existed)?
• Should these groups' perspectives be included in this article? Why?
• Is "Answers in Genesis" a verifiable, reputable source? Why?

If you use terms from [[23]] we would literally be working from the same page. SmithBlue 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

SmithBlue, you shouldn't ask me these questions, since I do not want kinds to refer anything but the dictionary term, which is usually used as species. I don't want to get into semantic arguments here, it's just that this is supposed to be an NPOV article, and adding interpretations of Genesis that are not standard nor accepted by a wide range of scholars is just not acceptable. Please read WP:RS about reliable sources. Answers in Genesis fails at every level as a reliable source. This is really a small point, but again the vast majority of religions and scholars within the religions believe that the dinosaurs arose 230 million years ago and died out 65 million years ago (with the somewhat controversial inclusion of birds as dinosaurs meaning some have lived on). Let's not add undue weight from a small group to this article, or it's going to be a Creationist article which will probably be deleted since its repeated elsewhere. Orangemarlin 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orange Marlin.

• Christian Creationist Fundamentalists are a significant group.
• They use words and terms in ways that have specific but noncommon meanings.
• It is the function of this article to document perspectives such as theirs.
• To do so we need to show the words they use and what they take them to mean.
• That you dont want them to use words the way they do is, for an encyclopedia, irrelevant.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with? SmithBlue 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Kind" is subject to interpretation, like any word from ancient documents. "Answers In Genesis" is the main and best source (and it is reliable) for the Biblical Literalist point of view regarding scientific interpretations of this type. I am sure that they consulted Hebrew scholars, but I will look for an additional ref that confirms this. ^rossnixon 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, this really isn't worth it. See WP:MASTODON. By the way, Mastodons existed over 15,000 years ago. And there wasn't a flood. And Jesus was a myth. That's it! Orangemarlin 05:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has changed the kinds=genus link, linking kinds to Baraminology. That is a good compromise. ^rossnixon 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that kinds cannot equal genus. Tigers and lions are both in the same genus. When you say Noah only took geni, that directly leads to the conclusion that either tigers evolved from lions or that lions evolved from tigers. Granted, it would be in the impossibly and ludicrously short period of 4000 years, but I would imagine any evolution, even by some radical new mechanism, would be untenable to Answers in Genesis. Thus, we are forced to conclude kinds=species.70.21.216.114 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read section: # 24 "A necessary understanding for editors of this article?" below on this page. If you dont agree with that, then lets start there. If you do agree with "A necessary understanding for editors of this article?" then the discusion about in/ex/clusion of kinds=genus might revolve around the significance of the believers. SmithBlue 12:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of "religious perspectives"; form and function

I have deleted the Criticism section. This article is about "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs"(Rpod). By its nature this material describes beliefs, how people make sense of their world, how they see their world, how they want others to see the world. These constructs exist. To criticise them as if they were scientific ideas makes as much sense as criticising Mt Everest for its lack of rationality, reason and logic. A good article on Mt Everest will describe it using different methods of analysis - geographical, geological, economic, cultural, religious etc etc. And its religious functions would not be criticised on scientific grounds. Rpod is a descriptive article - it is making no claim to be presenting scientific fact about dinosaurs but instead presents the beliefs of people - criticism based on dinosaur science is out of place - appropriate here would be material relating to how belief systems change in response to new information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

However, Wikipedia has plenty of articles covering criticism of religious ideas, some of which make criticisms of them from a scientific viewpoint. Surely this article should cover how people - including scientists - have reacted to Religious perspectives on dinosaurs? Hut 8.5 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge your point. [Virgin Birth], articles on books of the Bible that contain miracles, [Resurrection], [Resurrection of the dead], [Qiyamah], [Angel], [Religious perspectives on Jesus], [Religious belief], [Ludwig van Beethoven's religious beliefs] all have no critism section. [Ghost] has "Skeptical analysis", [Glossolalia] has "Scientific perspectives", and [Religion] has a "Criticism" section giving a brief overview of criticism and skeptics. [Criticism of religion] does contain, obviously, criticism - and also "criticism of the concept" of religious criticism. Going through this list I can see that 1 POV about this article see critism as OK. And that view needs to be presented. By including that section we also open up the probability that we will need to include the cited POV of some that critising beliefs for their lack of scientific rigor misses the basic nature of belief. So we do have a "Criticism" or "Skeptical response" section? SmithBlue 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Birth and ressurection should have criticism sections, as I hear those beliefs criticized quite often. I don't really know why they don't, honestly. In any event, there's no reason it shouldn't be pointed out. Also, its worth noting that virtually everyone who promotes dinosaurs being in the bible are Creationists, and thus it is rather disingenously designated currently. Titanium Dragon 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The title is "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs" - how does one group claiming dinosaurs in the Bible make this a disigeneous title? SmithBlue 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that he means that the 'Christian' perspective is really the 'Young Earth Creationist' perspective, as there aren't many other Christian groups who really care. Hut 8.5 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As I am learning from TD and others, there is a fine line between WP:POV and WP:NPOV. This article is about what religious groups say about Dinosaurs, but it ought to include the fact that most world religions state that Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. It would violate NPOV just to write that Christianity believes that Dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood. Only a small part of Christianity believes that, so to keep Undue Weight from being violated, we should put in an analysis of what most Christians believe, which is Science and Evolution. Orangemarlin 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi OrangeMarlin, I agree with you 100%. The views of as many Christian groupings as possible need to be included in this article. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic etc, etc. So instead of removing the kind/genus/species link we make explicit which groups believe that. I don't see this as about arguing (exept over Verifiable/ Reputable/ NOR) but instead naming and documenting these religous perspectives. And I'm going to want a cite if you include "most Christians believe, which is Science and Evolution". (humour) I will point out that prior/historical views of all religions are also eligible(sp?) for inclusion. The historical struggle of Big Christianity with Evolution makes good reading. SmithBlue 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for a source to support the claim "most Christians believe, which is Science and Evolution." Does anyone have one? SmithBlue 02:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are polls. And of course, depends on the country, with the US having the most literalist of Christians out there. I'm not. Christian or a literalist. Orangemarlin 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Level of support for evolution that is a good starting point. About 90% of all US Christians belong to churches which support evolution. And it is probably more in other countries. I did some searching for Hindus and dinosaurs; you can look at the references in Hinduism and Creationism to get started. Of course Islam is important as well, but I do not know much about their stance. OM found something about Judaism, although not necessarily all Jews. --Filll 05:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be surprised by the literalism and nonscientific attitude of African Christians and I know little about South American Christianity. And there are rather a lot of them. While the church heirarchy supports evolution the members often are 50 years or more behind their theological betters. Thanks for the Hinduism and Creationism link - you get some good ones. SmithBlue 15:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article

I haver no objections to the existence of this article - there really are some religious perspectives on dinosaurs, and it's fascinating to read about them. BUT, the article needs to remember that that's exactly what they are - religious perspectives, not scientific ones. If it loses sight of that, it's for deletion.

In that light, I have a few suggestions to improve it.

• First, remember that brevity is beautiful - keep it short.
• Second, avoid overarching claims - for example, don't claim, or appear to claim, that all, or even a majority, of religious people and bodies (Hindus? Chinese ancestor-worshippers?) even hold a perspective on dinosaurs, much less this one - as has been pointed out above, the question of dinosaurs perturbs Young-Earth Creationists, and nobody else. The sections on Jewish and Islamic views are just plain silly.

Based on these points, I suggest to whoever is involved in editing this that they begin with a statement that the question of dinosaurs is a matter for debate within fundamentalist, and specifically YEC, Christian circles, largely but not exclusively in the United States (sorry folks, but that's the fact). State also why fundamentalists and YECs need a perspective on dinosaurs (as I said above, billions of other people, from Zen Buddhists to the Vatican, don't even raise the issue). Explain the Ark, problems of putting all those animals on board, the concept of "kinds". And draw on Answers in Genesis by all means. But try to get it all over in, say a thousand words. PiCo 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate on your comment, "sections on Jewish and Islamic views are just plain silly", taking care this time to use terms that can help a fellow editor address your concerns. Your statement "the question of dinosaurs perturbs Young-Earth Creationists, and nobody else" is directly contradicted by 2 cites in the Jewish section. What is the basis of your statement?

