Difference between revisions of "Talk:Theistic evolution"

Revision as of 01:51, March 9, 2007

I will add various source cites shortly.

Ray Martinez 15:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Painting with a broad brush here,aren't you? --Dave3172 15:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)

We are tired of so called Christians doing the bidding of Atheists; if the shoe fits wear it. TEists are double-agents; since when do Christians accept the origins theory that all Atheists subscribe to? As the article says, the Bible provides the explanation.

Ray Martinez 16:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

First off, who is "we?" There are numerous conservatives and Christians who believe that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create Man, and I hardly think you, I or anyone is in a position to tell them that that they are not good Christians for believing so.

We = persons who are not fooled by TEists.

Second, your basic premise is flawed. Please show me in the Bible where it specifically states that evolution was not the mechanism used to create Man.

The Bible is the premier source of Supernaturalism; Genesis says special creation was the origin of Adamkind. Your "question" is phony attempting to make "a point" or you are shockingly ignorant.

Lastly, this entire piece devolves rapidly into opinion and outright insults. If you want to criticize TE, then you need to so more rationally. --Dave3172 16:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

There are no insults; in other words: the truth hurts and since you are an evolutionist your disapproval is the best endorsement I could obtain.

Ray Martinez 16:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The part about "which all atheists rabidly support" is perhaps a bit overenthusiastic.--Murray 16:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

How so? All atheists do as such.

Ray Martinez 17:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Well, "rabid" is clearly your opinion, and whether intentional or otherwise it is likely to come across as insulting. Additionally, how do you know that "all" atheists believe the theory of evolution is correct? I would imagine the 2 beliefs tend to co-occur frequently but it's quite plausible one could believe one and not the other.--Murray 17:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I removed the word to give the article a more formal tone. --trekie9001 17:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I restored the atheist vandalism; I have reported you

Ray Martinez 17:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, whatever Martinez. Report me all you like. If this community bans me because I changed rabidly to strongly then it is a very poor encyclopedia. Wikipedia never reverts your edits and says "only atheists may make this change" like you stated in your comment. This "encyclopedia" is starting to look like a joke. --trekie9001 17:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Essay

Most of this article reads like an essay and doesn't address or even attempt to list the Christian denominations which suscribe to TE. JoshuaZ 17:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You have been reported too.

Did you miss the sub-heading?

Ray Martinez 18:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Hmm? Which subheading? JoshuaZ 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

A critical view of Darwinists in sheeps clothing

Ray Martinez 19:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

So I've looked at the versions in the article history....

...and I'm still not clear on exactly what Theistic Evolution is supposed to be.

Teilhard de Chardin, perhaps? Dpbsmith 19:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Essentially, it is the idea that creationism is compatibel with evolution. I presumably should have just said that explicitly. JoshuaZ 19:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Re: Which version to keep

I think that when it comes to which article best represents an encyclopedic article the revision done by JoshuaZ should bbe selected. --trekie9001 19:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Regarding locking the page: Comments from Admin/SYSOP with the username Conservative

1. Senior Admin Aschlafly (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Aschlafly ) seems to know a lot about the Pope's statements in regards to the Creation/evolution issue. I think he should mediate or arbitrate this particular issue or if he is too busy then more sources should be cited in order to corroborate this matter.

2. I looked at the evolutionists versions and there were many statements uncited by footnotes.

3. I have looked at creationists Ray Martinez's work in the past and I know that he can produce good work. However, I looked at Ray Martinez's version briefly and immediately ran across unencyclopedic language. For example, I found this unencyclopedic: "A critical view of Darwinists in sheeps clothing" I also think you should have used footnotes instead of a bibliography since the evo/creo issue can be contentious.

The first thing I said in Discussion was that all source cites would follow shortly. As far as terminology goes; the page was intended as sharp and blunt sword swings. I will not pursue this anymore. My work will appear on my own Wiki site in the near future - a site which will feature a topic and two views side by side. I realize that my hard line Creationism is too hot to handle and I am comforted that what I wrote made Darwinists see red and froth at the mouth.

Ray Martinez 19:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

No, what you wrote was unsupportable claptrap and insulting to a wide host of people. Had you presented your views in a rational, reasoned tone, none of this would have been needed.--Dave3172 19:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

4. I don't think theistic evolution should be such a contentious issue as far as what it is if you stick to the facts. I suggest the two diametrically opposed sides stick to the facts and scrupuously footnote this article since it is becoming contentious.

5. My opinion regarding TalkOrigins.org being a mostly unreliable source is well known. No further comments about this matter in this particular discussion page. I do realize that creationists have people who produce unreliable material as well.

6. I wish I had more time to Mediate/arbitrate this particular issue but unfortunately I do not. I do appreciate each sides efforts though and decided to temporarily lock the page until a quality article can be created with internal footnotes supporting each fact.

Here is where I suggest creating a new version with footnotes in the body of the work supporting each fact that you state: Draft/Theistic Evolution

Conservative 19:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Considering how Draft may later be used for the, well, draft, the draft should possibly be made at Theistic Evolution/draft </suggestion from somebody who only noticed that the article imploded after all the action happened> --Sid 3050 19:36, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, pursuant to these comments, I have started a draft, hopefully with enough sourcing. JoshuaZ 19:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

to: Ray, from Admin/SYSOP with the username Conservative

Ray, I do know that you are knowledgeable on the creo/evo issue, however, I just reasonably ask that you footnote your material in regards to its internal statements given the contentious nature of the creo/evo issue. I don't think you should just throw in the towel and give up. I believe you could add some valuable input to a article if you wanted to. I also ask that you refrain from inflamatory characterizations like "sheeps clothing" which I also believe is necesary for an encyclopedia to have. An encyclopedia is much more authoritative in tone if it uses non inflamatory language. Conservative 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Theistic evolution, some slightly suggested sources

I don't have the time to read a lot of articles on the topic of "Theistic Evolution". However, I did briefly scan some articles and they did appear to be written by credible sources (for example, one article PHD after the authors name).

Please don't think I think these articles are necessarily good. I just want to create a starting point.

Please take a look at these articles:

Multiple source article with many quotes w/ sources: [1]

Footnoted article: [2]

ASA article Written by a PHD: [3]

5 footnotes in article: [4]

I hope this helps. Conservative 20:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I'll take a look but will incidentally note that number of footsnotes or the presence of a PhD does not help with reliability by most definitions. JoshuaZ 20:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I said I don't endorse the sources. I scanned them. Most at least have the appearance of scholarship (footnotes). Conservative 20:51, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative