User talk:Orangemarlin/Religion 1

Noah's Ark

I glanced through the calculations. I see one potential mistake:

Now, what is the pressure exerted by this rainfall? Since 1L = 0.998 kg, the mass of the water per m2E-s is: 0.7984 kg/m2E-s = 1.76 lbs/m2E-s PSI is pounds per square inch, 1 m2 = 1,550.003100006 inch2, we have 2,728 psi applied every second of this period to the surface area of the Earth. It appears that the author should have divided 1.76 by 1550 and instead multipled it. So it is a lot of water hitting every square meter every second, like throwing a 1 quart bottle of water every second on a 3 foot by 3 foot area, but it is not the kinds of pressures he is alleging.

I am more troubled by the magic of making a magic portal in the ground open up and a magic portal in the sky open up to produce the water, and then have the water disappear again with no trace in the geologic record. I also am more troubled by the suggestion that the laws of optics and physics that create the rainbow were not constant but changed with time. That is very unsettling and if it is true, then we should discard most of physics.

One could make a long list of reasons why the story is myth/legend/poetry/allegory/metaphor or whatever, but not scientifically based and not history.--Filll 17:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rpod

Rpod=Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs.--Filll 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rpod

Hi Orangemarlin, I warn you that I do assume good faith in your contributions. This means that I will support your edits at times. Well done with going through the references and correcting them. And I think your latest Jewish views section is "OK for now". I realise this stance of mine will make life more complex for both of us. But we'll all get a lot of simplicity soon enough (unless there is an afterlife). SmithBlue 07:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Those references were a pain!!!!! My fingers are exhausted.  :)Orangemarlin 07:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as myth

If it's any help I have an old version of the article saved as it was being trashed by a christian fundamentalist last summer. The article is currently crap but I don't have the time or energy to cope with all the people who's only interest in the article is to make sure it tells people how wrong the theory is. I come at it from the same angle as you - lets look at this from first principles - what evidence is there and is it corroborated? Unfortunately only the science world works like that and any attempt to look at verifiable facts is taken as an attack on the religion. The article should report that it is a minority theory but that the vast majority of research in this area is funded by Christian institutions. There is actually growing interest in the theory even in academic circles so it will be interesting to see how things develop. Good luck with the editing. Sophia 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I wondered where the material by Josephus went. I posted a question on the talk page and no one even answered. If you want to see someone else who dug into the josephus material, take a look here at the google answers investigation of this question.--Filll 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I wonder if we could get this guy to write a new articles. Orangemarlin 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Josephus is a tricky one for them as historically it is very uncertain what he wrote. What is certain is that he as a very good record keeper of the time so it's amazing he didn't write anything more about Jesus. Bear in mind that Josephus was writing 60 years after Jesus supposedly died. It's like someone today writing a history of WWII based on hearsay - no photos films or books. There is no way we would consider that primary evidence whatever was written. Sophia 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go back to trying to prove the negative. Difficult to say the least. So the burden on proof should be on the Christians. If they want to have us believe that Jesus existed, prove it. If they want to have faith that he existed, fine. Leave me out of it. Orangemarlin 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit out of control where the 4 or 5 articles on Jesus, even the ones on him being a myth, all assume that he was real even though the documentary evidence outside of the bible is scanty. Surely there are some academics who hold to that view? I know I have heard it my whole life; in church schools, in studying classics at university. I never dug into it however.--Filll 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