I continue to point out that historical views on dinosaurs and evolution by Christians groups and other religious groups are within the scope of this article. Most Christians resisted Darwin's theory for at least 50 years, creating many "religous perspectives on dinosaurs". Except for, "remember that brevity is beautiful - keep it short" and the 1st paragraph, there is little in your post that I agree with.SmithBlue 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would direct you to Ronald L. Numbers book from Harvard University Press which directly disputes your claims. You can see a previous article from him on creationism here--Filll 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

HI Filll - thanks for the great link. The first paragraph says my claim of 50 years was too short by 70 years - in 1979 50% of US adults still believed ""God created Adam and Eve to start the human race". You are aware that the Butler Act, which prohibited "the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible" and upheld in the Scopes trial, was not repealed in State of Tennessee until 1967? SmithBlue 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So far as I understand it, the point here is to present views on dinosaurs where these intersect with views on religion. A literal interpretation of Genesis leads to the conclusion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, ergo dinosaur fossils also must be only a few thousand years old. A literal belief in the Ark leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs wer to big to take two of each on board, ergo explanations are needed (dinosaur eggs or chicks on board, or perhaps something by way of saurian 'kinds'). It really shouldn't take many words to set this out, and I can't think of any extra points that need to be covered. (Though if you can, by all means list them). As for the need not to involve non-YEC-believers, as you can see from the article, the Islam section is completely empty, and the Jewish section lists just one tenth-rate website out of the U.S. that sems to have gotten its impetus from the popularity fundamentalism enjoys over there. I'd agree that Jews and Muslims would agre to the ned to explain away dinosaurs if the question were ever raised, in the real world they just don't address it. (Hindus, Buddhists, meditating Japanese Zen masters and ancestor-worshipping Chinese have no need at all to worry about reconciling dinosaurs with their religious beliefs, as they all believe that either the earth is several millions of millions years old, or an illusion, or not terribly important).

I agree with your first three sentences. You seem to have a belief that only YEC need inclusion. Why do you ignore the historical perspectives of the Mormons, who went in for dinosaur explanbations in a big way (you could do a PhD just on that if you wanted to) and CofE and RC churches. This article is still in development. In 20 minutes on the web I found 2 dinosaur references in Jewish sites (yeah I dont claim they are up there with the Encyclopedia Brit either). The fundamentalist Muslims are as , well... fundamentalist, as some USA Christians and science disproof is big issue for them as well. And then there are the religious groups who perspectives on dinosaurs find/found no conflict with science. These too are of interest in a natural history of "religous perspectives on dinosaurs". WP:Age_of_Earth and http://www.moorparkcollege.edu/yearof/research-guide.html appear to provide more starting points for material. SmithBlue 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I take on board your point that there must surely be Muslims and Jews who believe in a literal understanding of Genesis, and so have a ned to explain dinosaurs within a religious framework. YECism (now there's' a word that needs to be more widely used!) isn't a religious denomination, it's a collection of beliefs that can doubtles be found in a range of denominations within the Abrahamic tradition. What I'm really afraid of is getting bogged down in minutely detailed lists - what Baptist YEcists believe, what RC YECists believe, what even Orthodox Jewish YECists and Muslim YECists believe - when in fact they all believe the same thing, which is YECism. Far beter (more economical) to describe the origin of the belief as springing from the Abrahamic tradition, and perhaps noting that it's most commonly to be found in fundamentalist Christian circles in the US (asuming I'm right about that - I just get that impresion from comparing what I read on the Internet - which is US-dominated - with what I see around me in my daily life, which is not).PiCo

Now I see where you are coming from; - yes thats a good idea - see if we can present a perspective and then show which groups subscribe to that perspective! It would avoid the separate entries for the 3th Traditional Reformation of True Faith with Total Immersion Baptism and the 3th Traditional Reformation of True Faith with Partial Immersion Baptism. I wonder if a historical account of this might provide a storyline for the development (evolution?) of these perspectives at least for the Abrahamic faiths. At the least your idea provides an economical way forward. And if unforseen difficulties arise then we can address them then.SmithBlue 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinds reference

This is really part of baraminology, so I made it link there. I also moved the reference about ligers etc and put it on that article page, which is where it belongs.--Filll 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Interpretation of what "kinds" are should probably be in that article, not this one. ^rossnixon 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good resolution. Go for it! Orangemarlin 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I placed the "Unbalanced" tag onto this article. I am reading this article as an unbiased person, mainly because I personally believe there are no Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. They existed, and that's that. However, this article is not supposed be a scientific debate on dinosaurs, which it mostly doesn't do. It states what are verifiable facts in the introduction, and that's good (although it's poorly written). The problem with the article is that it does not have any information on other major religions, but worse yet, it discusses the viewpoint of just one part of Christianity. What do Roman Catholics say about dinosaurs? What do Lutherans? The concern would be that this article is violating WP:NPOV#Undue weight, whereby only a small or relatively small portion of the wide breadth of "religious perspective" is given. The previous editors have focused on a "Creationist" viewpoint rather than a broad viewpoint that reflects a bigger portion of Christianity (or other religions). For example, the Roman Catholic church takes a literal interpretation of the Bible (and literal is different from literalist)--that is, "literal" meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The "literalist" interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: "that's what it says, that's what it means." So where is that perspective? I think this could be a very interesting article. Right now, it's quality is so low, it probably should be deleted. Orangemarlin 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be interesting with a lot of work. I think it is a start. But someone has to be willing to put in the work to track down all those views from different faiths and sects.--Filll 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's my opinion. Dinosaurs (save for birds) arose about 230 million years ago and died out 65 million years ago. This article wouldn't be on a list of articles that I'd keep. But if the religious types want to keep this article, then they should focus on improving it. I intend to file a RfD if it's not improved. Right now, it reads weird like "Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago but a group of Christians who believe that they represent all of Christianity think that Dinosaurs were around 10,000 years ago." I'm condensing it of course, but it is really unbalanced and is definitely not NPOV. Like I said, I don't like the article's existence, but if it has to exist, it should be better written. Orangemarlin 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin and Filll - please find referenced materials showing that mainstream Western Christianity accepts evolution and the scientifically determined age of the earth. Then please use this information to create a section in the article using that information. I get the impression you want this material in the article but do not understand why you have not written it yourself? SmithBlue 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Focus on Dinosaurs not evolution?

An article Creation-evolution controversy exists. I suggest, to avoid duplication, we restrict ourselves to "Dinosaur perspectives" especially for creationist religions (some religions hold that world is eternal and so have no problem with creation-evolution but still may have dinosaur related problem with evolution, if for example they believe that extinction of a species is impossible. That would have a place here cause it aint covered there.) Comments? SmithBlue 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your narrow focus. If you want to do that, then change the name to "Creationist perspectives on Dinosaurs." Most religions (and adherents of those religions) just don't accept the creationist viewpoint. Remember, WP:NPOV#Undue weight requires you to provide a balance to the viewpoints, and if a viewpoint is truly a minority one, as I contend the Creationist one is, then it cannot be the majority content of this article. Orangemarlin 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My original purpose was to avoid repeating creationists accounts of evolution ... however: At least you must agree that mainstream Christianity has historic nonscientific "Religous perspectives on dinosaurs"? Please post references here showing basis of your claim; "Most religions (and adherents of those religions) just don't accept the creationist viewpoint." Already we have cite for only 90% of USA Christian organisations being OK with evolution. And 1979 survey showing 50% of USA adults believing in Genesis account. Do you have any data on African Christian perspectives and South American Christian perspective? If you dont have such data you are not able to present NPOV about Christianity. (Cause more Christians live in South America; 266 million, and Africa; 406 million.) At best your opinion is confined to West Europe and North American Christianity - unless you can produce data? SmithBlue 23:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Begining a re-write - all welcome

I've started a re-write of the article, drawing very much on comments to date on this talk page. I gather - and would agre - that most of us feel the article is an interesting subject but needs a lot of work. So here's what I'm proposing:

• Leave the summary (the part at the very top, that begins with the article subject in bold) till last, when we can se what there is to sumarise.
• My proposed structure is:
  • Overview - prety much the two paras I've writen, maybe some more, depending on what there is to say. (This difers from the sumary in being longer and presenting more of an explanatory background - in fact it might be beter titled Background).
  • Dinosaurs and the Ark - views on how the dinos got on the Ark, given their size and their tendancy to eat everything around them, including the crew. This is where we talk about the possibility of egs being taken aboard instead of T-Rexes, and other suggestions. (Incidentaly, one point I never se mentioned is that the dinosaurs on the Ark wer al vegetarian, as wer the lions, tigers, etc - this is stated in the Creation story, wher God specifically tels everyone to eat leaves, and backed up when they all get of the Ark and He tells them they can now eat meat; which is just as wel, otherwise there'd have ben more than 2 mice on board, to kep the cats happy).
  • Dinosaurs and the Bible - views on why the dinosaurs aren't around any more, given that the whole point of taking them on the Ark was to preserve them. Here we talk about behemoth and leviathan, and anything else that might be relevant. (I don't think identifying dinos with bunyips is relevant, tho).

