Thanks for your comments on my talk page. My general feeling on blogs is that they should be held to the same standard as any other media. For example, a blog that has received widespread recognition is no different (in my opinion) than a major syndicated column.
Tarinth 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets discuss further on the talk page of the article. And yes, There is no Hindu creationist movement. Infact RSS propaganda is that hindus knew about the evolution theory and dasavatars represent the evolution of man from fish to further species. As for Californian Hindu textbook controversy, atleast read the article so that you know what the controversy was about. nids (♂) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
See for example Avatar#Symbolism. I do agree that there may be certain anti-darwin Hindus, but to say that there is a hindu creationist movement is stretching it a lot. FYI, Sanskrit has more atheistic literature than any other language. nids (♂) 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am active right now. I would love to answer any question you have. Gizza Chat © 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm arguing for a Keep on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_beauty ... It isn't specific to Evolution, but I think it presents information that isn't replicated elsewhere. I've recently added information to the article that presents some of its criticism. Not many people have had much input on the AfD, but I thought you might add your thoughts. Whether you're for or against is not important to me--I just think it needs adequate discussion. Tarinth 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope I do not say anything offensive so please bear with me. I know next to nothing about Hinduism.
Sorry for so many questions. I really know nothing at all and I am just trying to understand.-- Filll 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Extra comment:
I think that you are an evolutionist. Creation/evolution has never been formally discussed in Hinduism. It errs on creation there are some hints of evolution in the scriptures. One line in the Bhagavad Gita acknowledges that there are microscopic organisms. Those who believe in reincarnation, state in an order very close to how they evolved. In vertabrates for example, fish -> frog ->reptile ->bird -> mammals. The Dasaavatara also resembles evolution. Hinduism believes in cyclic universes of every 20 billion yers or so. But overall, is does err on creation because of its belief in God (by most). I don't consider theism to mean creationism though. There would be some who say that the reason the Big Bang happened was an action by the Formless, Infinite Being called Brahman ( Advaita sect). Creationism relies on God but evolutionism doesn't rely on no God. Einstein, proposer of the theory of relativity, father of quantum physics believed in God. So did Newton and Galileo despite their controversies with Church.
Hope that answers your queries. Gizza Chat © 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for answering. I hope I did not offend and I do not want to offend in any way shape or form. Permit me to ask a few more questions then:
Roughly what fraction of Hindus would you find who claimed, based on Vedic scriptures or teachings:
It is a fact that in the world almost all the academic literature in English about Hinduism, even by Hindu writers, bears the western influence, and that, none of these books represent the correct view of total authentic Hinduism. Historians forget that one cannot determine the history of Bharatvarsh on meager archaeological findings of coins, toys and pots. Whereas the general history of Bharatvarsh is already written in its scriptures and the Puranas whose texts and the philosophical descriptions are the outcome of the Gracious and benevolent minds of eternal Saints.
In no way could there be any comparison of the western religions (which are based on mythologies) with the Hindu Vedic religion which is eternal, universal and is directly revealed by the supreme God.
Divine writings cannot be analyzed in a material way. How could a worldly being, possessed with the vehemence of his own passions and desires, try to argue with the writings of Sages and Saints whose entire life was a divine benevolence for the souls of the world? You should know that all of our religious writings are Divine facts, and facts always remain facts, they cannot become myths. Using the word myth for our religious history is a serious spiritual transgression.
-- Filll 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well i'm not offended or anything! It is just that you have messed up your references... Calif.Txt.Book doesnt even remotely belong here. Hindutva is a poliical movement rather than a religious, creationism i daresay is hardly on top of their minds! Creation isnt even central to Hinduism.
Whats more calling Hindutva a supreamacist movement is nothing but far from thruth. Though i'm not their supporter, i know better! अमेय आर्यन DaBrood © 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well Hindutva is an ideology rather than an organisation. rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is its main proponents.