They can believe what they like - but when their god is handing down truths that they expect everyone else to live by it's no longer a case of just letting them get on with it. We think the Egyptians worshiped gods that weren't real because they sound like stories. If we hadn't had 2000 years of those in power telling us this is all true would anyone not consider this just another story? Would god really have chosen Borgia for his vicar on earth? Sophia 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The hypocrisy and elitism and arrogance and dimissive attitude towards others of other faiths can be a bit much. I am positive that Jesus (if he existed of course) would have condemned many of these who claim to be his most ardent followers. I only have to draw parallels with the stories about the Pharisees, the one group that is really looked upon poorly in the Gospels. And what groups resemble the Pharisees the most? Oh well... I will note that the article here on bibliolatry is really a stub and could use a lot of expansion.--Filll 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I continue to frustrated by all of this. They (broadly speaking, literal Christians) battle everywhere to protect their version of the "truth." They claim that Wikipedia is not supposed to write about truths, but write anything about how Creation Science is a pseudoscience or Noah's Ark is a myth, and they attempt to ram NPOV down your throat. You should read User:Philip J. Rayment's page. He dislikes everything we stand for. By the way Philip, I believe in Evolution not on faith, but because I spent several years studying it, and reading the accumulated works of hundreds of thousands if not millions of man-days studying the field. Your disinformation about macro and micro-evolution is silly and unsupported. I am sick and tired of being lectured by them and their condescending attitude. I am tired of being told what is NPOV when they are POVing every article that does not fit their literalist view of the world. Luckily, they have friends like Raspor. And the weight of science, rational thought, and facts will bear out on all of these articles eventually! Orangemarlin 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are seeing the world of extremes boiling over in one global pot. Things are changing in the UK - there have been several programs on the inaccuracies and even fictions of the Christian religion which even 5 years ago I would never have seen aired. Think yourself lucky (me too) in the past we would have died or been outcasts for daring to think these things. Campollion, who translated the Rosetta Stone, had to stop excavations when he found hieroglyphic texts showing that life in Egypt had continued undisturbed by Noah's flood - contrary to Church teachings. Scary when you realise that was only 4 generations ago.

I'll help with Jesus as Myth as much as I can but I'm very busy at the moment. I do have quite a few books so if you need a specific quote let me know. I do watch the page and will revert nonsense but I don't have time for the fights needed to make change. Sophia 11:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What if we revert back to the version you had linked above? What kind of war would that start? Orangemarlin 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be prepared to revert to support it as I feel it would give us a better base to work from. It's also the version that Richard Carrier described as not too bad and quite a reasonable review of the subject. Sophia 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert back to the one you linked above. It sounds like TheologyJohn is on board, and I'll help out. If someone violates 3RR we'll deal with it.Orangemarlin 01:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, despite my sympathy with reverting this article to that state, I don't think it's fair to make such a massive edit without first bringing it up on talk. TheologyJohn 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect that I would support any such reversion, gone about the right way. That version looks significantly better than the one we have now. There are a few minor details that I would like to alter (e.g. it implies that non-Jesus-myth bible scholars are significantly more conserative than they are), I'd like to see a section on significant responses from mainstream academia, and I'd like to see Doherty's explanation for the new testament data included, since that's pretty notable.

Nonetheless, a brief glance at it looks much better than the article we have now. The only vaguely regular posters that I would expect to object are NBeale and Trencacloscas, but that's based purely on speculation based upon my past knowledge of both of them - they would both regret the fact that it would take away the arguments from their respective (opposite) sides on the issue.

I have to say that more or less everything I've read in this section sounds really unfair. We're not fundamentalists, literalists, nor half as biased as you might think, and I really struggle to see why you're claiming so when you're not actually objecting to any of our edits (aside from those of NBeale, whose even I object to) - rather our selves. None of us, to my knowledge, are creationist, or anything like that. How's about instead of plotting against us, you attempt to present the idea of this specific revert for debate (without resorting to insulting the motivations of religious editors), as per the consensus nature of Wikipedia? TheologyJohn 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why we have user talk pages, where we can discuss thoughts outside of the article itself. We all have been observing the literalist attacks on Wikipedia, and we all have been standing up to it. I don't know if you're a creationist or not, don't really care. However, how can you be an editor of an article that starts with the supposition that Jesus was a myth, given the fact that you believe he existed. You have no verifiable evidence that he did, but that is not the point. To maintain an NPOV, we cannot discuss whether Jesus existed or not, just why a myth would be created and what might be its lineage. That's all. By the way, I do make assumptions about you based on your name alone. If you went by the name of I Worship Trees, I'd probably also think you'd be biased. Finally, you might not be biased, literalist, or fundamentalist, but you really need to read a few lines of discussion on the Creationist discussions pages. It's exhausting. The noisiest ones certainly make it feel like there's a lot of bias out there. That's why we plan a little bit more than you might want us to. Orangemarlin 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

One final final point. I do apologize if you thought you were lumped into the really biased crowd. I have been reading your discussion points, and I think you're open to what the article is trying to do. If this one article ended Christianity, I've got to believe that Christianity was on some very weak foundations, and Wikipedia has infinitely more power than I could ever imagine. Why don't people understand the meaning of faith? Orangemarlin 01:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I apologise for misinterpreting myself as being lumped in to that category, especially if the way I responded caused you any offense.