I particularly want to avoid two things: geting into a discussion of fossils (dinosaur fossils are essentialy no different, from a religious perspective, from trilobite fosils, just biger); and a minute point-by-point description of RC views, CofE views, Orthodox Jewish views, Suni views, Shia views, Shivite views, Mahayanist views, etc etc etc. The only reason for having any view at all on dinosaurs, from a religious perspective, is if you fel their existence is a problem, which you won't have unless your a YEC. If you don't adhere to YEC, you don't have a view. Do you? (Apologies for the wonky keyboard that doesn't like double leters).PiCo 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the views of different religious traditions should have clear divisions to reflect the diversity of beliefs. For example there are subtleties with regard various Christian positions that are as yet not really dealt with in the article, e.g original sin, that touch upon the foundations of Christian belief. The issue of dinosaur bones is quite important in either lending support or undermining these beliefs. Other religions may have similar issues and problems to deal with. For this reason I suggest holding back on your proposed restructuring as it appears to be too Christocentric and is likely to lead to a mess when these topics are raised. As you can see I have already begun trying to tidy up the Christian section based on these points - before I realized you hade begun a page under construction effort :-) GoldenMeadows 11:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Original sin and the dinosaurs? I'll be curious to see what you find to say on that :). Ok, I promise not to touch the current sections on various religions/denominations while you work on them - I'll just fill in my own two currently blank section headers. Then later we can se how to tidy it all up. PiCo 11:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (Ading this a litle later): Ok, I read through your sections. I still think an approach that treats views by topic rather than denomination/religion will work best, but we'l se. I sugest you continue with your end, and up my end I'll take your material, (because I'm to lazy to do my own research), and make a different use of it - same material, but diferent structure. :) PiCo 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I will note that in some Hindu interpretations, Humans and dinosaurs were alive at the same time, since humans have existed in unchanged form on earth for millions of years in some forms of Hinduism--Filll 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, this article is NOT the Creationist Perspective on Dinosaurs, it is the Religious Perspective. And in fact the huge majority of Christians and christian sects worldwide believe that Dinosaurs lived between 230 and 65 million years ago. You need to either write a NPOV article, change the title, or delete the article, IMHO. Orangemarlin 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, seriously, you're taking this article in a direction that lacks consensus. I would suggest some re-thinking here. Orangemarlin 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur. Biblical literalists are a tiny minority of a minority of a minority. These is just some very very very fringe group. Do I have to prove it to you with statistics how fringe you are? My gosh. And to say, an article about dinosaurs and religion is going to focus on this tiny fringe group...well it is too much. I agre with Orangemarlin. Change the name then to Dinosaurs and biblical literalism. You will still end up with HUGE fights because of course different biblical literalists believe different things. But at least the title will be sort of honest. I will point out that a conservative counting of Christian sects comes to well over 35,000.--Filll 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OM and Filll, I quite agree that the vast majority of Christians have no problem with the scientific world-view that places dinos safely out of their camping trips (as if ants and flies weren't enough!) Also no disagreement with your statement that YECs and Creationsist and literalists represent a tiny fringe view. But, this being so, what is to say on the subject? "The majority of Christians are sane and rational people who believe what everyone else believes." Not much of an article there. Yes, I know I'm tending towards a review of fringe views, but (a) I find these views interesting (the same way I find the private life of Michael Jackson interesting, without necessarily wanting to join him in a sleepover), and (b), it seems to me that this is the only group that actually have a distinctive religious perspective on dinos. If we don't treat these people, what's there to write about? PiCo 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So either change the title to focus on this fringe, or add things like the Hindu view and a few others. In any case, we should make it clear that it is a fringe view, if we can establish that with good sources.--Filll 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, Orangemarlin and PiCo, please, please, please add sourced material that shows that the vast majority of Christians and their organisations support the deep time and evolution findings of science. I would be really interested in seeing the material you've based your opinions here, on. And I'd truthfully rather your views were correct. Go on edjimakate me. SmithBlue 10:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OMG. I just reread the article, and it appears that someone has totally taken it upon their responsibility to re-edit it without gaining consensus. There are so many problems that I can't even believe it. The Roman Catholic section is totally biased and is, in fact, not based on anything verifiable. The Catholic Church believes in an Adam and Eve in a literal sense, not in the sense of actual individuals. Even worse, what has this got to do with dinosaurs???? Orangemarlin 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yahoos just attack the article and turn it into a mess, spewing nonsense.--Filll 21:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) It might be more constructive if you gave specific details of the "nonsense" you mention . GoldenMeadows 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (in English, because my latin consists of QID). I had to study this thing in college, because I minored in religious studies (I was curious). That we are descendants of Adam and Eve is not either a part of Church Canon (as represented in the Catechism, specifically the section as G_d the creator), nor has it been addressed ex cathedra by a sitting pope. Therefore, it is something that could be somewhat an Urban Legend. Orangemarlin 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this really has nothing to do with Dinosaurs. Orangemarlin 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please give specific details on what you object to. Dealing with the one point you have itemised. i.e your claim that RC Church doesn't believe that Adam and Eve were actual individuals. This is incorrect as you would have seen if you read the citations given. I give here the relevant passage from the papal document: "HUMANI GENERIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII :

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." There is no teaching document I know issued by the R.C.C that says Adam and Eve were not individual people. Please show me the ones you know. I don't think you have grasped the issue about original sin and dinosaurs. GoldenMeadows 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GoldenMeadows 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And why should Adam and Eve be prominently featured here? Did they ride Dinosaurs? Were they Dinosaurs? Did they have to avoid being eaten by Dinosaurs?--Filll 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about "Dinosaurs" but rather "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs". If you would read over the sections dealing with "The Problem of Original Sin" you will see why Adam and Eve is very relevant. If there is something there you don't understand then please describe the problem but I suspect from the tone of your comments that you are perhaps not to be treated as serious contributor ? GoldenMeadows 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is actually not Religious Perspectives, it is Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs. And once again we need to follow editor's obligations to follow WP:NPOV, because we if we are going to discuss religious perspectives, we need to have balance between all religious viewpoints, most of which either do not comment on dinosaurs or agree that faith and the existence of dinosaurs are not mutually exclusive. You pick one tiny quote from a Pope and indicate that that is what all RC's believe by canon, when in fact there is no canon. Lastly, I would suggest you read WP:CIVIL because you have now called us stupid twice. Orangemarlin 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I note that you posted a header disputing the neutrality of passages. You gave one example and have been shown to be incorrect. You were asked to provide examples of authoritative R.C.C teaching documents to prove your assertion that Adam and Eve were not individual people according to its teaching - you have failed to do so. In the absence of reliable citations from you to support the warning headers it would appear you are expressing a POV and therefore the headers are not justified. Finally could you please show me where I called you stupid, with respect you seem to be making some very rash claims. GoldenMeadows 23:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Shown to be incorrect? Huh? Failed to show you what? Please read the catechism of the catholic church with regards to the part of the Nicean Creed "we believe in one G_d, creator of heaven and earth [24]. Read the document. Is there a mention of Adam? Eve? Dinosaurs? The Catechism is THE teaching document of the church. Please read WP:CIVIL, just as an aside. Once again, without referring to a Wikilink, which is not considered a verifiable source, what in the name of Wayne Gretzky does Adam and Eve got to do with this article? Orangemarlin 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear, indirectly, to be saying that the Nicean creed is the sum total of Roman Catholic teaching. Please clarify and provide citations to support if you really mean to assert this. The Roman Catholic Catechism is not a treatise on TOE, neither does it pretend to contain the sum total of R.C teaching - the documents from Vatican II Council alone fill a couple of sizeable volumes. However it does refer to other authoritative teaching texts which may deal with a particular subject in greater depth and as it happens it does use "HUMANI GENERIS" as a reference source. "The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.389.....the whole of human history is marked by the original fault committed by our first parents 390" - from Catechism of C.C which references "Humani Generis" in these passages. Do you now begin to see why the issue of dinosaur bones are important and why you encounter Christians who feel they must deny the age of them? If whole species came and went before mankind took the stage then, from their point of view it means that this aspect of the doctrine of original sin is wrong, and if this is wrong, it "undermines the mystery of Christ", i.e Christianity. From their perspective death, including that of animals, and the inception of an entropic universe, happened when Adam and Eve sinned. Does this help? GoldenMeadows 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an amazing view. However it is just one stream of young earth creationism. So I suggest humbly that you change the title, and make it clear that this is the subject, or you broaden the article considerably. Just my two cents. Do you have something against either of those two alternatives? If so, why?--Filll 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point but my initial thoughts are that it would complicate matters further. The R.C.C position is perhaps the easiest one to take as an example because they have a recognised teaching authority and its relatively easy to find out what they teach. I agree with you that young earth creationists who have thought this through will indeed align themselves with the death/entropic universe/original sin explanation and will by necessity deny the age of dinosaur bones. The R.C.C has no choice but to defend the original sin introducing death into the world --its the key foundational stone upon which Christian salvation/redemption theology is built. They differ however from the YEC advocates in that they remain silent over what appears to some as being hinted at by St Paul in his letter to the Romans, i.e entropy in the universe began with Adam/Eves first sin. I suppose silence can be seen as a form of reservation, i.e they don't claim to have answers to this ambiguity. I was hoping at some point to elaborate on this argument from "silence" but I think it does set them apart from the YEC which they do not teach and I would not lump them all together. GoldenMeadows 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A few statistics

Religious bodies

There are several religious organizations that have issued statements in support of evolution:In addition the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams has issued statements in support of evolution in 2006. The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 10,000 American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education." These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are compatible according to the Church. Catholics are asked to reject an intelligent design that contradicts evolution in order to be in agreement with the Church position. On the 12th August 1950, the Roman Catholic Church accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolution’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However the encyclical rejects what it described as some “fictitious tenets of evolution”. Following this announcement Catholic Schools began teaching evolution.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Pope Benedict XVI who was actually the President of the Commission while he was a Cardinal.