Cheers,
अमेय आर्यन DaBrood © 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the disussion to here, that way there will be more of a diverse answerers. Thank you for your interest. CHeers! — Arjun 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you're getting alot of good answers from people who are more familiar with the broader aspects of Hinduism than myself. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought you'd get a kick out of this. Someone has made a page documenting the dates that athletes have been arrested, and is justifying it based on..."There's a page on the timeline of the Big Bang":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Athelete_arrests
Hello Filll - in response to your questions regarding the International Society for Krishna Consciousness on the Hinduism noticeboard please see the above linked article, it is pretty accurate. You might also find Hare Krishna, Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism interesting. Iskcon (in their aims) are a 'non-sectarian movement' based on the scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita which are classified as Hindu texts. Thus philosophically Iskcon shares many similarities with Hindu traditions (as well as with other world religions). From a theological perspective it's correct to call Iskcon a sect of Hinduism, but for followers this would not be the case. To quote the movements founder:
Hoping to be of assistance, ys, Gouranga(UK) 09:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You need to come in for a few of your comments. A couple of people are trying to show how horribly we treated this guy. Whatever. Orangemarlin 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
These guys are more defensive than Christian creationists could ever be. It doesn't sound like you have dug up anyone who knows both the religion and its creationist philosophy enough to add and revise. Orangemarlin 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I found the introduction to article overly defensive and seemingly designed to appease Hindu sensibilities, so I have taken the liberty to rewrite it a bit. Hope I have not interrupted a work-in-progress ! By the way, do you know of any academic study of the issue ? I'd be interested in (and able to) look it up and contribute to the article. By the way, I think "Hinduism and creationism" will be a better title for the article. Abecedare 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not remove the Ganesh picture, but I can understand why it was done.
Hope that answers your question. Abecedare 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
Hello, you used the {{ helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.)— D e on555 talk desk sign here! 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:)
—
D
e
on555
talk
desk
sign here!
01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Here is some information that you may find interesting/useful (I forewarn you that I'll perhaps be over simplifying a complex topic):
In summary, while Hinduism/Hindus/Hindutva do have many flaws and deficiencies, promoting creationism is not a prominent one among them. So while, we should write an article detailing the cases of anti-evolutionary Hindus -we should make sure that the coverage is in balance with the importance of the issue within the religion/society. Hope my comments help ! Abecedare 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I seem to have lost the thread of the conversation. Can you please remind me what your recent comment "That is what the references say. If you have references that say the contrary, please produce them so they can be incorporated" was in reference to ? Thanks. Abecedare 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You posted a comment on my talk page regarding the notability of somebody. As a newpage patroller, I tag for speedy deletion several pages a day. I am unsure as to which article you are referring, so please feel free to comment back regarding this article in question. -- Адам12901 Talk 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the restoration to October. I've restored to Candorwien's last version. Adam Cuerden talk 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I read your rendition of the searches (or at least I think it was your version) on the discussion page. I wanted to discuss it here in the hopes that it will limit some of the trolls from causing a war. I have a few points that I think will go far towards my idea of NPOV and reducing some of the undue weight given to the Creationists running about trying to find this mythological ark:
I just don't want to encourage a casual reader that there is real science here. It frustrates me. Orangemarlin 07:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that i have moved "Hindusim and Creationism" to "Hinduism and creationism" so that the title follows the wikipedia manual of style. I have also fixed the double-redirects from earlier moves. Hopefully this will be the last move ! Abecedare 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not know how many Hindus there are in the Phillipines, although I assume there are some. I just didnt get to look at the article. I am glad to incorporate articles and viewpoints from those that disagree; that is what makes this topic interesting to the reader. Hopefully if it is better balanced it will not be such a magnet for attacks. I am wondering if it needs some documentation of the varying POV about ISKCON: some claim that ISKCON is part of Hinduism, while others disagree and claim that ISKCON is not part of Hinduism. Some claim that ISKCON itself disavows Hinduism; I do not know if this is true or not.-- Filll 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Please review my suggestion at Talk:Hinduism and creationism#Lead. Abecedare 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Just making sure you saw it on my talk page, I kind of took a long time getting around to it, for some reason, whenever I try to debate someone for too long on Wikipedia I just start losing gusto.... Homestarmy 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your message. Can you please point out which page may need the tag ? Abecedare 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Still need wikifying. DGG 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's the simplest proper way & anything less invites negative comment. DGG 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for your kind words. It's reinvigorating and calming at the same time. Whatever the result, it was already worth it to have made a few very nice new acquaintances. Sending you wishes of peace and my sincerest thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I finally wrote some additional definitions for the old genetics glossary idea, which also thanks to Willow, resides in a fancy template at Template:Genetics glossary. The collapsible template version has now been added it to the gene article. What do you think? I'm a little apprehensive about the positioning, since putting it at the top requires the browser to reformat the whole page every time you expand/hide a box, but putting it at the bottom of the article isn't very useful. I almost want a floating div, but floating expandable boxes will probably make old browsers faceplant.