Though it does make me wonder who of the current editors you do think is biased, since there's only one vaguely-regular who it seems to me is notably more anti-jesus-myth theory than me. My guess, to be honest, is that it is a matter of once bitten, twice shy - I think the current editors seem fairly eager to be NPOV.

(BTW, I've realised I probably shouldn't have named a couple of people who I feel are strongly biased above - I've met him on a few other pages, and I'm sure his heart is in the right place, and he is willing to listen to other posters and will submit to consensus.)

Also, I have to say that I don't think I hold to the "faith as belief without evidence" opinion. I guess we just differ on the strength of the evidence. :) I don't think that should alter the article, though, since the article isn't supposed to be about presenting the truth, but about presenting already published opinions. TheologyJohn 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this amazing how hard literalists want to fight on these issues. I was even taught as a child at our church that the evidence for Jesus outside of the bible was weak at best. Part of the excitement a year or two back when there was an artifact that included the inscription "James, brother of Jesus" that surfaced was that it might have been evidence for Jesus' existence. Unfortunately, it turned out just to be another forgery. So why should an article about Jesus being a myth start out with the assumption that he was real? There are already many articles about him being real. Why can an article about him being mythical not actually be about that? Why does it also have to be an article about his reality? Even if a reader believes Jesus was real, does the reader not deserve to see the best possible arguments against his reality, so he or she can understand the issue? This also frankly is insulting to Jews, who remember do not subscribe to the idea of Jesus being the Messiah. And the BASIS of Christianity is that the Jews are the chosen people, and the worship of a Jew! So from many different perspectives, it just makes me shake my head. Lets show some respect for other viewpoints and other groups and for knowledge!--Filll 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to take back the articles one at a time. First is Jesus as Myth; Next is the nonsensical Historicity of Jesus article. I want someone to review the Skeptic Magazine article re: the burial of Jesus as per the Passion Play. And thanks for saying hi. MOT myself if we're talking truth. - Sparky 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. I'm waiting for User:SOPHIA to post the big reversion, and then we'll improve the article. Right now it's just a war between Fundamentalists, who obviously think this article is the downfall of their religion, which indicates just how weak it is, and Mythicists, who obviously think that Wikipedia will be turned into a Christian encyclopedia if they don't fight for every article. I'm not quite in the middle, more that Jesus is a big myth foisted upon the world.Orangemarlin 02:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Scary lunatics

This site has some great information: --Filll 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Pat Robertson:

• He calls church-state separation a “lie of the left”
• thinks Christians like him should lead the world.
• His 1991 book The New World Order was based on a host of anti-Semitic sources, although Robertson has always been pro-Israel for end-times theological reasons.
• The same book opines that former presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush may have been unwitting dupes for Lucifer.
• On his TV show, Robertson once charged that Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians represent “the spirit of the Antichrist.”
• In a Sept. 13, 2001, diatribe, he asserted that the terrorist attacks on America happened because of the Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of church-state separation.
• Over the years, the failed presidential candidate has often dallied with brutal dictators. He celebrated Guatemala’s Pentecostal strongman Efrain Rios Montt, lauded Frederick Chiluba of Zambia as a model for American politicians, hunted for gold with Liberia’s Charles Taylor and did business with Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire. (He was caught using relief airplanes owned by his charity, Operation Blessing, to ferry diamond-mining equipment in and out of Zaire.)

Robertson Quote: “The fact that [the courts] are trying to ignore this country’s religious heritage is just horrible. They are taking our religion away from us under the guise of separation of church and state. There was never any intention that our government would be separate from God Almighty. Never, never, never in the history of this land did the founders of this country or those who came after them think that was the case.”

