Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-19T15:49:39Z

Mike M: /* The Fourth Day */

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. But "day" has a range of meanings, including a long period of time, or an era ("In my father's day..."). The same applies to ''yom''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==needless revert==
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why do you try to exclude some scholars on the basis of religious affiliation? That is unfair discrimination and biased.
::Accepting a late date of compilation would require accepting that the record is not eyewitness testimony for a large part of it, and would make other parts of the Bible incorrect. For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.
::I strongly suspect that your claims about the origin of Hebrew are wrong. Even if you are correct with that, it doesn't follow that the Israelites didn't use ''another'' language (and translate later). Remember Moses was raised in Pharaoh's house in Egypt, and Egypt had writing, so Moses would have been able to write. Do you think that no other Israelite of his time could write? That's would be nonsense. Ergo, the Israelites had a written language (whether or not it was Hebrew) from the time of Moses at the latest.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.' Ah, now there's a point (albeit a very old one based, as usual, on backward reasoning that attempts to derive fact from belief) - and what might ''that'' suggest, I wonder? Follow the logic! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That was not meant as a line of reasoning, but as an explanation of the consequences. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Africans did what? This is too funny. More accurate would be that Cush decended from Africans (but so did we all). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Claiming that Cush (a character in biblical history) descended from Africans because we all descended from Africans (an aspect of the atheist origins myth) is a silly amalgam of two opposing ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::What precisely is your definition of science?
::::The "letters theory"? You mean the Documentary Hypothesis? Not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit. ''Real'' bible scholars know that the bible was written by several authors with several purposes. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You just answered it. "not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit." Who's doing the changing, I wonder? And just who are these "real" Bible scholars who know these several authors they claim wrote it? Just what were these scholars' motives? And who exactly were these authors? Don't you even see what is going on? A bunch of scholars have made a claim that certain people wrote the Bible according to the "documentary hypothesis", and they cannot even name them, let alone prove their theory. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: One need not give them names like "Charles" or "Franklin" - they didn't sign their works as such. As to the scholars: R.E. Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?", P.C. Craigie, "The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth & Content" and Rev. Ken Collins, "The Torah in modern scholarship" (the last can be found on the [http://www.kencollins.com/Bible-p2.htm web]). --21:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Why? Which research is not acceptable? Is research from apologists acceptable? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Is research by critics acceptable? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Which research? I put it in my previous message: research that is the most relevant and accurate. Yes, that can be from both sides, but it should be from experts, not amateur bibliosceptics (for example). Other than being an evangelical atheist with qualifications in scientific fields, I don't know what justification there is for including Richard Dawkins as an authority in the [[Conservapedia talk:Alleged Bible contradictions]] page, for example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::He isn't quoted as an 'authority', merely as a 'critical scholar', following a complaint retailed by Conservative that the critics aren't multidisciplinary enough. You can't have it both ways! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you are quoting a 'critical scholar' in support of an argument, you are using him as some sort of 'authority'. I didn't notice Conservative's complaint, and wouldn't agree with it, as you've stated it there at least. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::''But Jesus beheld them and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God, all things are possible.'' Matthew 19:26. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)

:Phil, based on the "hands" argument you raised on the Alleged Bible contradictions page, I humbly suggest you steer clear of using words like logical or illogical. "...why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?" -- ever heard of photosynthesis? Hey, if you were right above that yom could mean a long, indeterminate period (a "when") why are you insisting on a 24 hour day? Oh, what about Genesis 2, the plants came after Adam in that one. What logic are you searching for or professing to be expert in? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'd appreciate it if you'd actually try and answer or refute my questions/arguments instead of just dismissing them as though they are self-evidently incorrect. Of course I've heard of photosynthesis, but plants can survive 24 hours without the sun, can't they? Just like ''day'', ''yom'' can mean a 24-hour day or an indefinite period of time ''depending on the context''. The context of Genesis 1 (numbered days, days have evenings and mornings), indicates normal days, not indefinite periods of time. Without looking it up, from memory the Genesis 2 reference to plants is specifically to planting the ones that were in the garden, not a general reference to the creation of plants. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Phil, Being too literal just plays into the hands of the secularist. If God separated the light from the darkness and created day and night 1:4-5. Why did he do it again 1:14? --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 23:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Genesis doesn't say that he did it again in 1:14. Compromising what the Bible actually means with secular viewpoints plays into their hands. Standing firm on God's word doesn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Revised Standard Version: Gen.1:4-5"...and God '''separated the light from the darkness'''. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night..." Gen. 1:14 "And God said,"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to '''separate the day from the night'''..."

