This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
could we have some non-Judaeo-Christian perspectives? if there are any, that is.
"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.
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.
-^^^^^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
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
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.
If you use terms from [ [23]] we would literally be working from the same page. SmithBlue 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Which of the above statements do you disagree with? SmithBlue 02:18, 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There are several religious organizations that have issued statements in support of evolution: [2]In addition the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams has issued statements in support of evolution in 2006. [3] 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. [4]
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.” [5]
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.” [6] 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. [7]
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”. [8]
"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. [9]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmithBlue ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
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. [10] 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% [11]. 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.
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. [12] (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)
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] ross nixon 23:22, 19 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)
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." [13] At this rate am going to be forced to SSCI.
"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." [15] 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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
-- Filll 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Or should Rpod = AfD???? Your call.-- Filll 13:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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).
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)
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)
It might be too broad.-- Filll 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
GoldenMeadows 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following:
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
[ |Torah and Science] has Jewish views about evolution, deep time and creation. SmithBlue 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
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).
I think this is what you want:
{{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 [1] indicates that the whole of creation, not just man, [2] was subject to decay and corruption through the first sin of Adam and Eve [3]. 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 [4] the Orthodox Church [5]and reformed Church groups [6]. 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. [7] 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)
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)
“ | 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Well? Where are they? Rglong 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [1]. It does teach that there cannot be any real contradiction between legitimate science and matters of faith. [2] 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. [3]
I re-read the article for the first time in a long while. It's looking good!!!! Orangemarlin 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
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:
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. — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė ♫ ♪ 11:13, 24 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)
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)
"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)
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
could we have some non-Judaeo-Christian perspectives? if there are any, that is.
"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.
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.
-^^^^^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
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
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.
If you use terms from [ [23]] we would literally be working from the same page. SmithBlue 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Which of the above statements do you disagree with? SmithBlue 02:18, 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There are several religious organizations that have issued statements in support of evolution: [2]In addition the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams has issued statements in support of evolution in 2006. [3] 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. [4]
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.” [5]
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.” [6] 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. [7]
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”. [8]
"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. [9]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmithBlue ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
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. [10] 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% [11]. 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.
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. [12] (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)
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] ross nixon 23:22, 19 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)
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." [13] At this rate am going to be forced to SSCI.
"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." [15] 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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
-- Filll 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Or should Rpod = AfD???? Your call.-- Filll 13:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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).
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)
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)
It might be too broad.-- Filll 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
GoldenMeadows 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following:
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
[ |Torah and Science] has Jewish views about evolution, deep time and creation. SmithBlue 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
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).
I think this is what you want:
{{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 [1] indicates that the whole of creation, not just man, [2] was subject to decay and corruption through the first sin of Adam and Eve [3]. 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 [4] the Orthodox Church [5]and reformed Church groups [6]. 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. [7] 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)
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)
“ | 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Well? Where are they? Rglong 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [1]. It does teach that there cannot be any real contradiction between legitimate science and matters of faith. [2] 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. [3]
I re-read the article for the first time in a long while. It's looking good!!!! Orangemarlin 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
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:
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. — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė ♫ ♪ 11:13, 24 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)
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)
"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)