Dr. James C. Dobson:

• lauded corporal punishment for children at a time when many child-rearing experts were recommending against it.
• refers to church-state separation as the “phantom” clause in the Constitution.
• He frequently lambastes gays, legal abortion and the teaching of evolution in public schools.
• In a 1996 radio address, he attacked the concept of tolerance, calling it “kind of a watchword of those who reject the concepts of right and wrong….It’s kind of a desensitization to evil of all varieties.”
• Two years before that, an FOF magazine attacked the Girl Scouts for being agents of “humanism and radical feminism.”
• More recently, Dobson lashed out at a pro-tolerance video produced for public schools that featured popular cartoon characters, among them SpongeBob SquarePants, because the group that produced it put a “tolerance pledge” on its Web site that included gays.

Rev. D. James Kennedy:

• His “Coral Ridge Hour” mixes fundamentalism with strident attacks on public education, gays, evolution, legal abortion, “secular humanism” and other Religious Right targets.

Alan Sears:

• He was the first Religious Right figure to assert that the cartoon character SpongeBob Square­Pants might be gay
• has criticized the 1959 comedy film “Some Like It Hot” for promoting cross-dressing.

Sears Quote: “One by one, more and more bricks that make up the artificial ‘wall of separation’ between church and state are being removed and Christians are once again being allowed to exercise their constitutional right to equal access to public facilities and funding.” (January 2004 e-mail alert)

Donald Wildmon: Wildmon, 68, has flirted with anti-Semitism, suggesting that Jews control the entertainment industry. The AFA’s Journal has also reprinted articles from The Spotlight, an anti-Semitic newspaper. In December, Wildmon said evangelicals may stop supporting Israel if Jewish leaders don’t stop criticizing the Religious Right.

Wildmon Quote: “Anti-prayer/Anti-Christian groups – like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State – have teamed up with liberal judges on the U.S. Supreme Court and are stripping away our religious freedom.” (Fall 2000 fund-raising letter)

Family Research Council:

• Recently, it has led the Religious Right effort to attack the federal courts and strip judges of their ability to hear church-state cases, sponsoring a series of anti-court rallies called “Justice Sunday.”

Quote: “The [Supreme] Court has become increasingly hostile to Christianity. It represents more of a threat to representative government than any other force – more than budget deficits, more than terrorism.” (“Confronting the Judicial War on Faith” conference, March 7, 2005)

Jerry Falwell:

• His newspaper labeled the children’s show character Tinky Winky a stalking horse for the gay-rights movement in 1999.
• He has asserted that the Antichrist is alive today and is Jewish.
• Two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Falwell appeared on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” and opined that God had lifted his protection and allowed “the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.”

Falwell Quote: “Separation of Church and State has long been the battle cry of civil libertarians wishing to purge our glorious Christian heritage from our nation’s history. Of course, the term never once appears in our Constitution and is a modern fabrication of discrimination.” (“Falwell Fax,” April 10, 1998)

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon:

• . He has been criticized for acting as a front for gambling interests on at least two occasions. An aide to disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff once called Sheldon “Lucky Louie” in an e-mail when the two worked together on a lobbying project on behalf of the legalized gambling industry.
• For many years, Sheldon carved out a niche for TVC by engaging in unrelenting gay bashing. When other Religious Right groups began moving in on this turf in the 1990s, Sheldon diversified, ramping up his assaults on church-state separation, public education and the federal judiciary.