::::Hmmm, I guess I read it too quickly and was looking specifically for references to light and dark, not day and night.
::::So to answer your question, God separated light from dark on day 1, when he created light. But this was a temporary light, as the sun wasn't created until day 4. On day 4, he created the sun to take over the role of separating day from night.
::::''Why'' He did it that way is probably a theological question, and one I've heard numerous times was so that we would understand (from the Sun not being created until day 4) that the Sun is not the source of all life and therefore not to be worshipped.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The only way to answer what the Jewish writer of Genesis meant would be to consult a Jewish commentary. Rabbi Rashi (1040-1105) wrote the first comprehensive commentary of the Talmud. He both interpreted day as being a longer period of time and said that the Sun was created on the first day and placed in the sky on the fourth day. I see no better answer then that.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Creationism

2007-04-09T15:50:49Z

Mike M: /* Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-09T15:23:10Z

Mike M:

{{protect|CPWebmaster}}

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. [[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Climbing Mount Improbable]] provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Here, Hear==
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist vs. Scientists ==
Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. [[User:Order]] 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)

::The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)

::::In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Statements and Analogies==
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Talk:Creationism

2007-04-09T01:39:36Z

Mike M:

Creationism

2007-04-08T20:11:18Z

Mike M:

'''WARNING''' ''This page is temporarily unprotected, we will not hesitate to reprotect it if you remove information and try to make the theory sound like fact''

'''Creationism''' is the "''Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible''."<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/creationism American Heritage Dictionary]</ref> More generaly, creationism is the belief that the earth and everything in it was created by [[God]] or some other supreme being. Those that hold the views of ''Creationism'' are referred to as ''Creationists''.<ref>"creationist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist>.</ref>

Creationism (especially the most literal forms) conflicts with the [[Theory of evolution]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp]</ref> Not all Christian denominations embrace creationism with the literal Genesis interpretations. Many non-Christian sects believe in a form of creationism, including American Indian religions, Hindus, and the Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

==History==

== Creationist categories ==
There are multiple different overarching categories and subcategories within the realm of Creationism, this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the notable ones.
*Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] generally accept a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, insisting that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp] In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the young earth creationist view.<ref>[http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm]</ref>
*[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] take the Bible's creation account less literally, and agree with the idea that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept the idea that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally interpret the Bible by suggesting that the days in chapter one of [[Genesis]] were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood.
*The [[Omphalos argument]] first expounded in a book titled Omphalos by [[Philip Henry Gosse]] (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, much as Adam must have appeared to be fully grown even when he was but a single day in chronological age. The theological objection to this argument is found in Romans 1:20 when Paul declares that the nature of God can be discerned by observing the universe, ''"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead..."''. If the Omphalos argument is true, then not only is our evidence of the universe's great age untrustworthy, but the God revealed by examining this cosmic deception is untrustworthy as well.

==Controversy==
=== Creationism and Intelligent Design ===
There is considerable disagreement on whether or not [[Intelligent Design]] amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas.

For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationist [[Paul Nelson]], while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>. Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity (possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatible with life.

Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>

===Offensive Terminology===
Some Young Earth Creationists say that the term ''Creationism'' is simply a false atheistic, Evolutionist perception, or pejorative assertion that believing in a God means that all science and intellectual thinking has to be left behind. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization.

== See also ==
*[[Lists of Creationists]]

==External links ==
===Young Earth Creationist Organizations ===
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers In Genesis - Get Answers]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] - Although not completely Young Earth, [[CreationWiki]] is a mainly Young Earth Creationist Wiki.

=== Old Earth Creationists ===
[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe, an Old Earth Creationist Ministry]

==References and Footnotes==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationism| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Theism]]

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-06T14:28:14Z

Mike M:

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-05T14:55:11Z

Mike M:

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-05T14:20:20Z

Mike M:

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. But "day" has a range of meanings, including a long period of time, or an era ("In my father's day..."). The same applies to ''yom''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==needless revert==
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why do you try to exclude some scholars on the basis of religious affiliation? That is unfair discrimination and biased.
::Accepting a late date of compilation would require accepting that the record is not eyewitness testimony for a large part of it, and would make other parts of the Bible incorrect. For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.
::I strongly suspect that your claims about the origin of Hebrew are wrong. Even if you are correct with that, it doesn't follow that the Israelites didn't use ''another'' language (and translate later). Remember Moses was raised in Pharaoh's house in Egypt, and Egypt had writing, so Moses would have been able to write. Do you think that no other Israelite of his time could write? That's would be nonsense. Ergo, the Israelites had a written language (whether or not it was Hebrew) from the time of Moses at the latest.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.' Ah, now there's a point (albeit a very old one based, as usual, on backward reasoning that attempts to derive fact from belief) - and what might ''that'' suggest, I wonder? Follow the logic! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That was not meant as a line of reasoning, but as an explanation of the consequences. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Africans did what? This is too funny. More accurate would be that Cush decended from Africans (but so did we all). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Claiming that Cush (a character in biblical history) descended from Africans because we all descended from Africans (an aspect of the atheist origins myth) is a silly amalgam of two opposing ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::What precisely is your definition of science?
::::The "letters theory"? You mean the Documentary Hypothesis? Not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit. ''Real'' bible scholars know that the bible was written by several authors with several purposes. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You just answered it. "not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit." Who's doing the changing, I wonder? And just who are these "real" Bible scholars who know these several authors they claim wrote it? Just what were these scholars' motives? And who exactly were these authors? Don't you even see what is going on? A bunch of scholars have made a claim that certain people wrote the Bible according to the "documentary hypothesis", and they cannot even name them, let alone prove their theory. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: One need not give them names like "Charles" or "Franklin" - they didn't sign their works as such. As to the scholars: R.E. Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?", P.C. Craigie, "The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth & Content" and Rev. Ken Collins, "The Torah in modern scholarship" (the last can be found on the [http://www.kencollins.com/Bible-p2.htm web]). --21:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Why? Which research is not acceptable? Is research from apologists acceptable? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Is research by critics acceptable? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Which research? I put it in my previous message: research that is the most relevant and accurate. Yes, that can be from both sides, but it should be from experts, not amateur bibliosceptics (for example). Other than being an evangelical atheist with qualifications in scientific fields, I don't know what justification there is for including Richard Dawkins as an authority in the [[Conservapedia talk:Alleged Bible contradictions]] page, for example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::He isn't quoted as an 'authority', merely as a 'critical scholar', following a complaint retailed by Conservative that the critics aren't multidisciplinary enough. You can't have it both ways! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you are quoting a 'critical scholar' in support of an argument, you are using him as some sort of 'authority'. I didn't notice Conservative's complaint, and wouldn't agree with it, as you've stated it there at least. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)