In the 21st century, on Jan 18th 2006, the L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, featured an article by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, which concurred with the judges rulings at Kitzmiller v. Dover and said that intelligent design was unscientific.

Although the Magisterium has not yet made an authoritative statement on intelligent design (and it may not if intelligent design is not proven to be a science) it actively supported Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, in his denunciation of intelligent design “Intelligent design diminishes God”.

UK citizens

"The presentation by City and Islington sixth-form college lead biology tutor, Sue Addinell · The population of school students in London has changed in 20 years -evolutionary theory was generally accepted in the 1980s, less accepted in the 1990s. Today out of a class of 36 only 2 students believe in evolution.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

This is the best that can be done? A Newspaper article quoting one "tutor"? In a poverty-stricken borough of London? What is the data for all of the UK? Of college bound students? Of college students? What about A-level students? Of course, through quote mining it is failed to finish the quote wherein she states that schools have got to a better job reconciling the teaching of evolution with these religious views. I would interpret this quote to mean that Islington schools have done a terrible job in teaching kids science. Orangemarlin 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

US citizens

Even among the most fervent American Christians, the 15% that are evangelical Protestants, only 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and only 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and Jews do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt creationist principles wholeheartedly. Perhaps making the situation more complex is: Since 1976 the Gallup organization has been asking roughly 1,000 adults the question "Would you describe yourself as a 'born-again' or evangelical Christian?". "Yes" answer fluctuates between 33% and 47%. This source also gives the range for numbers of evangelicals at about 100 million (~33%). The 1979 ?Time survey, that found ~50% of USA adults believed in Adam and Eve, adds further to this unclear view.

International attitudes

A study published in Science, compared attitudes about evolution from the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population. (See the chart)

It should also be noted that the US is less than 5% of the world's population, and of the developed nations has the most religious population by far. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world whose Church has no problem with evolution. Most of the almost 0.9-1.3 billion Hindus have no problem with evolution. There are another 1 billion protestants, and most of the protestants in the US have no problem with evolution, so it is a bit speculative to think that the protestants in other countries like Africa will be more fundamentalist than the US. We have to investigate what the more than 0.9-1.4 billion Muslims think. I do not think you will find a lot of support for your theories among the Buddhists etc. Or the 1.1 billion nonadherent/atheist groups. Or among the almost 300 million Japanese, most of who practice shintoism. And so on. I can do a far more extensive study, but it hardly seems worth it. This view you are pushing is a minority position of a minority position of a minority of a minority.

I might also note that there are more than 9000-30,000+ different Christian sects, all with their own interpretation of Christianity, none of which agree with each other.[25][26] --Filll 14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish

In a survey of orthodox jewish college students, 68 believe that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans; 70 believe they were extinct millions of years before the first humans; 31 believe dinosaurs never existed! 94% of the respondents are creationists and 73% believe that the Universe is only a few thousand years old. [27] ^rossnixon 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points. Orthodox Jews do not equal all Jews. In fact, a very small percentage. More important point. Polls are NOT verified sources for Wikipedia. They express an opinion. So, if your throwing up a trial balloon to see if this fact means anything, it doesn't. I forgot the exact numbers, but like 40% of americans believe in UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and crystals curing all ills. You'll note that very few of the better articles on Wikipedia utilize polling to make a verifiable point. And your poll is highly skewed because it contains only Orthodox Jews. It would definitely be in violation of the undue weight clause of NPOV. Orangemarlin 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin - please supply cite for "Polls are NOT verified sources for Wikipedia". Your understanding of NPOV is adrift. In an article that lists many religions including Orthodox Jews would make the article more NPOV not less. SmithBlue 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying about polls. Polls can be written in such a way to skew the answers. And frankly, if you showed me a poll that 98% of Americans believed in Dinosaurs walking around with men, I'm moving to Canada. The point is, just because a bunch of people believe it, doesn't make it a fact. Moreover, Orthodox Jews do not represent Judaism. If you believe that, I'm going to say that Mormons represent Christians. It's at the same level. And my understanding of NPOV is not adrift. How can a poll represent anything neutral given the fact that the answers depend on the questions. In one of the Evolution articles (can't remember which) someone posted that some percentage of Americans believed in Creationism. It was deleted specifically because it gave undue weight to something that wasn't very factual. So, my understanding of NPOV is very clear. Oh, by the way, my criticism of your method of speaking to others stands. It's kind of rude. Orangemarlin 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The poll was designed to discover what a specific religious group believes. The only problem that I see is that it was a small sample from New York - no Orthodox Jews from Israel or Russia were interviewed. ^rossnixon 10:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as the group surveyed is IDed then a well conducted survey which put light onto the perspectives of the surveyed group is highly relevant to this article in which beliefs are foundational to the perspectives we are detailing. If you, Orangemarlin, wish stand on, "There are no religous perspectives on dinosaurs" then, you will, of necessity, find my language confronting. "The point is, just because a bunch of people believe it, doesn't make it a fact." - Actually we are writing an article about what they believe - their perspective - and that belief is exactly the fact we are after. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Please do not put words here that are not mine. I never once have said there are no religious perspectives on dinosaurs. Of course, there are perspectives--I just happen to think those perspectives are much broader than you are writing, because it is from your very narrow POV. And also, you mine a small quote of mine out of context. My comment was about polls, nothing more. If you want to quote me, please do so accurately and within its context. Otherwise, your credibility is going to be limited. Orangemarlin 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As an Orthodox New York Jew my comments regarding a poll of New York Orthodox Jews should be of interest. First of all a poll 0f 169 people can bear no weight due to the exceptionally small sample size. Secondly, Orthodox Jews are the only Jews of interest when attempting to understand a Jewish perspective. Being that non-religous Jews clearly will not view religous matters Jewishly what value would their opinions be on a matter of Judaism? Thirdly, your definition of an Orthodox Jew may easily be incorrect due to misnomers. Fourthly, two brothers can have two different beliefs rearding the subject of dinosaurs. Attempting to write an all inclusive definitive viewpoint might not be possible. Personally it's never been an issue for me. I would explain it here, but, it would take quite a while and I'd likely make a mistake and misrepresent myself and other Orthodox Jews. For those interested; one version I've seen followed regarding the topic may follow George Orwell's concept of 'doublethink' from his novel Italic text1984Italic text. Considering the difficulties most people have with 'doublethink' in general, applying it to a religious discussion would likely square the difficulty rather then just multiply it. It is for this reason, among many others, that I'm not expanding on what I've already written.

African Christianity; evolution, Bible

After surfing for too long I get snippets like "Leaders of Kenya's Pentecostal congregation, with six million adherents, want the human fossils de-emphasized. ... "Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory," the bishop said. .... Bishop Adoyo said all the country's churches would unite to force the museum to change its focus when it reopens after eighteen months of renovations in June 2007. "We will write to them, we will call them, we will make sure our people know about this, and we will see what we can do to make our voice known," he said." At this rate am going to be forced to SSCI.

Anglican Primate of Nigeria Peter Akinola included the following in a Synodic Communiqué, "...the Bishops of ECUSA, Canada and parts of Britain have abandoned the Biblical faith of our fathers.." just anti-homosexual and anti-women ordain? or literal Genesis? SmithBlue 06:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin American Christianity

"It helps here that in Latin America most Catholics tend to read the Old Testament not as the literal truth, but as a depiction of the ways in which divine creation may have taken place." Author is a science teacher and may not be presenting whole story but its a start on current RC perspectives in Latin America. SmithBlue 08:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes

--Filll 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you now edjimakated??

Or should Rpod = AfD???? Your call.--Filll 13:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll you are great at finding good material. So what you've shown me is that while the mainstream church hierarchy is OK with evolution, say, some 50 years after release of Origin of the Species, by 1979, 120 years after the release of OotS, a poll finds 50% of USA adults still believing in Adam and Eve. Do you see the dislocation here betweeen official church position and the individual's perspective? (please see above if you have problems with surveys like Orangemarlin does). And right to the nub of this article - What were the religous perspectives of the "1979 Adam and Eve believers"(79AEb)? And why in the 28 years since 1979, do you believe that the vast overwhelming majority of individul Christains worldwide have changed there minds? More of your great references please. An AfD seems like an effective way to expose this great article to a wider group of editors. Please go ahead if you think so. SmithBlue 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well since we went through an AfD less than a month ago, I think that would be a bad idea. We better not. However, I still claim it should either be focused down to a more restricted topic, or vastly expanded to match its title.--Filll 01:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you would find me an willing and active participant in vastly expanding this article. SmithBlue 06:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed many Americans who believe in UFOs and Adam and Eve and ESP, etc. Most other Western countries do not suffer from this to the same extent, especially about religious topics. One would have to investigate this more carefully than I have yet to understand more details, however.--Filll 02:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC) That parallels my unevidenced opinions on Western countries. My microevidenced and wildly extrapolated beliefs about much African Christianity suggest that "literalist" can be applied. Latin American and Asian Christianity is pretty much a blank for me. SmithBlue 06:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup Monsieur Filll. I was at the Kings hockey game last night (they lost, bums), and I didn't have time to do all of this research. By the way, the owner of the Kings is a rabid creationist, and he contributes to various Creationist groups include, I believe, DI. So some of my season ticket money is landing at DI. Of course, apparently some of the money I spend on Microsoft Office lands in the coffers of the Discover Institute. Thanks Mr. Gates. Orangemarlin 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ugh--Filll 17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A furor of activity is a good thing...