As for the content, do you think that's enough basic definitions, or do any of them need further simplification? Anything obvious I missed that would be useful (or anything excessive in there)? Once this is sorted out, we can add it to related (ought-to-be-)basic-level articles like genetics; I imagine that would obviate the need for introduction to genetics? Opabinia regalis 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Please send me links to the other articles you mention. If they've been deleted tell me the name & date & I will ask for undeletion. If what we are posting gets no attention, instead of just removing tags I will nominate all the questionable ones for AfD, which is very visible--about 30 regular followers. DGG 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the following section to Noah's ark, but everytime I paste it in, it causes the bottom part of the article to disappear. Can you help me out? here's what I wrote:
The Ark
According to Genesis 6:15, the ark was approximately 450 feet long which would make it one of the largest wood ships ever built. In 1909, the schooner Wyoming was built by the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. Utilizing state-of-the-art shipbuilding technology, which would not have been available to Noah, she was the longest ship with a wood keel and hull ever built. And at 329 feet, the ship was approximately 120 feet shorter than Noah’s Ark. Percy & Small built sixe other schooners of 300 ft or more. citation needed Seagoing ships, by their nature, are subject to significant stress, and wood is not strong enough to prevent separation at each joint, thereby allowing for water to enter the hull. The Wyoming had 90 steel crossbraces to support the frame of the ship in the hope of reducing leakage.. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. Even utilizing the best marine engineering principles of the day, the steel bracing could not prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The boat had leaked every day that it was in the water until it sank 14 years later during a storm when it foundered. citation needed It was reported that the Wyoming would snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the amidships) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the amidships) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised.
Few other wood sailing ships were built greater than 300 feet in length. One ship, the Great Republic, built in 1853, was reported to be the longest wooden ship ever built with a length of 325 to 334 feet. This ship also had 90 steel or iron cross braces, each four inches wide, one inch thick and 36 feet long. Unfortunately, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda and was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet.
Given that relatively advanced shipbuilding techniques were able to build only marginally seaworthy ships, and ironworking sufficient to build cross braces was not available to Noah, there is little scientific evidence available that an Ark of that size is available..
The animals
According to Wilson and Perlman, 2000, 1.6 million species have been described to date. They estimate that there are probably 30-100 million total species of all organisms on the planet. [1] Given that the belief in Noah’s Ark presumes a belief in all of Genesis, all of those animals must have been in existence at that time, and for them to exist today, Noah would have need to “saved” them, according to the myth. Even eliminating sea-dwelling organisms, plants, and other non “air-breathing” animals, 50-100 thousand species would have had to been collected. Some biblical scholars insist that the interpretation of the accounts should be that only a representative of the genus of air-breathing animals were taken (using the word, “kind” of animals, as stated in Genesis), that would be anywhere from 5-15 thousand genera. citation needed However, the rate of speciation of complex organisms, such as vertebrates, is anywhere from 10 to 100 thousand years, which indicates that it would be nearly impossible for 15,000 genera to evolve into 50-100 thousand species air-breathing species in just a few thousand years.