:Phil, based on the "hands" argument you raised on the Alleged Bible contradictions page, I humbly suggest you steer clear of using words like logical or illogical. "...why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?" -- ever heard of photosynthesis? Hey, if you were right above that yom could mean a long, indeterminate period (a "when") why are you insisting on a 24 hour day? Oh, what about Genesis 2, the plants came after Adam in that one. What logic are you searching for or professing to be expert in? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'd appreciate it if you'd actually try and answer or refute my questions/arguments instead of just dismissing them as though they are self-evidently incorrect. Of course I've heard of photosynthesis, but plants can survive 24 hours without the sun, can't they? Just like ''day'', ''yom'' can mean a 24-hour day or an indefinite period of time ''depending on the context''. The context of Genesis 1 (numbered days, days have evenings and mornings), indicates normal days, not indefinite periods of time. Without looking it up, from memory the Genesis 2 reference to plants is specifically to planting the ones that were in the garden, not a general reference to the creation of plants. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Phil, Being too literal just plays into the hands of the secularist. If God separated the light from the darkness and created day and night 1:4-5. Why did he do it again 1:14? --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 23:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Genesis doesn't say that he did it again in 1:14. Compromising what the Bible actually means with secular viewpoints plays into their hands. Standing firm on God's word doesn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Revised Standard Version: Gen.1:4-5"...and God '''separated the light from the darkness'''. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night..." Gen. 1:14 "And God said,"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to '''separate the day from the night'''..."

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-05T03:02:34Z

Mike M:

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. But "day" has a range of meanings, including a long period of time, or an era ("In my father's day..."). The same applies to ''yom''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==needless revert==
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Africans did what? This is too funny. More accurate would be that Cush decended from Africans (but so did we all). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::What precisely is your definition of science?
::::The "letters theory"? You mean the Documentary Hypothesis? Not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit. ''Real'' bible scholars know that the bible was written by several authors with several purposes. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You just answered it. "not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit." Who's doing the changing, I wonder? And just who are these "real" Bible scholars who know these several authors they claim wrote it? Just what were these scholars' motives? And who exactly were these authors? Don't you even see what is going on? A bunch of scholars have made a claim that certain people wrote the Bible according to the "documentary hypothesis", and they cannot even name them, let alone prove their theory. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: One need not give them names like "Charles" or "Franklin" - they didn't sign their works as such. As to the scholars: R.E. Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?", P.C. Craigie, "The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth & Content" and Rev. Ken Collins, "The Torah in modern scholarship" (the last can be found on the [http://www.kencollins.com/Bible-p2.htm web]). --21:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Why? Which research is not acceptable? Is research from apologists acceptable? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Is research by critics acceptable? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)

:Phil, based on the "hands" argument you raised on the Alleged Bible contradictions page, I humbly suggest you steer clear of using words like logical or illogical. "...why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?" -- ever heard of photosynthesis? Hey, if you were right above that yom could mean a long, indeterminate period (a "when") why are you insisting on a 24 hour day? Oh, what about Genesis 2, the plants came after Adam in that one. What logic are you searching for or professing to be expert in? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Phil, Being too literal just plays into the hands of the secularist. If God separated the light from the darkness and created day and night 1:4-5. Why did he do it again 1:14? --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 23:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Definition of God

2007-04-04T17:04:46Z

Mike M:

== Definition of God ==

A 'definition of God' is fairly hard to come by; in the major Abrahamic and Vedic faiths, God (in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), Brahman (in Hinduism) and Buddha Nature (in Buddhism) is often described as the infinite, ultimately unknowable reality outside of space and time that brought forth the universe. In science this is known as the Universal Force. Thomas Aquinas developed the idea of the [[Via Negativa]] to deal with this; he argued that instead of finding adjectives to describe God (e.g. 'God is X'), it is more profitable to find words which God is not - 'God is not limited', 'God is not evil', etc.