I have to say that I'm pretty happy to see such activity on this article. I think the endpoint of the current back-and-forth will be an informative result. I'm one of the maintaining editors on Dinosaur and was the original creator of this forked article (see the recent AfD discussion page for a little more background on why I think this article is a good thing).

So, in a backhanded sort of way, the recent nomination for deletion has galvanized people to make the article better. Once I can sort out what's going on with the discussions here, and with the new content that's been added, I'll see if I can chip in a bit with copyediting and clarification... Killdevil 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be deleted. It's getting worse, and really is just a creationist perspective on dinosaurs. That old canard can be found in about 10 different articles on creationism, all of which were basically refuted. Orangemarlin 06:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No article

Ok guys, I tried to write something about religious beliefs and dinosaurs - and found there was nothing to write. Nothing specific to dinos, anyway. The thing is, dinos are just a sub-set of the larger set called Fossils. There are religious perspectives on fossils, but not on dinos alone. For example, one of my aims was to write about biblical literalist repsonses to the challenge of including dinos on the Ark. After all, they (dinos, not bib lits) are large and agressive and present problems for their keepers, not to mention their fellow passengers. But it turns out that everything the creationsit websites say about dinos is couched in terms of all animals:so dinos are big, but so are elephants. So dinos eat meat (lots of it), but so do crocodiles. As for what happened to the dinos after the ark, that's just a subset of the general question of all extinct species: what happened to trilobites, what happened to wooly mammoths, what happened to coelachanths? Nothing happened to the coelecanths, of course - which leads into the interesting byways of those literalists who believe that dinos still exist to this very day, or pwerhaps did exist till very recently and are mentioned in the bible under the terms leviathan and behemoth (along with fire-breathing dragons). But again, the whole thing is very thin, and not really specific to dinosaurs. So my conclusion is: there's no article there. Sorry guys. PiCo 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you had a start. I might start off right away with Dr. Dino and the dragons. And then the other creationist references to giants. Both claim to be referring to dinosaurs. I would also add those who believe dinosaurs drowned in the flood. Or the Adamites who believe dinosaurs existed to a previous creation. Or those who believe dinosaurs were put there to test our faith by God or the Devil. Or the tons of creationist museums and sites that claim to have dinosaur and human tracks together. Or the creationists who claim dinosaurs still exist, hidden away. Or that they were assembled wrong. What about all the stuff about the dinosaur flesh that is pliable and was not fossilized? Huge material on that on creationist sites. I am sure there are about 100 more creationist ideas.--Filll 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted. The religious POV about dinosaurs is limited to a small percentage of Christians, mostly in the US. Most of this stuff is covered, albeit in a lot less detail, in the various Creationist articles. As Pico says, they don't like fossils for what they are, so whether it's dinosaurs or trilobites, it doesn't matter. It's hysterical that few who are trying to get this article fixed and improved are so-called "Evolutionists." In other words, the scientists are the ones that find this article interesting. RossNixon is trying to add some stuff, but that editor appears fixated on a couple of semantic issues along with giving us the most narrow article possible, that is the Creationist Perspective on Dinosaurs, which, as I stated, is better written in a number of other Creationist articles. This article really should be a subjection of Creationism, at best. Orangemarlin 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I used to think so too, and then I read the AfD notes above and I had an epiphany. I changed my mind and I think this article should stay, but should be modified to either be about Christian Creationists, or broadened to include all faiths in a scholarly manner.--Filll 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A necessary understanding for editors of this article?

Will my fellow editors please comment on the following: Edits on the Beethhoven article need to be congruent with the statement, "Beethoven wrote music." In a somewhat similar way edits on this article need to be congruent with the statement, "The existence of a belief, view, perspective, or uncommon usage of a word by a group can be a fact, regardless of whether the content of the belief, view, perspective, or uncommon usage of a word by a group is fictional or not." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Good point. GoldenMeadows 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the Article

The present title seems too restrictive and I would like to propose it be renamed "Religious Perspectives on Fossils". Any comments? GoldenMeadows 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The following proposed opening line makes clear the purpose of the article. "Fossils are traces of animals and plants from a prior geological age that have left impressions in the earths crust. This article explores the issues arising from modern scientific analysis and dating of such fossils with respect to religious beliefs and their accounts of creation." GoldenMeadows 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I am not sure.--Filll 15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you had time to think this through? I would like to see a short introduction that deals with the historical response of religion (e.g how initially some Christians saw the fossil records as being proof of the flood later followed by the challenge to faith by modern dating techniques)that brings out why there should be any religious perspective on the subject. I am hoping that we can get some authoritative contributions from other non Christian perspectives but if it comes to it silence has been found worthy of note to people who are researching such a subject. GoldenMeadows 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are big and violent and eat cars, and, and...and you want to write an article about rocks!? How will that get T. Rex walking into St Pauls Cathederal? ...What about [WP:Dinosaurs are sexy]? .... too shocked to write any more SmithBlue 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are out of date. The coexistence of dinosaurs and humans has already been established.[28]. Seriously though if we change the title to "Religious perspectives on Fossils" then somebody might like to add a ref to Coelacanth and other such matters that would make for a more interesting article. GoldenMeadows 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be too broad.--Filll 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The focusing on dinosaurs as being the main or only subject of religious interest doesn't really stand up since it is sufficient to show that a conflict exists between bible literalists/ young earthers and science in general if any life form can be shown to have died out before Adam and Eve. This relates to the doctrine of original sin and the fall of man. It would appear that some people believe that if any dinosaurs can be shown to have coexisted with man then the problem of bible chronology and science is solved., but thats no the case. There is also the issue of dating fossils in general and how it compares with the age of the earth claimed by YEC. The reality is this article should perhaps be a sub article from a would be parent article "Religious Perspectives on the Age of the Universe" that also has sub pages dealing with "Big Bang Theory", "Doppler Red Shift" ....and all the other dating techniques used by science that seem to contradict the YEC arguments.

GoldenMeadows 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A new name is justifiable, if the topic shifts far enough. But I like the current title. It highlights the main question, which is Did dinosaurs ever roam the earth?

Geologists and (by proxy) biologists have their scientific perspective. We religious people may chafe at science's refusal to consider the supernatural, but they're not going to change merely because of what we write here. --Uncle Ed 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that dinosaurs did roam the earth since we have fossil footprints of them doing so :-) Rather than viewing the article as a missionary opportunity it might be better to leave the facts to speak for themselves and let people make up their own mind. Agnostic best describes my own position so you would have to show some really compelling evidence that supports a case for doubting the evidence of dinosaurs, i.e. that its not a position held by a tiny minority without good reason. GoldenMeadows 10:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This article ought be renamed "The Christian Myth about Dinosaurs". Orangemarlin 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Christian biblical literalist perspectives on dinosaurs? How about Biblical literalism and dinosaurs? How about Dinosaurs and the bible ? How about Evangelical fundamentalist Christian conservative views on dinosaurs?--Filll 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Too restrictive, would disenfranchise some Orthodox Jews, and Moslems, for starters. ^rossnixon 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Er... please put editing comments here - not as section headers

Removed the following:

==Material not yet re-edited==

James_Ussher

<ref>Jewish Encyclopedia 1901-1906[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=428&letter=S&search=Seder%20Olam]SEDER 'OLAM RABBAH, retrieved 2007-01-18</ref>.