Moreover, the people living at that time gave names to each “kind” of animal which is roughly at the level of species [2] Furthermore, the Creationist assumptions then mean that most of the species were left off the Ark (over 30-100 million). According to Genesis, "He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground". It becomes difficult to imagine how we have so many species so soon after a catastrophic flood. It would have also been nearly impossible for Noah, in seven days, to collect even a small portion of these species. Some species existed in polar regions (penguins and polar bears), some species on isolated islands in oceanic areas, and some species are only endemic to certain locations (such as Australian marsupials). Within the seven days time allocated to Noah according to the Genesis myth, there would not have been sufficient time to travel the earth to find all of the animals.
Additionally, only a small portion could fit on the Ark, no matter how it was constructed. The weight of the animals would have unbalanced the ship, causing it to founder in rough seas. Predators and prey would have to be separated and fed; therefore, additional weight would have to be supported in the ship. Finally, some creationists and biblical literalists accept fossils as being the remnants of organisms that perished in the flood. This belies the fact that dinosaurs and other extinct animals do not exist, so were not brought aboard the mythological ark.
The Flood
Analysis of the possibility of the flood can be broken into three sections:
I'm glad we're in agreement on the principle. I'm not happy with the way my last version reads; it needs to be completely rewritten to orient the text differently. (As it is, it's basically an algorithm, and algorithms are hard to portray in text without resorting to the imperative.) I will make another stab at it after I've folded my last load of laundry. :-) -- Tkynerd 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You're a naughty boy for engaging people in off-topic chat on Talk:Discovery Institute. I thought of making it worse, then recanted, but thought you might like to see my draft response. Please also remember that some people are blindly ignorant and annoying like a fox ;) .. dave souza, talk 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
But is interesting, that even if we reach down to community colleges and retired scientists etc, it is still hard to come up with 5. So what does that tell us?-- Filll 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Filll, please stop offering the troll food, he'll never get the hint at this rate.
FeloniousMonk
18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Good doggie. Don't bite me !! I hope I see your tail wagging.-- Filll 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. My general feeling on blogs is that they should be held to the same standard as any other media. For example, a blog that has received widespread recognition is no different (in my opinion) than a major syndicated column.
Tarinth 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets discuss further on the talk page of the article. And yes, There is no Hindu creationist movement. Infact RSS propaganda is that hindus knew about the evolution theory and dasavatars represent the evolution of man from fish to further species. As for Californian Hindu textbook controversy, atleast read the article so that you know what the controversy was about. nids (♂) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
See for example Avatar#Symbolism. I do agree that there may be certain anti-darwin Hindus, but to say that there is a hindu creationist movement is stretching it a lot. FYI, Sanskrit has more atheistic literature than any other language. nids (♂) 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am active right now. I would love to answer any question you have. Gizza Chat © 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm arguing for a Keep on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_beauty ... It isn't specific to Evolution, but I think it presents information that isn't replicated elsewhere. I've recently added information to the article that presents some of its criticism. Not many people have had much input on the AfD, but I thought you might add your thoughts. Whether you're for or against is not important to me--I just think it needs adequate discussion. Tarinth 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope I do not say anything offensive so please bear with me. I know next to nothing about Hinduism.
Sorry for so many questions. I really know nothing at all and I am just trying to understand.-- Filll 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Extra comment:
I think that you are an evolutionist. Creation/evolution has never been formally discussed in Hinduism. It errs on creation there are some hints of evolution in the scriptures. One line in the Bhagavad Gita acknowledges that there are microscopic organisms. Those who believe in reincarnation, state in an order very close to how they evolved. In vertabrates for example, fish -> frog ->reptile ->bird -> mammals. The Dasaavatara also resembles evolution. Hinduism believes in cyclic universes of every 20 billion yers or so. But overall, is does err on creation because of its belief in God (by most). I don't consider theism to mean creationism though. There would be some who say that the reason the Big Bang happened was an action by the Formless, Infinite Being called Brahman ( Advaita sect). Creationism relies on God but evolutionism doesn't rely on no God. Einstein, proposer of the theory of relativity, father of quantum physics believed in God. So did Newton and Galileo despite their controversies with Church.