Ontological argument

2007-04-04T17:03:52Z

Mike M:

The ontological argument is a failed attempt to argue for the existence of God. It is a [[deductive]] argument based on the [[definition of God]], originally proposed by [[Anselm]] and later used by [[Descartes]]. Anselm's form runs as follows:

God is the most supremely perfect being- a being with all possible perfections

It is better to exist than to not exist

Therefore, God exists

Descartes' form is similar:

God is a being with all possible perfections

Existence is a [[predicate]] of such a being

Therefore, God exists

Its deceptively simple appearance often causes confusion and a 'mental double-take' when it is first presented. It has the advantage that even [[atheists]] tend to agree with the first premise defining God, and from that follows in a strong, apprantly deductive fashion. Anselm also attempted to bypass [[Hume's Fork]], stating that 'God exists' is a unique type of statement, as it is analytically derived, yet states something about the physical world. He called this an 'analytic existensial' statement. The claim of a 'unique' statement exempt from the laws of reasoning often causes concern about the validity of any argument including it- see also [[Tillich]]'s [[symbolism]].

Even in Anselm's day, however, problems were identified with the ontological argument. [[Guanilo]], a contemporary of Anselm, used [[reductio ad absurdum]] and envisaged a 'lost, yet most perfect island'. Guanilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists.

[[Kant]] weighed in against Decartes' version, challenging the second premise that existence is a predicate. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.

Finally, [[Davies]] identified the critical failing of the argument. As presented, the argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. Ie, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first premise correctly reads 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. The ontological argument is therefore [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to an existent of God to an existent God, and [[fatally flawed]] in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.

[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]

Definition of God

2007-04-04T17:01:45Z

Mike M:

== Defintion of God ==

A 'definition of God' is fairly hard to come by; in the major Abrahamic and Vedic faiths, God (in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), Brahman (in Hinduism) and Buddha Nature (in Buddhism) is often described as the infinite, ultimately unknowable reality outside of space and time that brought forth the universe. In science this is known as the Universal Force. Thomas Aquinas developed the idea of the [[Via Negativa]] to deal with this; he argued that instead of finding adjectives to describe God (e.g. 'God is X'), it is more profitable to find words which God is not - 'God is not limited', 'God is not evil', etc.

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-04T13:38:20Z

Mike M:

Defintion of God

2007-04-03T20:43:25Z

Mike M:

== Definition of God ==
God is the infinite, ultimately unknowable force from which the universe was created.The first cause that is beyond scientific observation. The question is not is there a God, but to what extent he interacts with his creation.

Genesis

2007-04-03T18:59:48Z

Mike M:

[[Image:Genesis1.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Genesis as seen in the [[Bible]]]]
''For the rock band Genesis, please see [[Genesis (band)]]''

'''Genesis''' the book of beginnings, and the first book of the Jewish [[Torah]] as well as the [[Bible]], recounts the beginning of all life on [[earth]] and the social and cultural formations of mankind. It stands as the introduction of the entire body of the Bible, of the creation of the nation of Israel, and of the earliest promises of the coming redeemer.

==Name==
The [[Hebrews]] had called the First Book of Moses by the name of ''bereisheet'' or ''be'reshith'', meaning "in the beginning", based on the three words which start Genesis. The [[Septuagint]], the ancient Greek-language version of the Old Testament, rendered this title under the name ''he biblos geneseos'', from which came the Greek word ''genesis'', meaning "origin". (Unger, pg. 396)

==Overview==
The fifty chapters of the book of Genesis can be divided into two parts: the early, primeval history of man from the [[Creation]] to the fall of the [[Tower of Babel]], and the [[Patriarchal History of Israel]] from [[Abraham]] and his son [[Issac]], grandson [[Jacob]], and Jacob's sons, primarily [[Joseph]], although there is a continuous genealogy connecting both parts.

===The Creation===
''In the beginning, God [[creation|created]] the [[heaven]]s and earth''. This is one of the most famous statements in the Bible, and it starts the account of God's creation. Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 involved the first seven days in history:
*The first day, the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and light (Gen. 1:1 through 1:5).
*The second day, the creation of a "firmament" or ''expanse'', separating the waters (Gen. 1:6 through 1:8).
*The third day, the creation of dry earth and plant life (Gen. 1:9 through 1:13).
*The fourth day, the Sun, the moon, and the stars, are placed in the sky, to mark the seasons (Gen. 1:14 through 1:19).
*The fifth day, the creation of the creatures of the sea and the fowl of the air (Gen. 1:20 through 1:23).
*The sixth day, the creation of the animals of the land, and the creation of Man (Gen. 1:24 through 1:31).
*The seventh day, on which God rested from his task of creating (Gen. 2:1 through 2:3).

The remainder of chapter 2 concentrates on the creation of Adam and Eve, and does not have the same chronological framework as chapter 1.
This and perceived differences or even contradictions between chapters 1 and 2 has led some to claim that the two chapters had separate origins and were conflicting creation accounts that have both been included in the one book.