Sheldon Quote: “A dangerous Marxist/Leftist/Homo­sex­ual/Is­lamic coalition has formed – and we’d better be willing to fight it with everything in our power. These people are playing for keeps. Their hero, Mao Tse Tung, is estimated to have murdered upwards of 60 million people during his reign of terror in China. Do we think we can escape such persecution if we refuse to fight for what is right?” (“The War on Christianity,” column, TVC Web site, Dec. 13, 2005)

Source: [1] --Filll 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for scaring the crap out of me. Anti-semetic people are everywhere. And it could be a result of the Jesus Myth. Orangemarlin 17:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

People think I am a bit over the top in my criticism of fundamentalists, creationists, biblical literalists, evangelists, people who support biblical inerrancy etc. Well the people on that list are supported by the better part of a billion dollars a year (most of it tax free of course, so you personally are subsidizing this crap). These people are incredibly influential politically (one was of course a presidential candidate more than once). These are statements drawn from their own media. This information comes from them. I do not mean to be alarmist, but these people are vile. And have to be stopped if at all possible. So our contributions on creationism articles and a few others contribute to this in a small way, hopefully. I might get a little worked up about it, but these people ARE scary.--Filll 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So once again I posit the following question: What is the difference between American religious fundamentalists and Iranian religious fundamentalists? Right now, it's the Constitution that keeps the American ones out of government and prevents them from creating execution squads. But if you read the crap above, they'd love to remove the former and start-up the latter. Christians get control of this country, every Jew I know will leave. Then every reasonable American. We'll all move to Canada. And given global warming, Canada should be quite nice in 20 years. Orangemarlin 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard many statements about how the US should have laws requiring summary execution of all homosexuals and nonChristians (no trial; kill them on sight) by these types of religious extremists. Now of course the average person does not say that, but there are enough kooks that it is a matter of some concern. I should see if I can find some quotes. And I have said I listened in amazement to a rally a couple of years back with literally thousands of fundamentalists including many major leaders here in DC, calling for recall of ALL US judiciary so they could be replaced with the "right" sort of judges. And calling for the repeal of separation of church and state because they wanted laws to force everyone to be Christian. And they CHEERED and CHEERED. Several of the leaders above spoke. And several congressional leaders spoke, including [{Tom Delay]]. I was amazed. They said that if the separation of church and state was not repealed, it was proof that "Christians" (by which they mean fundamentalists, not methodists or Catholics or Presbyterians or Episcopalians etc) were being terribly persecuted. And they CHEERED and CHEERED. Does anyone else not notice what is going on here? What are we, all stupid?--Filll 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound paranoid, but as a Jew, paranoia is solid defense mechanism, but Hitler was a kook too. Nobody notices, and that's how evil takes power. I actually read the political stuff and I have no clue how the right stays in power. Because frankly, Americans are not religious zealots, we're pretty much a tolerant nation. It's a minority of Fundies that are screaming the loudest, so everyone pays attention. But these people steal our civil rights a little bit at a time, and 10 years from now we're living in a dictatorship of Christians. I'll be out of here with my family, bringing wealth and intelligence to another country. Orangemarlin 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Beware of excess paranoia goading you into taking some discussions too literally ;) Of course it's easier for outsiders to look at your situation with detachment, and just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you....... drum roll, organ music gradually increases in volume and pitch........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

Take a look at Creationism and the venting in the reasons for edits.--Filll 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A new article for your consideration

Take a look at my article Hindu creationism. It needs a category etc, but it is a start. I think if one holds up OTHER alternative views, then hte ridiculousness of the Christian Creationism view starts to become more obvious. And there might be more Hindu Creationists than Christian Creationists, by the sound of it (just not in the US). They also want to influence the school systems in the US, in the UK, in Australia etc. They have already done a huge number on the school systems in India. --Filll 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the references there. I want a picture or two more. Take a look.--Filll 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

You might also want to see Jesus as myth and Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus. I suggested a few additions to the former, but I have not got around to editing it.--Filll 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OOps I need a hand over here

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for evolution--Filll 08:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at THIS

Talk:Hindu creationism. That previous editor (who mangled the intro in my opinion) warned me that it would be attacked. Is this the start? I left a message on his talk page. --Filll 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is that they removed 80% of the content, and then complain there is no content. I do not really even know what belief is what, or who is who, so I am just letting them rant and rave. However, I am establishing a few "factoids":