Hope that answers your queries. Gizza Chat © 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for answering. I hope I did not offend and I do not want to offend in any way shape or form. Permit me to ask a few more questions then:
Roughly what fraction of Hindus would you find who claimed, based on Vedic scriptures or teachings:
It is a fact that in the world almost all the academic literature in English about Hinduism, even by Hindu writers, bears the western influence, and that, none of these books represent the correct view of total authentic Hinduism. Historians forget that one cannot determine the history of Bharatvarsh on meager archaeological findings of coins, toys and pots. Whereas the general history of Bharatvarsh is already written in its scriptures and the Puranas whose texts and the philosophical descriptions are the outcome of the Gracious and benevolent minds of eternal Saints.
In no way could there be any comparison of the western religions (which are based on mythologies) with the Hindu Vedic religion which is eternal, universal and is directly revealed by the supreme God.
Divine writings cannot be analyzed in a material way. How could a worldly being, possessed with the vehemence of his own passions and desires, try to argue with the writings of Sages and Saints whose entire life was a divine benevolence for the souls of the world? You should know that all of our religious writings are Divine facts, and facts always remain facts, they cannot become myths. Using the word myth for our religious history is a serious spiritual transgression.
-- Filll 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well i'm not offended or anything! It is just that you have messed up your references... Calif.Txt.Book doesnt even remotely belong here. Hindutva is a poliical movement rather than a religious, creationism i daresay is hardly on top of their minds! Creation isnt even central to Hinduism.
Whats more calling Hindutva a supreamacist movement is nothing but far from thruth. Though i'm not their supporter, i know better! अमेय आर्यन DaBrood © 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well Hindutva is an ideology rather than an organisation. rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is its main proponents.
Cheers,
अमेय आर्यन DaBrood © 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the disussion to here, that way there will be more of a diverse answerers. Thank you for your interest. CHeers! — Arjun 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you're getting alot of good answers from people who are more familiar with the broader aspects of Hinduism than myself. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought you'd get a kick out of this. Someone has made a page documenting the dates that athletes have been arrested, and is justifying it based on..."There's a page on the timeline of the Big Bang":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Athelete_arrests
Hello Filll - in response to your questions regarding the International Society for Krishna Consciousness on the Hinduism noticeboard please see the above linked article, it is pretty accurate. You might also find Hare Krishna, Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism interesting. Iskcon (in their aims) are a 'non-sectarian movement' based on the scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita which are classified as Hindu texts. Thus philosophically Iskcon shares many similarities with Hindu traditions (as well as with other world religions). From a theological perspective it's correct to call Iskcon a sect of Hinduism, but for followers this would not be the case. To quote the movements founder:
Hoping to be of assistance, ys, Gouranga(UK) 09:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You need to come in for a few of your comments. A couple of people are trying to show how horribly we treated this guy. Whatever. Orangemarlin 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
These guys are more defensive than Christian creationists could ever be. It doesn't sound like you have dug up anyone who knows both the religion and its creationist philosophy enough to add and revise. Orangemarlin 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I found the introduction to article overly defensive and seemingly designed to appease Hindu sensibilities, so I have taken the liberty to rewrite it a bit. Hope I have not interrupted a work-in-progress ! By the way, do you know of any academic study of the issue ? I'd be interested in (and able to) look it up and contribute to the article. By the way, I think "Hinduism and creationism" will be a better title for the article. Abecedare 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not remove the Ganesh picture, but I can understand why it was done.
Hope that answers your question. Abecedare 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
Hello, you used the {{ helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.)— D e on555 talk desk sign here! 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:)
—
D
e
on555
talk
desk
sign here!