One of these claimed [[Alleged Bible contradictions|contradictions]] is that the raw text of chapter 2 describes the creation of animals after the creation of Adam (verses 15-19 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19]), contrary to the clearly-stated order in chapter 1. Creationists usually respond by asserting that chapter 2 is not intended as a chronological list like chapter 1, and at least one modern Bible version exceptionally translates verse 19 as "The LORD God ''had formed''...the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19] (emphasis added), despite the fact that the tense and mood of the original Hebrew verb is [[imperfect (verb form)|imperfect]] ('formed' or 'was forming'), not [[pluperfect]] ('had formed').[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19] However, a number of fundamentalist commentators consider it appropriate to treat the verb as a pluperfect, based on its context rather than its strict grammatical form. <ref>Quoted in [http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html Creation Account, Times Two], by J. P. Holding</ref> But this then raises the question of whether chapter 1 is really part of the context of chapter 2 in the first place, and not a contradiction of it - which returns us to our starting point.

The fall of mankind into sin began when the serpent questioned one of God's commands, namely not to eat of the [[tree of knowledge of good and evil]], and convinced [[Eve]] to eat the fruit, followed by [[Adam]]. The result of disobeying this command resulted in the driving away of Adam and Eve from the [[Garden of Eden|garden]] to live a life of subsistence farming, and eventually dying. Eve was additionally cursed with painful childbearing, and to be subservient to Adam. All of these curses were applied to Adam and Eve's decendents also. Genesis 3:15 is also cited as being the first reference to the coming [[Messiah]].

The creation of man was by a plural form of God, ''Elohim'' (Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let '''us''' make man in '''our''' image, after '''our''' likeness"). Some Christians, but no Jews, cite this and other plural references to God in the Old Testament as ancient proof in Hebrew of the existence of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-nouns-pronouns-verbs-adverbs.htm</ref>

===The Flood===
The wickedness of mankind is so great the God repents of His creation and decides to destroy it all through a flood. Only Noah is righteous before God, and He instruct Noah to build an [[Noah's Ark|ark]] to carry himself, his family, and pairs of every creature on earth and in the air. God then destroys the earth with water, the ark riding the waves until the waters abate and it comes to rest at the mountains of Ararat. God makes a promise never to destroy the earth by flood again, and shows Noah the sign of that covenant, a [[rainbow]].

The precise nature of the crimes for which God destroyed all life other than that on the ark is not specified.<ref>Genesis 6:5 - ''And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.''</ref>

Noah is also the first planter of a vineyard, and during a drunken sleep one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon his son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendants would be slaves to the his brothers Shem and Japheth. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the Table of Nations, which ends Noah's story.

===Abraham===
Genesis 11 begins the story of Abram, who leaves the city of [[Ur]] with his wife, Sarai, on a journey towards Canaan, where God has shown him what He was going to do: ''I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.''

Sarai, being barren tells Abram to take Hagar, his Egyptian handmaiden, as wife. Hagar becomes pregnant with Ishmael, and God makes a promise that the child will be "a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him," with descendants beyond number.

God also makes a covenant with Abram: Abram will have many descendants as well as possession of the land of Canaan. Abram's name is changed to "Abraham”, and Sarai becomes "Sarah." A sign of the new covenant is the circumcision of all males. Abraham is also told of the fact that Sarah will bear a son who will be named Issac, and it is through Issac and his descendants that the covenant will be established; although Ishmael is to be a great nation, he is left out of God’s covenant.

Two angels appeared to Abraham and told him that Sarah, barren for years, will bear a son. They also tell him that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is very great, and God will shortly punish them, Abraham asking if the cities be spared if so much as ten righteous men are found inside.

The two angels are received by Lot, much to the consternation of the townspeople who surround the house and demand sexual acts with the strangers; the townspeople are blinded, and the angels warn Lot and his family to flee immediately for the mountains and never look back. Both Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed by fire and brimstone; Lot’s wife turn back to look and is turned to a pillar of salt.

Sarah gives birth to Isaac, and at her insistence demands that Hagar and Ishmael are driven into the wilderness. While Ishmael is near dying, an angel speaks to Hagar and promises that God will not forget them, and will make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation.

God puts Abraham to the test by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham obeys God during his ultimate test: the sacrifice of his beloved son Issac; just as he is about to thrust the knife God restrains him, and promises descendants beyond numbering. Abraham dies later, ‘’full of years”, and is laid to rest in the Tomb of Machpelah in Hebron, which he had purchased shortly before as a place of rest for Sarah.

===Isaac and Jacob===
Isaac had prayed to God that He would deliver a child through Rebekah’s barren womb. He does, and Rebekah gives birth to the twins Esau and Jacob; but prior to the birth God had predicted division between the two, with the elder serving the younger. Esau, the elder, had despised his own birthright and sold it for a bowl of red porridge, allowing Jacob to enter his father’s tent and deceitfully take the blessing intended for Esau. He flees to Haran, the home of his uncle Laban. Along the way he has the dream of the ladder to Heaven, where God tells him of prosperity for himself and his descendants; he names the spot Bethel in commemoration.

Jacob had two wives, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Zilpah (Leah's handmaid), and Bilhah (Rachel's handmaid). Together they bore Jacob twelve sons:
*From Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulan.
*From Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin.
*From Zilpah: Gad, Asser.
*From Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali.