Please don't put editing notes in the article. Also fixed the first line mess.
On another note - the conversion of an inline link to a reference cite and the removal of unformatted see also links from a section is not vandalism. Vsmith 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete this article

I cannot believe what has happened to this article. Any reference to facts have been obliterated by what can only be described as a religious campaign to discuss only faith-based information. The Introduction, which once stated that Dinosaurs lived from 230 million to approximately 75 million years ago has been deleted. I need to watch this stuff. This article now is no longer NPOV or Encyclopedic, unless, of course, it should be included in a Christian Encyclopedia. If that's the case, I'm sure its a great article. Orangemarlin 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added back facts to the lead. The references are all messed up. You have footnotes within footnotes. Orangemarlin 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pico deleted his outline structure a couple of weeks ago - I don't think it was part of religious campaign, see his comments on this talk page. I had begun today to give the Christian historical religious perspective on this issue leading up towards what some see as the collision between the common Christian viewpoint and modern dating techniques. As a preliminary I had inserted several links to the main article that gave the scientific viewpoint on earth/universe age measurement but it was deleted by an administrator. I intend to reinstate this later and outline the issues, from a religious perspective, that emerged with the development of the various sciences in the 17/18th centuries and the challenge they posed. I would be little bit more patient and allow the article to develop over a longer period of time in order to attract quality contributions from people who are knowledgeable in different faiths. At present most of the material relates to Christianity since that reflects the knowledge of current editors but hopefully this will change over time, but meantime I have to acknowledge that Christianity does represent a very large part of the religious spectrum and by itself its not such a bad thing to set out its position in these matters in all the main areas of concern. I would imagine that the purely science based articles on the subject would become a quagmire if counter arguments from a religious perspective where inserted at every contentious point. Articles written from within a theological framework would also likely be ruined by constant criticisms from a scientific perspective. Articles of this kind help solve these problems by providing a meeting ground that sets out the the main difficulties and also jumping off point to detailed articles written from the perspective of science or theology. GoldenMeadows 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll reserve judgement as I watch your progress. It could meet the framework that could be NPOV and informative. I'm a bit confused. Why would an admin delete anything? Orangemarlin 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Christians are often frantic to have an article to edit. So here is one, begging for them. And they are not interested. What gives?--Filll 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume they were deleted because I did not set them out in the wiki way of doing things. If you look back earlier today you can see the deletion by Vsmith "inline to citation..." and if you like put them back in a conforming style. GoldenMeadows 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article

OK, I could be on board with this article (I know, I'm just one editor) with some improvements. Let's list a few that we could focus on:

• 1. The lead is more like an article. Let's try to shorten it.
  2. References need fixing.

Orangemarlin 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the lead - it sounds like a load of stuff thrown together. Hut 8.5 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Views

I had to delete the section on "Jewish Views" since it used one reference that was a chat board (what was that editor thinking) and another reference claimed to represent "Orthodox Jews" when in fact it represented one Orthodox Jew, and it misinterpreted what was written anyways. In both references, it was quote mining, because if it was read carefully, in each case it stated that "how can you know what G_d meant in the Torah." In other words, 6 days for G_d could mean billions of years for man, which is the general attitude of all Jews save for the very most Orthodox. Moreover, both articles indicate that Dinosaurs can exist in the timeframe of science without having any effect on the bible, only how we interpret the book. Jews, in general, take the Bible literally, meaning they may not completely understand the context or the metaphor provided by the author. Let a Jew write the section, not a Christian interpreting what a Jew may mean. And don't ask me, although Jewish, I think dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago, and the Bible has no meaning to me except as an interesting document of early Jewish history. Orangemarlin 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While not defending the content of the section "Jewish views" (even though I edited myself), I will point out that the views of two Jewish people do fall within the common usage of "Jewish views". SmithBlue 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a religious Jew, and I don't know of even one Jew, who states dinosaurs are still around. I think the whole thing could be more accurately described as a non-isssue. 70.21.216.114 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more info. Ohr Somayach on Dinosaurs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.216.114 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Further research reveals that the above article is the only discussion of Judaism and dinosaurs, save this wikipedia article. All the other references to dinosaurs and Jews on the first two pages of google's search results were metaphorical. That being the case, I do not believe this merits a section. After all what would it say? Jews don't care about dinosaurs. If anyone disagrees and wants to revert to the blank heading, let him do so. 70.21.216.114 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I thought. I've been in biology and medicine for 30 some years, I'm Jewish, and I've known tons of devout and not-so-devout Jews (of course), learned Jews and Rabbis, and never once have I heard of anything that included anything but the most firm belief in Evolution and that the bible was a metaphorical device. I might be wrong, and of course, I never lived in Israel or attended a Rabbinical school, but I'm guessing this would be something that would come up in a conversation some time, and never has. I'm just going to write the basic facts that the Jewish perspective on dinosaurs is that they existed and died out. Orangemarlin 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited source includes statement, "while the Jewish calendar sets the age of the universe at under 6000 years plus six creation days." http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/504 Length of creation day would be open to various interpretations. SmithBlue 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going, but you are definitely quote mining. The Jewish calendar is a convenient historical device, but not one scholarly Rabbinical student believes that the universe is only 6000 years old (give or take). Here's a recommendation SmithBlue, please get your facts right about Judaism. Orangemarlin 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[|Torah and Science] has Jewish views about evolution, deep time and creation. SmithBlue 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Original sin - garbled - retrieve?

The last good version of Original sin section is "Revision as of 19:31, 6 February 2007 by Orangemarlin" after that its messed up. I dont have the technical skills to grab the source code off the edit page - I cant even get the correct edit page, just a mess page - can someone else retrieve this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 05:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Hut 8.5, on rereading for the 5th time I find that I was mistaken - apparent garble is inside reference marks and does make sense when read that way. SmithBlue 02

43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is what you want:

The Problem of Original Sin

{{TotallyDisputed-section}} {{main|Original Sin}}

In this context one aspect of the doctrine of original sin has been considered problematic in the light of scientific evidence. The apparent age of dinosaur fossils presents problems to those who believe in the inerrancy of the bible. Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans indicates that the whole of creation, not just man, was subject to decay and corruption through the first sin of Adam and Eve. This belief that the very fabric of creation was damaged by the first sin has been held by many Christians including, the Roman Catholic Church the Orthodox Churchand reformed Church groups. Critics have pointed out that this suggests that the second law of thermodynamics did not exist prior to the fall of Adam and Eve and this is at odds with scientific evidence. If whole species died out before Adam and Eve existed then it means the dinosaurs did not die, as they believe the bible shows, through the first original sin of man. Sceptics take all these objections as being evidence for the bibles errancy and therefore question its divine origin.

Hut 8.5 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I might point out that some claim rain did not exist before Noah, or before the Fall. Some claim the laws of physics changed after Noah to allow rainbows. All kinds of claims are made which are completely at odds with our undersstanding of science and the natural world.-Filll 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of this section on original sin

The section on original sin is relevant to Noah's ark, certainly, but How is it relevant to dinosaurs? The question concerns the righteousness of punishing the humans who were drowned in the Flood. The concept of original sin is not relevant to other species. The article would be stronger -- and less likely to be deleted--if it were more focused. This is the place for discussing one specific topic. Objections to the doctrine of Original Sin belong elsewhere, as do general discussions of the inerrancy of the Bible. DGG 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that some people believe that death, including that of animals, only entered creation through the first original sin of Adam and Eve. They do not accept scientific evidence that dinosaurs could have lived and died before Adam was created because this means , from their perspective, that the bible is wrong. Please read the section in the article, no that copied above which is corrupt. Maybe the title "original sin" has other connotations that is confusing the issue for you? GoldenMeadows 15:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you see this is besides the point: it does not concern the dinosaurs. It concerns Genesis more generally. If one accepts the literalness of Genesis, then one denies the applicability of the stratigraphic evidence entirely--the fossils are not those of animals that became extinct before the flood, they are animals killed by the flood. From the literal standpoint, there was obviously death before the flood, whether or not there was death before the expulsion. This isnt the article to talk about all challenges to Genesis, just this particular nonsense. It would make the article stronger to be without this sectionDGG 06:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I previously suggested changing the title of the article to "Religious perspectives on fossils" since there could be a tendency to straw man arguments with the current title. I understand your point of view on literal interpretations of the bible but I have to recognise that other Christians do not share them:

"The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29-30; Romans 8:20-22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; I Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1-4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin."[29] Whilst I agree that dinosaurs are only part of the fossil record, which in turn is the subject of debate regarding the historical accuracy of Genesis, I do not think it precludes their use within the section dealing with sin and death. The theological problems arising from the findings of modern science are many and overlapping and the issue of original sin is arguably the most important since it forms the foundation of Christianity. GoldenMeadows 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

“ Therefore, most Jews would accept that dinosaurs died out during the [[K-T event]]<ref>This is the mass extinction that marks the boundary between the [[Cretaceous]] and [[Tertiary]] geologic eras.</ref> about 65.5 million years ago. ”

Just to chime in, this sounds like original research|Synthesis. Consequently, in order to make the article better, I'd recommend more research. StudyAndBeWise 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be fleshed out with references.--Filll 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Jews don't have any religious perspective on Dinosaurs, so we're trying the best we can. There is precisely one article that I've ever read about it, and they (the rabbi who wrote it) thinks that anyone who is worried about dinosaurs somehow denying the truth of the Torah ought to have their faith examine. Precisely what I think about Christians who think that their whole religion is going to fall apart because of a few Wiki articles. Weak faith is what I think. Orangemarlin 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I too find "most Jews would accept" to be [WP:OR] unless supported with cited reference. SmithBlue 05:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Until we get statistical material on Jewish beliefs re: dino. I find the "Current revision (05:58, 9 February 2007)" satisfactory, as it acknowledges range of beliefs and makes only general statements about proportions. SmithBlue 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and find out that, like you Christians, there are a billion different viewpoints, not one standard. Orangemarlin 06:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the section deleted today was deleted a while ago. I still think this section needs work. Maybe even deletion. Orangemarlin 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that a large fraction of the public has no idea what a dinosaur is or when they lived. I suspect that a large fraction of the public does not know what they think. I suspect that Christians subscribing to biblical literalism to determine what to think about dinosaurs is a small fraction, maybe no more than 10 percent of the population.--Filll 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Without a mention that the Jewish Views article is merely a summary, while also lacking a comprehensive article on the subject, misrepresents Jewish views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asthenization-Creator (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Notes

Frustrating Article

I returned to this article after a few weeks of not editing it, because, it never made much sense. After rereading it, I stand by that opinion. It really should be deleted or rewritten, but I'm throwing tags out there were I find problems. Here are a couple of them:

• The Problem of Omniscience. Well, setting aside the fact that I don't get the title of the section, I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Maybe I'm not a Christian, but I'm pretty freaking bright, and the logic eludes me. What does omniscience have to do with the Bible, at least with respect to the overall intent of this article. Saying that you Christian's believe that your god is omniscient is fine, I don't really care. But then, the next sentence starts to describe "Skeptics do not believe the Bible mentions animals that, scientific research shows, existed and became extinct many millions of years before human beings appeared. They see the lack of such references as indicating the limits of the human knowledge of the writers of the Bible rather than showing divine inspiration or authorship for the Bible." What's this got to do with omniscience?
• The Problem of Omnipotence. Again, the title makes no sense. Who's problem? What's this got to do with Dinosaurs? Because something dies out, it's a mistake? Whose mistake? Why is it even a mistake?