• Hindutva, a political movement, has some religious and doctrinal overtones that people do not like to talk about. Also some antiMuslim and antiChristian overtones.
• when I try to get them to talk about things that contradict science they are very reluctant to do so (men living on earth for many millions of years in modern form, etc)
• when I talk about evolution, they immediately want to talk about reincarnation and your soul devolving etc based on karma
• when I want to ask if astrology and cow piss and yogas flying around by meditating and other stuff is scientific, they think it is, but they do not want to admit it.
• they want to claim that darwin's theory was well known and so was quantum mechanics and relativity etc all thousands of years ago in the scriptures
• they are probably afraid of ridicule, so the most controversial stuff on the page was deleted, but now people are telling me the exact same stuff that was deleted is true.
• the only problem I have is the schoolbook thing is a bit puzzling. I think it has creationist type overtones or what I would call creationist overtones but they want to deny it.
• they seem to be hypersensitive about this.--Filll 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just learning how hypersensitive they are. They do not quite get it. They are as bad as standard Christian creationists, and in fact maybe worse. There is a seething problem just under the surface, with caste disputes, and anti-christian and anti-science sentiments, and anti-Muslim stuff. I am trying to write it very carefully to avoid stepping on toes. If I left it up to them, they would just nibble away at the article until nothing was left.--Filll 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

No that wasnt my version. I have not been looking at that article so much. I would prefer a very short 1 paragraph summary of the searches and then direct to the search article. I see no reason to shove everything into one article, which people seem to want to do. This is not helpful for the average encyclopedia reader. These Arkeologists might think that searches to prove its veracity are the most important thing about the ark, but that is not true. They are a side issue. When people learn about it in church/synagoguge/school, do they learn about the searches as a major part? I think not. It is one of many myths about floods around the world. There might be some grain of truth there, but we see no evidence that it was exactly as account X or Y states. Maybe a local flood. Maybe something else. But certainly no proof for one particular version of a flood, let alone a worldwide flood. I have had quite a field day with the Hinduism and Creationism article. In just two days it has had 3 names, and I have had to archive a page of discussion already. Look at what they are doing now. They are an example of what will happen if we teach people in school that the bible is literally true. Very defensive and angry. I would expect more from the country/culture that has produced some of the greatest scientists and mathematicians that the world has ever seen. Wow I am seeing the great unwashed masses now I guess. It is astounding. If I left an article alone for a week, it would be nibbled to death I am sure. They see a quote they do not like from a religious leader, and they say, he does not speak for us and want to erase it. But of course no one leader speaks for all hindus, so they want to erase everything. I do not know how they managed to write the Hinduism article. And very politically correct. Some want to deny that a caste exists or has ever existed, for example. I call it political correctness on steroids.--15:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism and Creationism

Well I think they have finally slowed down. And are more or less calm. The lead looks like a politically correct nightmare, but I had to do it to get it in. Later I might modify it when they are not so worked up about it. They basically want to proclaim how stupid the west is, and how stupid the US (I do agree a bit there on creationism anyway) and twist the sentences around and around to say no creationism exists in Hinduism, even though that is what the article is about, with references and all. I did throw them a bone by pointing out that their high school textbooks include evolution (not very well written by the way from what I saw) and Pakistan's do not. I figured that would make them a bit less likely to attack the article (although Pakistanis might if they find it).--Filll 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Estimate of number of darwin dissenters

If you recall, in 1987 Newsweek reported about 700 creationists among 480,000 biologists and geologists in the US, or about 0.14%. So I went to the data from NSF on graduates in biology since then, and figured the field must be growing with all the new graduates, and longer lifespans etc. So I made a crude estimate of how many scientists there were in 2001 who were biologists and geologists; about 780,000 because so many more degrees are being given in biology now (I know it is sloppy but I didnt want to mess around with fitting a curve and integrating etc; I just did a quick and dirty). So the DI 600 Darwin Dissenters (not all are biologists or geologists for sure) turns out to be about 0.077% of the number of biologists and geologists in 2001. Maybe I have to redo this calculation after all I am thinking. But anyway, the result will be the same. To me, the DI Darwin Dissenters are from several years of collection of signatures, and it looks to me that the number supporting creationism in the sciences is going down, probably from all the publicity. And going up in the public, probably from all the publicity.--Filll 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Help on Noah's ark:

I wrote the following section to Noah's ark, but everytime I paste it in, it causes the bottom part of the article to disappear. Can you help me out? here's what I wrote:

The Ark

According to Genesis 6:15, the ark was approximately 450 feet long which would make it one of the largest wood ships ever built. In 1909, the schooner Wyoming was built by the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. Utilizing state-of-the-art shipbuilding technology, which would not have been available to Noah, she was the longest ship with a wood keel and hull ever built. And at 329 feet, the ship was approximately 120 feet shorter than Noah’s Ark. Percy & Small built sixe other schooners of 300 ft or more. Seagoing ships, by their nature, are subject to significant stress, and wood is not strong enough to prevent separation at each joint, thereby allowing for water to enter the hull. The Wyoming had 90 steel crossbraces to support the frame of the ship in the hope of reducing leakage.. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. Even utilizing the best marine engineering principles of the day, the steel bracing could not prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The boat had leaked every day that it was in the water until it sank 14 years later during a storm when it foundered. It was reported that the Wyoming would snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the amidships) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the amidships) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised.

Few other wood sailing ships were built greater than 300 feet in length. One ship, the Great Republic, built in 1853, was reported to be the longest wooden ship ever built with a length of 325 to 334 feet. This ship also had 90 steel or iron cross braces, each four inches wide, one inch thick and 36 feet long. Unfortunately, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda and was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet.

Given that relatively advanced shipbuilding techniques were able to build only marginally seaworthy ships, and ironworking sufficient to build cross braces was not available to Noah, there is little scientific evidence available that an Ark of that size is available..

The animals

According to Wilson and Perlman, 2000, 1.6 million species have been described to date. They estimate that there are probably 30-100 million total species of all organisms on the planet. Given that the belief in Noah’s Ark presumes a belief in all of Genesis, all of those animals must have been in existence at that time, and for them to exist today, Noah would have need to “saved” them, according to the myth. Even eliminating sea-dwelling organisms, plants, and other non “air-breathing” animals, 50-100 thousand species would have had to been collected. Some biblical scholars insist that the interpretation of the accounts should be that only a representative of the genus of air-breathing animals were taken (using the word, “kind” of animals, as stated in Genesis), that would be anywhere from 5-15 thousand genera. However, the rate of speciation of complex organisms, such as vertebrates, is anywhere from 10 to 100 thousand years, which indicates that it would be nearly impossible for 15,000 genera to evolve into 50-100 thousand species air-breathing species in just a few thousand years.

Moreover, the people living at that time gave names to each “kind” of animal which is roughly at the level of species Furthermore, the Creationist assumptions then mean that most of the species were left off the Ark (over 30-100 million). According to Genesis, "He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground". It becomes difficult to imagine how we have so many species so soon after a catastrophic flood. It would have also been nearly impossible for Noah, in seven days, to collect even a small portion of these species. Some species existed in polar regions (penguins and polar bears), some species on isolated islands in oceanic areas, and some species are only endemic to certain locations (such as Australian marsupials). Within the seven days time allocated to Noah according to the Genesis myth, there would not have been sufficient time to travel the earth to find all of the animals.

Additionally, only a small portion could fit on the Ark, no matter how it was constructed. The weight of the animals would have unbalanced the ship, causing it to founder in rough seas. Predators and prey would have to be separated and fed; therefore, additional weight would have to be supported in the ship. Finally, some creationists and biblical literalists accept fossils as being the remnants of organisms that perished in the flood. This belies the fact that dinosaurs and other extinct animals do not exist, so were not brought aboard the mythological ark.