===Joseph===
Joseph, having angered his brothers through the dreams indicating his brothers would bow down before him in addition to a colorful coat given to him by his father, is bound and sold into slavery by his brothers’ wickedness, and claim to a bitter Jacob that Joseph was killed by a wild animal. His dreams while a slave in Egypt come to the attention of Pharaoh, who was troubled by a dream of seven withered cows and stalks of corn which ate seven fat cows and healthy stalks of corn. Joseph interprets the dream as that of Egypt going through seven years of plentiful harvests, followed by seven years of severe famine, and follows it up by asking Pharaoh to appoint a wise man over Egypt to ensure enough is collected and stored during the plentiful years to act as a hedge against the years of famine. Pharaoh responds by appointing Joseph himself in this position, and during the famine "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth."

Jacob, not knowing Joseph is still alive, sends his sons to buy grain in Egypt. The brothers appear before Joseph, but do not recognize him; Joseph however, recognizes them, and after a series of tests which convinces Joseph their characters have changed, reveals himself to them, convinces them that what happened in the past was God’s plan, and tells them to bring Jacob and their families to live in Egypt. Genesis ends with the blessing of Jacob’s children, his death, and the death of Joseph, who exhorts his brothers to carry his bones when they eventually return to the Promised Land.

==Authorship==
Biblical tradition within and without the Old Testament, Jesus in the New Testament, as well as extra-Biblical writers such as Josephus, Origen, the early church fathers and many others, have claimed Moses as the author of Genesis, written during the time of the Hebrew wanderings in the Wilderness, between 1440-1400 B.C. Certainly, Moses was well established to have written Genesis in Hebrew, Akkadian, or Egyptian; he was well educated and trained in the Egyptian court. Archaeology demonstrated that such a man did have the eductation necessary to accomplish this during that time in history. (Unger, pp. 35-35)

The higher critical view was that Moses did not write it. Some biblical scholars identified five separate authors of the five 'books of Moses'<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm Who Wrote The Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses?]</ref><ref>[http://lectionary.org/EXEG-English/OT/EOT01-Gen/Authorship-Genesis%20&%20Pentateuch.html Introduction to Genesis & the Pentateuch]</ref>. Although unidentified, each of these authors has been given the name of a letter:
* J who calls God ''YHWH'' (the ''Jehovist'' account), and who possibly wrote in the south of [[Judah]], written c. 850 B.C.
* E who uses ''Elohim'' ('the gods', 'the spirits') as God's name, and possibly wrote in [[Ephraim]], written c. 750 B.C.
* D who wrote the book of Deuteronomy, about 650 B.C.
* P who wrote an alternate history in what was called the ''Priestly Code'', about 500 B.C.
* R who joined the writings of J, E, D and P to form a single work.
Under this hypothesis, looking at the Creation story
* Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were written by P.
* Genesis 2:4 was written by R
* Genesis 2:5 through 4:26 were written by J.
This theory has gained in popularity since it was first proposed in the late 19th century. However, it is inevitably a product of modern rationalistic research and the application of literary criteria. Opponents of this research point to the fact that it is difficult to reconcile with the historical, miraculous, and prophetic elements which they claim to be basic to the first five books of the Bible (Unger, 397; Young, pp. 183-276).

By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the [[Torah]] is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.

==References==

<references/>

==Sources==
*Finkelstein, I. & Silberman, N.A. ''The Bible Unearthed'', Touchstone, 2001.
*Holy Bible, King James Version (''Thompson Chain Reference''), B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co. Indianapolis, IN 1982.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1966.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1967.
*Young, Edward J. ''Introduction to the Old Testament'', W.B. Eardmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1949.

==Links==
*[http://www.creationapologetics.org/table.html Table of Nations chart]
*[http://www.creationapologetics.org/creation.html Creation timeline]

[[Category:Old Testament]]

Defintion of God

2007-04-03T18:52:32Z

Mike M:

Defintion of God

2007-04-03T18:23:14Z

Mike M: New page: == Defintion of God ==

== Defintion of God ==

Genesis

2007-04-03T18:13:38Z

Mike M:

[[Image:Genesis1.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Genesis as seen in the [[Bible]]]]
''For the rock band Genesis, please see [[Genesis (band)]]''

'''Genesis''' the book of beginnings, and the first book of the Jewish [[Torah]] as well as the [[Bible]], recounts the beginning of all life on [[earth]] and the social and cultural formations of mankind. It stands as the introduction of the entire body of the Bible, of the creation of the nation of Israel, and of the earliest promises of the coming redeemer.

==Name==
The [[Hebrews]] had called the First Book of Moses by the name of ''bereisheet'' or ''be'reshith'', meaning "in the beginning", based on the three words which start Genesis. The [[Septuagint]], the ancient Greek-language version of the Old Testament, rendered this title under the name ''he biblos geneseos'', from which came the Greek word ''genesis'', meaning "origin". (Unger, pg. 396)

==Overview==
The fifty chapters of the book of Genesis can be divided into two parts: the early, primeval history of man from the [[Creation]] to the fall of the [[Tower of Babel]], and the [[Patriarchal History of Israel]] from [[Abraham]] and his son [[Issac]], grandson [[Jacob]], and Jacob's sons, primarily [[Joseph]], although there is a continuous genealogy connecting both parts.