If its from the POV of a conflict between Christian Theology and the natural history of Dinosaurs, well, yeah, but could we write this more clear. If its from the POV that these are some of the reasons why humans and dinosaurs coexisted, well, I'm not getting it. I don't want to even discuss the 700 other things wrong with this article, including POV issues everywhere. Orangemarlin 00:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

I spent some time today, trying to figure out how to rewrite the Jewish View section of this article. I was frustrated because the views of most Jews could be summed up by "huh?" As one editor wrote, "to properly explain the Jewish view on the subject in totality would exceed the breadth of this article." I can only surmise that the reason for his comment is that secular Jews believe in Evolution as a matter of fact, and most religious Jews are, in fact, Biblical Literalists, that is they believe that the Torah is meant to be interpreted with respect to the writer's viewpoint and what was happening at that time. This article really represents Christian viewpoints on Dinosaurs, because Christians seem to spend more time arguing and discussing the inerrancy of the Bible.

Thus, can we just rename this article "Christian perspectives on dinosaurs"? It makes more sense. Orangemarlin 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Abrahamic religious literalist perspectives on dinosaurs" would cover Jewish/Christian & Islamic literalists. That is a bit long, how about "Non-scientific views......."? ^rossnixon 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Except there really is no Jewish perspective on dinosaurs. If someone wants to write a complex 400kb article on that subject, they can, but it doesn't fit here. As for the Islamic perspective, it's the same thing. Give it its own article. This is really an issue for Christians. Orangemarlin 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Christians, anyway. Some of us have no such problem. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Most religions seem to have a creation story, but I think that in it's current state, the article needs renaming, as it's really only about Abrahamic religions (with a focus on certain denominations of Christianity). I think it would be interesting to hear what other religions think, though. What's the Hindu view? The Buddhist view? The Shinto view? Confucianist view? Taoist? Neopagan? What about Sikhism? If all those faiths were represented this would make for a much more interesting article. RobbieG 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Abrahamic Religions?

Well? Where are they?Rglong 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article basically exists because the editors of the Dinosaur article were tired of religious fundamentalists vandalizing that article, so they split off this article to basically divert (at least some) of them. The problem is, more or less, that it is the domain of a few fringe crackpots; most people don't really think about the "problem" they present. Titanium Dragon 14:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So we created an article just for crackpots? Cool!Orangemarlin 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream crackpots are also welcome! ;-) ^rossnixon 04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls?

So, here's an interesting question: Has there ever been a poll on the views of the American public on when Dinosaurs lived? I've noticed the evolution polls, but never this question, and I think this would be interesting to know. So, does anyone know of any such poll? Titanium Dragon 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We should find if one exists. Here's a bet--the percentage of people who believe that Dinosaurs lived "millions" of years ago will be substantially higher than the percentage of people who claim they don't believe in Evolution. Orangemarlin 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is my prediction too, but I was curious if the poll has ever been done. Of course, pretty much every poll on evolution is problematic because people are stupid; a lot of "belief question" polls have very sensitive results. In any event, it'd be relevant to the article; I know the creation/evolution debate article mentions them and knowing how widespread the beliefs are in the US and other countries would be a plus for the article. Titanium Dragon 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

I think most people would agree that the title of this article is not working -- I propose we move it to Young-earth Creationists interpretation of dinosaurs, Biblical-literalist interpretation of dinosaursor something similar. --John.Conway 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather complicated names. I like the current one. Orangemarlin 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dinosaurs in religion" perhaps? ^rossnixon 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not really appropriate, because dinosaurs typically do not appear in religious texts, as most religious texts predate their discovery. Titanium Dragon 11:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I think the title is pretty good, since it really is a "perspective." Dinosaurs, as TD says, do not show up in religious texts anywhere. Mostly, Creationists, especially YEC, need to interpret how the Dinosaurs fit into their belief set for Earth's natural history. Orangemarlin 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The current title is inadequate -- because, as you say, dinosaurs are not part of any religious texts (you seem to be arguing against your own point here). The only religious groups that has anything specific to say about dinosaurs are YECs. With the current title, we will be stuck with that "globalise" tag forever, because there is nothing to say for the vast majority of religions. How about Dinosaurs and young-earth creationism or Dinosaurs and biblical literalism or Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs? —John.Conway 12:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the last one; it is much cleaner than the others. Titanium Dragon 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The last one actually more clearly states what this is about, and we can delete some of the extraneous information in the article. Orangemarlin 22:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thirded - a rare moment of agreement from a "son" of the Creator. ;-) ^rossnixon 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. You've been a good "son". Orangemarlin 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Text cut from the article

Other groups, for example the Masorti school of Judaism, and, similarly, many Christians, hold that the ancient scriptures contain works which are to be interpreted in different ways, some being historic, some poetic, some law and much of the oldest scripture, metaphorical. Thus the writings in such texts are meant to be received as allegorical lessons on morality and therefore do not require any degree of historical accuracy. Where this conceptualisation of religious thought occurs, scientific scholarship on the creation and evolution of the Earth can also be accepted and examined in the light of the scientific evidence. Dinosaurs and fossil remains can be examined without apparent conflict.

=== The Roman Catholic Church === The Roman Catholic Church in its official teachings has not taken a position regarding the age of dinosaurs. It claims that the bible does not teach science whilst still maintaining its inerrancy. It does teach that there cannot be any real contradiction between legitimate science and matters of faith. It is not restricted to literalist methods of interpretation of the book of Genesis and has maintained an essentially open position to the theory of evolution since the publication of Darwin's "Origin of the Species". It does maintain that each human person has an immortal soul created by God at conception and that all human beings are descended from the mankind's first parents --Adam and Eve. (See main article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church).

===Jehovah's Witnesses=== Jehovah's Witnesses have not made any official statements about their faith's interpretation of dinosaurs. However, they believe that the "six days of creation" as stated in the Bible were not literally six Earth days nor 6000 days (as compared to some other Christian groups whose adherents equate one Godly day with 1000 modern Earth days). Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the Hebrew word for "day" as used in Genesis simply means a period of time (see Day-Age Creationism). Thus, many Jehovah's Witnesses feel that the mainstream scientific accounts of the dinosaurs' existence are largely accurate, except for the evolutionary theory aspects, which they reject. Their literature has featured articles that discuss the subject.

Article

I re-read the article for the first time in a long while. It's looking good!!!! Orangemarlin 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Awful Disrespectful Article

This article doesn't look good. It's just an attack to Islam and Christianity. I mean, it's obvious they would have stupid views about it, you didn't even need to mention. And disgusts me there is no jewish views on it. This guy, Orangemarlin, just keeps causing trouble and removing them and messing around because he doesn't want his race/creed dragged onto the mud as the others in this page. This is a typical behavior, though. Now he says it looks good, makes 'bible-lovers' and 'sandniggas' goym look 100% dumb lunatics against the holly truth of science. I mean, the jews fathered christians, how can just one of them be stupid? And muslins don't believe dinosaurs much, that's why they hate our freedom and caused 9/11.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.2.135.69 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 14 July 2007

Disrespect? Those of us who are confident in their views can put up with the unfounded claims and attacks of the wilfully ignorant. And I say that in the nicest possible way - no disrepect to Orangemarlin and his ilk. ^rossnixon 05:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the holly truth of science perhaps a bit prickly? No doubt along with the ivy it's pre-Christian.......... dave souza, talk 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rossnixon? Ilk? I'm a part of an ilk? Hmmmmm. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Prolly the Great Irish Ilk – prehistoric, like the dinosaurs: or should I say antediluvian? ... dave souza, talk 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I shoulda known. But I believe the Great Irish Ilk predates the flood. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You're criticizing this article because fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are idiots, and this article delineates their idiotic beliefs, and your criticism is not that that this is untrue, but rather that it is pointless to point it out because they are obviously idiots? And then you go on to claim that this article is about discriminating against these crazy people? This argument makes no sense. Either:

• These people are not stupid and do not hold insane beliefs OR
• These people ARE stupid and do hold these insane beliefs.

