Talk:The Greatest Adventure: Stories from the Bible

Having now put about 13 hours of work into this piece, I hope it is now safe to say that this article is acceptable in its citation of sources. Let me know, anyone, if the episode list warrants a stub or not. Otherwise, I feel this article is good to go.The Bulldozer 23:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding my article, giving this series the attention it deserves. I think the episode list is comprehensive enough, as are the other details about the show. The Jeh 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GreatestAdventureBackArt.jpg
Image:GreatestAdventureBackArt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

'Errors and Omissions' section
I have tagged this section with a 'POV' template, as I believe it seems to implicitly promote a point-of-view: that of Biblical literalism and 'creation science'. It includes sentences like:
 * 'Modern baraminologists would argue that this is incorrect, as there would not have been enough time within the Days of Creation for speciation to form.'
 * 'studies have shown that the Ark would have had to be designed around a certain set of design principles to create a balance of numerous factors, making most popular depictions throughout history highly unlikely.'
 * 'the Noah episode also ignores the claims of modern baraminologists.'

These quotes seem to assume that 'baraminology' is a recognised science, which it is not. (It is, at best, psuedoscience.) If we want to be properly neutral about it, perhaps we should include mention of the fact that most serious historians don't believe the Flood, or the story of Noah's Ark, happened at all. Then again, maybe this whole section is unnecessary - this is a children's programme, why does it need an extensive 'criticism' section analysing it as though it were a scholarly thesis? It looks to me like someone is taking a kids' cartoon show far too seriously. Terraxos (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it questionable even assuming that it's criticizing the show's Biblical underpinnings, since you can be a Christian and believe in the Bible without believing that the earth is literally six thousand years old, that the Ark was really built and that all life on earth was really wiped out in a flood, so on and so forth. Some folks treat that stuff as being parables rather than history.

Concerning this
It would appear to me that Terraxos is himself awfully worked up over a children's program. And to refer to baraminology as a "pseduoscience" is itself a judgment call. Since the video assumes a standpoint of the Biblical events having happened, it is not too terribly wrong to assess the value of the content according to its own assumptions.

To say that serious historians don't believe the Flood happened is not entirely true, and it over-simplifies matters (e.g., there are theories about many localized floods in history that would have had the same composite effect, supposedly, as a global one).

It also implied by these statements that one cannot believe in the Noahic deluge and still be respected as a "serious" historian. These are judgment calls that themselves demonstrate a lack of neutrality on an issue.--The Bulldozer (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PS
I'd like to add that, I find it quite a compliment that Terraxos seems to imply that he believes me qualified to critique scholarly theses. --The Bulldozer (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Being purely a priori, it can't be anything BUT a pseudoscience. To be a science it would require empirical evidence to support its claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.22.131 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference
Modern baraminology and modern taxonomy are not that different.

Only the origins and vocational destiny philosophies differ, as well as opinions on whether the creature improved or got worse. As far as you getting from a liger to a lion and tiger to different kinds of lions and different kinds of tigers, the two speculate basically the same thing. It's impossible, since taxonomy does more speculation, to discredit one without discrediting the other. --The Bulldozer (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous
"In the David and Goliath episode, the spot of impact is not quite correct. Goliath was hit in the temple, not the direct middle of his forehead as depicted in the video." - The entire section is asinine! It's a children's show... WHERE THEY TRAVEL THROUGH TIME. Next thing you know we'll have critiques on Power Ranger uppercuts... GeneralChan (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)