The Flood

Analysis of the possibility of the flood can be broken into three sections:

1. Where did all the water come from and where did it all go? Setting aside the possibility of sufficient water to cover 10,000 meter mountains, where presumably fossilized sea life would have been deposited by a global food, raising the water level of the world by only a few meters would have raised atmospheric pressures sufficiently high to raise oxygen and nitrogen concentrations to toxic levels. In addition, a “canopy” of water vapor, sufficient to induce rain for 40 days, would have superheated the water, raising it to the boiling point and thereby killing everything in the world (sterilizing it in effect). Water that would have come from beneath the ground (another proposal from Creationists) would also have been superheated by the earth’s core, which would have sterilized the earth also. In effect, most commonly cited methods for the water to come and go depend upon miracles that are not proven by geologic record, cannot happen as a result of physics, and have been dismissed by verifiable science. Therefore, a worldwide catastrophic flood requires reliance upon pseudoscience.
2. Why is there no evidence of a flood? Simple problems such as the difference in substantial erosion of the Appalachian mountains versus the relatively minimal (geologically speaking) erosion of the Himalayans. There is a lack of flood evidence in Greenland ice cores. Polar ice caps would have floated in a flood; in fact, some of the ice caps, such as over Greenland and Antarctica could not have reformed in the past 10,000 years because climatic conditions would not have allowed it. Other areas of analysis, tree ring, deep sea sediments, terrestrial sediments and soils, and other geological features lack any data that would show evidence of a global flood.
3. Why did plants survive? Assuming that Genesis ignores plants, there are currently over 300-500 thousand plant species on earth today. Most plants would be destroyed by submersion for even a few days. The several meters of sediment deposited by such a flood would have smothered any seeds or other plants. Salt water intrusion would also destroy most plants. It is conceivable that Noah collected seeds from plants, but as with collecting animals, plant species range all over the world, not ever plant would have seeds available on the seven days allowed to collect them, and most plants require the right environmental conditions to germinate.

How is that?--Filll 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a few small edits on it already. I think it could do with some tightening and shortening. I will cogitate on it.--Filll 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw this nice essay on Filll's talk page. But in the WP context, I find the discussion a little besides the point. God is stated as directing the builder, so details about human workmanship are perhaps irrelevant. God could similarly have speeded up speciation to repopulate the earth. No young-earth creationist thinks C14 dating valid, so there's no point arguing on that basis, & anyone who believes in a personal God believes in miracles, and anyone who doesn't believe in a personal God doesn't believe in Noah's flood. Anyway, I don't think what you wrote will pass OR. WP:SNO.

There is a wonderful illustration of the Ark in Diderot's Encyclopédie, emphasizing the sanitary arrangements--it's PD, and should be in Commons. That would be usable. It speaks for itself. I do not think we support evolution by taunting the creationists. DGG 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think this is creationst you misread it. I want to oppose them with every strong argument available, but I do not think this is one. But I apologize for arguing it here.DGG 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a great article about Diderot and the ark :[2] I think we could find more.--Filll 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a great quote of Diderot:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

So we all know what side Diderot was on.--Filll 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LMFAO. What would he think about the Creationist Cabal that has gotten control of this place.!!!!????!!!!

Diderot has a huge section the "deluge" at [3]. That is the french version, which we can translate. But I think from a historical perspective, it is fascinating. I did not see any pictures of the "arche" de "Noe" yet but they might be there. I guess he had to make it sound as ludicrous as possible without offending the church, which of course was in bed with the government at the time.--Filll 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Diderot's article: User talk:Filll/diderot. Hilarious.--Filll 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Diderot's article (or about 1/3 of it anyway) computer translaton into English: User talk:Filll/diderot-eng. --Filll 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I convinced my ex-wife to translate it for me. It's costing me a new iPod!!!!! And she's a devout French Orthodox Jew (from the 4 families who weren't killed in Christian, Stalinist and Nazi Pogroms in Lithuania), so she's being a bit cranky about it. LOL. Orangemarlin 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am wondering about, that might be amusing, and maybe NPOV, is an article on the HISTORY of Noachian Flood skepticism? We can use scholastic studies, Newton's studies, Diderot, Rabbinical writings and debate, and so on and so forth. I think that people have been suspicious of this story forever. In fact, I suspect the author, if he is capable of watching from someplace, is either appalled, or laughing his ass off at us. He probably is having a knee-slapping good time, saying "you IDIOTS!! Dont you understand artistic license!! It is allegory...do I have to spell it out to you? A - L - L - E - G - O - R - Y" I am sure that if there is a God, he is amazed at the willingness of people to decline to use the powers of reason that he gave them. It is like spitting right in God's face!!--Filll 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)