You aren't even trying to dispute that these beliefs are stupid! So... I'm kind of curious what your point is. Wikipedia has to cover notable acts of stupid, and this is certainly notable enough for mention. Now, mind you, I still think this should just be merged into the various creationist articles, but people seem to like it here, and I couldn't build consensus for deletion, so... Titanium Dragon 07:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that I can't expect Wikipedia to be a dwelling place to those of intelligence, but did you ever stop to look at science? Maybe instead of basing everything on a pseudoscientific theory (such as evolutionism), we should look at the facts of science, and base our knowledge and understanding of the world upon us from such? Of course, that would require intelligence, which is clearly beyond the creators of this topic. If you knew even a shred of what science can tell you, you'd know that it's quite impossible for the planet, or any part of the solar system, to be over ten millennia old. This article is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to discredit hard working Christian scientists, just as the Catholics did to us in the middle ages.--69.254.152.187 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the anonymous editor deserves this much commentary. First of all, it reeks of anti-Semitism and other types of racism. However, it reads like a rant of a nutjob. I think our rather flippant replies are the most useful. BTW, I'm beginning to really dislike this article, and it should be merged. After rewriting a couple of Cretaceous/Tertiary articles, this article deserves, at most, 2 lines in one of the various Creationist articles. I'd go with Creation Science or Flood Geology, but I don't care. I'm with you on this TD. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, or is that thirded? Either way, I agree this article really doesn't need to exist on it's own, I suggest Flood Geology and possibly Crytozoology as the lucky recipients of its contents. ornis (t) 14:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My view is that creationists do have perspectives on dinosaurs and that these perspectives are interesting and worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. This article begins to cover these views. SmithBlue 02:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is okay, but it could use some work.

I believe that this article is very useful. I think we can all reason here and acknowledge that dinosaurs and humans did not live together. Yet, there are a few people out there who like to believe otherwise for the sake of upholding their biblical views. While their argument is seemingly baseless and illogical, with most of their cited evidence coming from articles in Answers in Genesis. I would much rather see this information on this article than with the actual dinosaur article. Readers would like to turn to the dinosaur article to learn about dinosaurs, not be overwhelmed with religious pseudoscience. While creationists make no point whatsoever in their argument, the fact that they pose an argument at all— even having some support— holds relevance in the everlasting case of religion versus science.

Of course this article can use some improvements. Here are nine suggestions I believe will make this article better than what it is right now:

1. The article could possibly stand to be renamed Religious perspective on dinosaurs
2. The article doesn't have to be narrowed specifically to dinosaurs. It could also include religious viewpoints on other prehistoric species such as mammoths. [30] However, then the above article title would not be sufficient, in which case other names could be suggested.
3. It could stand to use some quotes from the creationists. [31] These more effectively show their viewpoints without having to visit another site from the references.
4. What about other religions? There's absolutely no mention of Dharmic religions.
5. Perhaps some opinions from creationists who do not work with Answers in Genesis and are not young-Earth creationists— possibly some references old-Earth creationism or evolutionary creationism viewpoints.
6. This article should mention scientific rebuttals to the religious viewpoints of dinosaurs.
7. Although any biblical support for dinosaurs comes in interpretations (or misinterpretations), this section of the article needs to be expanded for clarity and for those who are unfamiliar with the topic. Creationists assert that there are numerous references to dinosaurs in the bible (such as the numerous mentioning of dragons), so this article shouldn't focus solely on the book of Job. See also Isaiah 34:13, 35:7, 43:20; Jeremiah 9:11, 10:22, 14:6, 49:33, 51:37; Micah 1:8; Malachi 1:3, Deuteronomy 33:33; Psalm 44:19, 74:13, 91:13, 148:7; Ezekiel 29:3. These should be mentioned as well, because some creationists assert that they mention dinosaurs.
8. It is of utmost importance that any material added to this article needs to be properly cited, because some editors feel that this article is on the verge of biasness and worthlessness. There needs to be a near equal number of pro- and anti-creationist opinions to balance this article and present information respectively from both sides. There seems to already be some unreferenced information in this article.
9. If any obvious biblical literalist attacks well-cited information in this article through their blind conservatism, don't antagonize the situation by attacking their beliefs— just point them to this article: science.

I suppose I could do some improvement to the article, but I like to work consensually and with the help from others. Some suggestions were mentioned previously on this page by other editors, but so far changes haven't been made. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 11:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all reason here and acknowledge that dinosaurs and humans could have lived together. ^rossnixon 05:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• See, the thing is that they could have lived together, but the scientific evidence says otherwise. Now what the creationist side needs to do to provide some level of support for their standpoint and to supply some of their own evidence— not just some senseless bashing of evolution. Some creationists believe they have found evidence. However, the purpose of this article is not to try to prove the creationist standpoint and unravel perceived evolutionary flaws; the article is supposed to just respectively discuss their viewpoints from a neutral perspective. Any condescending opinions are appropriate as well, but they need to be well-cited from scholarly sources to avoid original research. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Humans and dinosaurs do live together; they're called birds. If you mean -dinosaur- dinosaurs though, then no, we don't, because they didn't and it is absolutely clear that they didn't. At least, not until I clone them and put them all in an amusement park. Titanium Dragon 18:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was changed from religious perspectives on dinosaurs to creationist perspectives on dinosaurs because -that is exactly what they are-. No one other than creationists HAVE religious perspectives on dinosaurs. That's what we realized; this article for AGES had an expand tag on it because we were trying to find stuff to add about other religions but it turns out that no one but the fundies have any perspective on them from a religious standpoint at all. Therefore, the page is named correctly. And yes, I do think it could be expanded to prehistoric animals in general, though I'm not sure how relevant that is; if we can find enough sources for it though, then sure, why not. Equality of numbers is not all that necessary, to be honest; while criticism of it should be present, it shouldn't be even half as long as the article itself. This article is itself a spinoff of the Dinosaur article. Titanium Dragon 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whose perspectives on dinosaurs?

The 'Islam' section doesn't mention dinosaurs once (so should probably be deleted or moved to an article on Islamic Creationism). Neither Old Earth Creationists (an 'Old Earth' allows plenty of time for dinosaurs and every other extinct beastie) nor Evolutionary Creationists (aka Theistic Evolutionists -- who accept the science of Evolution and Palaeontology fully) are likely to have anything in the way of alternate "perspectives" on dinosaurs. Likewise Hindu creationists believe that the world is older than science allows, so are unlikely to find the age of dinosaur fossils to be problematical. So whose perspective is this ever going to be other than YECs? So why hasn't this article been merged into Young Earth Creationism already? Hrafn42 11:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... I'm pretty sure this has been brought up a number of times and nothing has happened. I've tagged the articles for a merge. ornis (t) 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's get rid of this article. Honestly, once you adhere to YEC, dinosaurs become a minor issue in what one believes. The only reason that this article deserves a POV fork is because of Barney, that annoying purple kids program, and because everyone is fascinated by dinosaurs. But just like everything in YEC, there is no evidence that geological events unraveled in the manner stated, and certainly dinosaurs did not walk amongst humans (other than birds of course). This article is a stretching a sentence or maybe a paragraph into a whole article. I've helped rewrite it a number of times, and I think it has no reason for existence as an article. 13:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs)

Religious perspectives on dinosaurs

"Religious perspectives on dinosaurs" was a valid and useful addition to this encyclopedia. How organisations responds to new information produces a noteworthy and revealing view of those organisations. I hope eventually this article will be replaced. The fears and efforts, of some, about pages being taken over by "Christian creationists" or alternatively having sects within their own faith being identified as creationist appear to have overwhelmed those editors who addressed this as a reasonable and worthwhile topic. For the time being. Maybe Wikipedia can't function well on topics which stir up fear and hatred? See WP:Serbophobia for another example. SmithBlue 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It works only as a religious perspective ONLY. If one moves to the pseudoscience of "but dinosaurs existed with mankind", it's no longer religious or Creationist. Keep the article focused on the NPOV of Religious or Creationist perspectives, and don't wander over to junk science. That's my humble opinion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, "religious perspectives on dinosaurs" was not a valid and useful addition to this encyclopedia -- as the only religious perspective that could be found on dinosaurs was Young Earth creationism -- which is why this now redirects to that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then all this article is, obviously, another version of YEC. Then let's get it deleted without prejudice. I hate the article personally, since most "religious" perspectives on Dinosaurs is that they existed over 65 MILLION years ago, and died out at the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event about 65.5 Million years ago, although birds are arguable the living descendants of dinosaurs. Anyways, why hasn't it been deleted post-haste? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried ages ago; you can try again if you want. I said the exact same things. The reality is that basically it is a POV fork of the Dinosaur article that prevents vandalism to that article. Titanium Dragon 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently if you click on the article page above, you go to YEC. Interesting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)