01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Here is some information that you may find interesting/useful (I forewarn you that I'll perhaps be over simplifying a complex topic):
In summary, while Hinduism/Hindus/Hindutva do have many flaws and deficiencies, promoting creationism is not a prominent one among them. So while, we should write an article detailing the cases of anti-evolutionary Hindus -we should make sure that the coverage is in balance with the importance of the issue within the religion/society. Hope my comments help ! Abecedare 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I seem to have lost the thread of the conversation. Can you please remind me what your recent comment "That is what the references say. If you have references that say the contrary, please produce them so they can be incorporated" was in reference to ? Thanks. Abecedare 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You posted a comment on my talk page regarding the notability of somebody. As a newpage patroller, I tag for speedy deletion several pages a day. I am unsure as to which article you are referring, so please feel free to comment back regarding this article in question. -- Адам12901 Talk 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the restoration to October. I've restored to Candorwien's last version. Adam Cuerden talk 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I read your rendition of the searches (or at least I think it was your version) on the discussion page. I wanted to discuss it here in the hopes that it will limit some of the trolls from causing a war. I have a few points that I think will go far towards my idea of NPOV and reducing some of the undue weight given to the Creationists running about trying to find this mythological ark:
I just don't want to encourage a casual reader that there is real science here. It frustrates me. Orangemarlin 07:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that i have moved "Hindusim and Creationism" to "Hinduism and creationism" so that the title follows the wikipedia manual of style. I have also fixed the double-redirects from earlier moves. Hopefully this will be the last move ! Abecedare 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not know how many Hindus there are in the Phillipines, although I assume there are some. I just didnt get to look at the article. I am glad to incorporate articles and viewpoints from those that disagree; that is what makes this topic interesting to the reader. Hopefully if it is better balanced it will not be such a magnet for attacks. I am wondering if it needs some documentation of the varying POV about ISKCON: some claim that ISKCON is part of Hinduism, while others disagree and claim that ISKCON is not part of Hinduism. Some claim that ISKCON itself disavows Hinduism; I do not know if this is true or not.-- Filll 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Please review my suggestion at Talk:Hinduism and creationism#Lead. Abecedare 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Just making sure you saw it on my talk page, I kind of took a long time getting around to it, for some reason, whenever I try to debate someone for too long on Wikipedia I just start losing gusto.... Homestarmy 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your message. Can you please point out which page may need the tag ? Abecedare 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Still need wikifying. DGG 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's the simplest proper way & anything less invites negative comment. DGG 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for your kind words. It's reinvigorating and calming at the same time. Whatever the result, it was already worth it to have made a few very nice new acquaintances. Sending you wishes of peace and my sincerest thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I finally wrote some additional definitions for the old genetics glossary idea, which also thanks to Willow, resides in a fancy template at Template:Genetics glossary. The collapsible template version has now been added it to the gene article. What do you think? I'm a little apprehensive about the positioning, since putting it at the top requires the browser to reformat the whole page every time you expand/hide a box, but putting it at the bottom of the article isn't very useful. I almost want a floating div, but floating expandable boxes will probably make old browsers faceplant.
As for the content, do you think that's enough basic definitions, or do any of them need further simplification? Anything obvious I missed that would be useful (or anything excessive in there)? Once this is sorted out, we can add it to related (ought-to-be-)basic-level articles like genetics; I imagine that would obviate the need for introduction to genetics? Opabinia regalis 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Please send me links to the other articles you mention. If they've been deleted tell me the name & date & I will ask for undeletion. If what we are posting gets no attention, instead of just removing tags I will nominate all the questionable ones for AfD, which is very visible--about 30 regular followers. DGG 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the following section to Noah's ark, but everytime I paste it in, it causes the bottom part of the article to disappear. Can you help me out? here's what I wrote:
The Ark
According to Genesis 6:15, the ark was approximately 450 feet long which would make it one of the largest wood ships ever built. In 1909, the schooner Wyoming was built by the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. Utilizing state-of-the-art shipbuilding technology, which would not have been available to Noah, she was the longest ship with a wood keel and hull ever built. And at 329 feet, the ship was approximately 120 feet shorter than Noah’s Ark. Percy & Small built sixe other schooners of 300 ft or more. citation needed Seagoing ships, by their nature, are subject to significant stress, and wood is not strong enough to prevent separation at each joint, thereby allowing for water to enter the hull. The Wyoming had 90 steel crossbraces to support the frame of the ship in the hope of reducing leakage.. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. Even utilizing the best marine engineering principles of the day, the steel bracing could not prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The boat had leaked every day that it was in the water until it sank 14 years later during a storm when it foundered. citation needed It was reported that the Wyoming would snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the amidships) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the amidships) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised.