===The Creation===
''In the beginning, God [[creation|created]] the [[heaven]]s and earth''. This is one of the most famous statements in the Bible, and it starts the account of God's creation. Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 involved the first seven days in history:
*The first day, the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and light (Gen. 1:1 through 1:5).
*The second day, the creation of a "firmament" or ''expanse'', separating the waters (Gen. 1:6 through 1:8).
*The third day, the creation of dry earth and plant life (Gen. 1:9 through 1:13).
*The fourth day, the Sun, the moon, and the stars, are placed in the sky, --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)to mark the seasons (Gen. 1:14 through 1:19).
*The fifth day, the creation of the creatures of the sea and the fowl of the air (Gen. 1:20 through 1:23).
*The sixth day, the creation of the animals of the land, and the creation of Man (Gen. 1:24 through 1:31).
*The seventh day, on which God rested from his task of creating (Gen. 2:1 through 2:3).

The remainder of chapter 2 concentrates on the creation of Adam and Eve, and does not have the same chronological framework as chapter 1.
This and perceived differences or even contradictions between chapters 1 and 2 has led some to claim that the two chapters had separate origins and were conflicting creation accounts that have both been included in the one book.

One of these claimed [[Alleged Bible contradictions|contradictions]] is that the raw text of chapter 2 describes the creation of animals after the creation of Adam (verses 15-19 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19]), contrary to the clearly-stated order in chapter 1. Creationists usually respond by asserting that chapter 2 is not intended as a chronological list like chapter 1, and at least one modern Bible version exceptionally translates verse 19 as "The LORD God ''had formed''...the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19] (emphasis added), despite the fact that the tense and mood of the original Hebrew verb is [[imperfect (verb form)|imperfect]] ('formed' or 'was forming'), not [[pluperfect]] ('had formed').[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19] However, a number of fundamentalist commentators consider it appropriate to treat the verb as a pluperfect, based on its context rather than its strict grammatical form. <ref>Quoted in [http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html Creation Account, Times Two], by J. P. Holding</ref> But this then raises the question of whether chapter 1 is really part of the context of chapter 2 in the first place, and not a contradiction of it - which returns us to our starting point.

The fall of mankind into sin began when the serpent questioned one of God's commands, namely not to eat of the [[tree of knowledge of good and evil]], and convinced [[Eve]] to eat the fruit, followed by [[Adam]]. The result of disobeying this command resulted in the driving away of Adam and Eve from the [[Garden of Eden|garden]] to live a life of subsistence farming, and eventually dying. Eve was additionally cursed with painful childbearing, and to be subservient to Adam. All of these curses were applied to Adam and Eve's decendents also. Genesis 3:15 is also cited as being the first reference to the coming [[Messiah]].

The creation of man was by a plural form of God, ''Elohim'' (Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let '''us''' make man in '''our''' image, after '''our''' likeness"). Some Christians, but no Jews, cite this and other plural references to God in the Old Testament as ancient proof in Hebrew of the existence of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-nouns-pronouns-verbs-adverbs.htm</ref>

===The Flood===
The wickedness of mankind is so great the God repents of His creation and decides to destroy it all through a flood. Only Noah is righteous before God, and He instruct Noah to build an [[Noah's Ark|ark]] to carry himself, his family, and pairs of every creature on earth and in the air. God then destroys the earth with water, the ark riding the waves until the waters abate and it comes to rest at the mountains of Ararat. God makes a promise never to destroy the earth by flood again, and shows Noah the sign of that covenant, a [[rainbow]].

The precise nature of the crimes for which God destroyed all life other than that on the ark is not specified.<ref>Genesis 6:5 - ''And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.''</ref>

Noah is also the first planter of a vineyard, and during a drunken sleep one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon his son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendants would be slaves to the his brothers Shem and Japheth. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the Table of Nations, which ends Noah's story.

===Abraham===
Genesis 11 begins the story of Abram, who leaves the city of [[Ur]] with his wife, Sarai, on a journey towards Canaan, where God has shown him what He was going to do: ''I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.''

Sarai, being barren tells Abram to take Hagar, his Egyptian handmaiden, as wife. Hagar becomes pregnant with Ishmael, and God makes a promise that the child will be "a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him," with descendants beyond number.

God also makes a covenant with Abram: Abram will have many descendants as well as possession of the land of Canaan. Abram's name is changed to "Abraham”, and Sarai becomes "Sarah." A sign of the new covenant is the circumcision of all males. Abraham is also told of the fact that Sarah will bear a son who will be named Issac, and it is through Issac and his descendants that the covenant will be established; although Ishmael is to be a great nation, he is left out of God’s covenant.

Two angels appeared to Abraham and told him that Sarah, barren for years, will bear a son. They also tell him that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is very great, and God will shortly punish them, Abraham asking if the cities be spared if so much as ten righteous men are found inside.

The two angels are received by Lot, much to the consternation of the townspeople who surround the house and demand sexual acts with the strangers; the townspeople are blinded, and the angels warn Lot and his family to flee immediately for the mountains and never look back. Both Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed by fire and brimstone; Lot’s wife turn back to look and is turned to a pillar of salt.

Sarah gives birth to Isaac, and at her insistence demands that Hagar and Ishmael are driven into the wilderness. While Ishmael is near dying, an angel speaks to Hagar and promises that God will not forget them, and will make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation.

God puts Abraham to the test by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham obeys God during his ultimate test: the sacrifice of his beloved son Issac; just as he is about to thrust the knife God restrains him, and promises descendants beyond numbering. Abraham dies later, ‘’full of years”, and is laid to rest in the Tomb of Machpelah in Hebron, which he had purchased shortly before as a place of rest for Sarah.

===Isaac and Jacob===
Isaac had prayed to God that He would deliver a child through Rebekah’s barren womb. He does, and Rebekah gives birth to the twins Esau and Jacob; but prior to the birth God had predicted division between the two, with the elder serving the younger. Esau, the elder, had despised his own birthright and sold it for a bowl of red porridge, allowing Jacob to enter his father’s tent and deceitfully take the blessing intended for Esau. He flees to Haran, the home of his uncle Laban. Along the way he has the dream of the ladder to Heaven, where God tells him of prosperity for himself and his descendants; he names the spot Bethel in commemoration.

Jacob had two wives, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Zilpah (Leah's handmaid), and Bilhah (Rachel's handmaid). Together they bore Jacob twelve sons:
*From Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulan.
*From Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin.
*From Zilpah: Gad, Asser.
*From Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali.

===Joseph===
Joseph, having angered his brothers through the dreams indicating his brothers would bow down before him in addition to a colorful coat given to him by his father, is bound and sold into slavery by his brothers’ wickedness, and claim to a bitter Jacob that Joseph was killed by a wild animal. His dreams while a slave in Egypt come to the attention of Pharaoh, who was troubled by a dream of seven withered cows and stalks of corn which ate seven fat cows and healthy stalks of corn. Joseph interprets the dream as that of Egypt going through seven years of plentiful harvests, followed by seven years of severe famine, and follows it up by asking Pharaoh to appoint a wise man over Egypt to ensure enough is collected and stored during the plentiful years to act as a hedge against the years of famine. Pharaoh responds by appointing Joseph himself in this position, and during the famine "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth."

Jacob, not knowing Joseph is still alive, sends his sons to buy grain in Egypt. The brothers appear before Joseph, but do not recognize him; Joseph however, recognizes them, and after a series of tests which convinces Joseph their characters have changed, reveals himself to them, convinces them that what happened in the past was God’s plan, and tells them to bring Jacob and their families to live in Egypt. Genesis ends with the blessing of Jacob’s children, his death, and the death of Joseph, who exhorts his brothers to carry his bones when they eventually return to the Promised Land.

==Authorship==
Biblical tradition within and without the Old Testament, Jesus in the New Testament, as well as extra-Biblical writers such as Josephus, Origen, the early church fathers and many others, have claimed Moses as the author of Genesis, written during the time of the Hebrew wanderings in the Wilderness, between 1440-1400 B.C. Certainly, Moses was well established to have written Genesis in Hebrew, Akkadian, or Egyptian; he was well educated and trained in the Egyptian court. Archaeology demonstrated that such a man did have the eductation necessary to accomplish this during that time in history. (Unger, pp. 35-35)

The higher critical view was that Moses did not write it. Some biblical scholars identified five separate authors of the five 'books of Moses'<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm Who Wrote The Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses?]</ref><ref>[http://lectionary.org/EXEG-English/OT/EOT01-Gen/Authorship-Genesis%20&%20Pentateuch.html Introduction to Genesis & the Pentateuch]</ref>. Although unidentified, each of these authors has been given the name of a letter:
* J who calls God ''YHWH'' (the ''Jehovist'' account), and who possibly wrote in the south of [[Judah]], written c. 850 B.C.
* E who uses ''Elohim'' ('the gods', 'the spirits') as God's name, and possibly wrote in [[Ephraim]], written c. 750 B.C.
* D who wrote the book of Deuteronomy, about 650 B.C.
* P who wrote an alternate history in what was called the ''Priestly Code'', about 500 B.C.
* R who joined the writings of J, E, D and P to form a single work.
Under this hypothesis, looking at the Creation story
* Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were written by P.
* Genesis 2:4 was written by R
* Genesis 2:5 through 4:26 were written by J.
This theory has gained in popularity since it was first proposed in the late 19th century. However, it is inevitably a product of modern rationalistic research and the application of literary criteria. Opponents of this research point to the fact that it is difficult to reconcile with the historical, miraculous, and prophetic elements which they claim to be basic to the first five books of the Bible (Unger, 397; Young, pp. 183-276).

By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the [[Torah]] is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.

==References==

<references/>

==Sources==
*Finkelstein, I. & Silberman, N.A. ''The Bible Unearthed'', Touchstone, 2001.
*Holy Bible, King James Version (''Thompson Chain Reference''), B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co. Indianapolis, IN 1982.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1966.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1967.
*Young, Edward J. ''Introduction to the Old Testament'', W.B. Eardmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1949.

==Links==
*[http://www.creationapologetics.org/table.html Table of Nations chart]
*[http://www.creationapologetics.org/creation.html Creation timeline]

[[Category:Old Testament]]