Few other wood sailing ships were built greater than 300 feet in length. One ship, the Great Republic, built in 1853, was reported to be the longest wooden ship ever built with a length of 325 to 334 feet. This ship also had 90 steel or iron cross braces, each four inches wide, one inch thick and 36 feet long. Unfortunately, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda and was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet.
Given that relatively advanced shipbuilding techniques were able to build only marginally seaworthy ships, and ironworking sufficient to build cross braces was not available to Noah, there is little scientific evidence available that an Ark of that size is available..
The animals
According to Wilson and Perlman, 2000, 1.6 million species have been described to date. They estimate that there are probably 30-100 million total species of all organisms on the planet. [1] Given that the belief in Noah’s Ark presumes a belief in all of Genesis, all of those animals must have been in existence at that time, and for them to exist today, Noah would have need to “saved” them, according to the myth. Even eliminating sea-dwelling organisms, plants, and other non “air-breathing” animals, 50-100 thousand species would have had to been collected. Some biblical scholars insist that the interpretation of the accounts should be that only a representative of the genus of air-breathing animals were taken (using the word, “kind” of animals, as stated in Genesis), that would be anywhere from 5-15 thousand genera. citation needed However, the rate of speciation of complex organisms, such as vertebrates, is anywhere from 10 to 100 thousand years, which indicates that it would be nearly impossible for 15,000 genera to evolve into 50-100 thousand species air-breathing species in just a few thousand years.
Moreover, the people living at that time gave names to each “kind” of animal which is roughly at the level of species [2] Furthermore, the Creationist assumptions then mean that most of the species were left off the Ark (over 30-100 million). According to Genesis, "He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground". It becomes difficult to imagine how we have so many species so soon after a catastrophic flood. It would have also been nearly impossible for Noah, in seven days, to collect even a small portion of these species. Some species existed in polar regions (penguins and polar bears), some species on isolated islands in oceanic areas, and some species are only endemic to certain locations (such as Australian marsupials). Within the seven days time allocated to Noah according to the Genesis myth, there would not have been sufficient time to travel the earth to find all of the animals.
Additionally, only a small portion could fit on the Ark, no matter how it was constructed. The weight of the animals would have unbalanced the ship, causing it to founder in rough seas. Predators and prey would have to be separated and fed; therefore, additional weight would have to be supported in the ship. Finally, some creationists and biblical literalists accept fossils as being the remnants of organisms that perished in the flood. This belies the fact that dinosaurs and other extinct animals do not exist, so were not brought aboard the mythological ark.
The Flood
Analysis of the possibility of the flood can be broken into three sections:
I'm glad we're in agreement on the principle. I'm not happy with the way my last version reads; it needs to be completely rewritten to orient the text differently. (As it is, it's basically an algorithm, and algorithms are hard to portray in text without resorting to the imperative.) I will make another stab at it after I've folded my last load of laundry. :-) -- Tkynerd 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You're a naughty boy for engaging people in off-topic chat on Talk:Discovery Institute. I thought of making it worse, then recanted, but thought you might like to see my draft response. Please also remember that some people are blindly ignorant and annoying like a fox ;) .. dave souza, talk 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
But is interesting, that even if we reach down to community colleges and retired scientists etc, it is still hard to come up with 5. So what does that tell us?-- Filll 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Filll, please stop offering the troll food, he'll never get the hint at this rate.
FeloniousMonk
18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Good doggie. Don't bite me !! I hope I see your tail wagging.-- Filll 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)