User talk:Filll/Archive 4

Your comments about AfD
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. My general feeling on blogs is that they should be held to the same standard as any other media. For example, a blog that has received widespread recognition is no different (in my opinion) than a major syndicated column.
 * For example, http://www.mashable.com/ is a blog that has a million subscribers, and is mostly written by one person; it is widely followed by the Venture Capital community as a source of information on emerging Web technologies. Is that "just a blog" or is it now on the same level as a major syndicated column?
 * The website http://www.gamedaily.com/ is presented in a blog-style format, but it is written by a staff of editors, subject to an editor-in-chief who exercises editorial discretion, and is owned by America Online which ultimately passes judgment on the suitability of content. In my eyes, it is no different than any print magazine that covers computer gaming (and may even be more relavent, since it has access to more current information).
 * The website http://www.palaeos.com/ is written by a staff of paleontologists. Articles in the site have been cited in the journal Science.  Sure, I wouldn't claim it has the level of peer-scrutiny that Science itself has, but surely it should rate at least as highly as any other second-tier journal with similar editorial policies that appears in print?

Tarinth 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

hindu creationism
Lets discuss further on the talk page of the article. And yes, There is no Hindu creationist movement. Infact RSS propaganda is that hindus knew about the evolution theory and dasavatars represent the evolution of man from fish to further species. As for Californian Hindu textbook controversy, atleast read the article so that you know what the controversy was about.nids(&#9794;) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See for example Avatar. I do agree that there may be certain anti-darwin Hindus, but to say that there is a hindu creationist movement is stretching it a lot. FYI, Sanskrit has more atheistic literature than any other language.nids(&#9794;) 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask me anything
I am active right now. I would love to answer any question you have. GizzaChat  &#169; 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And a related AfD
I'm arguing for a Keep on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_beauty  ... It isn't specific to Evolution, but I think it presents information that isn't replicated elsewhere. I've recently added information to the article that presents some of its criticism. Not many people have had much input on the AfD, but I thought you might add your thoughts. Whether you're for or against is not important to me--I just think it needs adequate discussion. Tarinth 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers to your question
Thanks. I hope I do not say anything offensive so please bear with me. I know next to nothing about Hinduism. Sorry for so many questions. I really know nothing at all and I am just trying to understand.--Filll 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there different sects of Hinduism?
 * Do these sects get along?
 * How prevalent is the notion that the Vedic creation story actually is true in Hinduism and in India?
 * Are there ever any charges that Vedic science is pseudoscience?
 * Is the ISKCON a non Hinduism sect? Are they nondoctrinal ? Fringe?
 * Are there ISKCON representatives or Hinduism believers who are similar to ISKCON in India or in mainstream Hinduism?
 * How different are the beliefs of ISKCON from Hinduism as a whole? And in what ways?
 * What is Hindutva? Are they connected with Hinduism in any way?
 * Why did the US state department issue concerned reports about Hindutva's influence on school textbooks in India?
 * Who is a Hindutva and who is not? How can one tell the difference?
 * Who is Swami Prakashanand Saraswati? Is he well known?


 * 1) There are different sects of Hinduism see Hindu denominations and Hinduism. An extra note, Hinduism tends to be more inclusionistic just like other Dharmic religions than Abrahamic religions. Hinduism is about the search for the truth (most often the Divine but there Hindu atheists).
 * 2) Modified answer-- Already answered. There have been rare sectarian clashes, such as 800 years ago in South India. If you consider Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism to be sects then yes. Note: Most Hindus don't even know that sects exist and which sect they fall into. They are other ways of dividing Hindus than Vaishavism,Shaivism... There is also murti (idol) worshippers (majority) and the Arya Samaj who don't believe in idol/icons.
 * 3) What do you mean by Vedic creationists theory? Never heard of it. Most Hindus believe that the Vedas are "anant" or "sanatan" (eternal).
 * 4) Westerners ie. Americans/Europeans etc. argue that Vedic science to either pseudo-science or proto-science. But anybody smart should realise that no matter what your beliefs, as long as you are not racist or something, not all of Vedic science can fit into these categories. Some of it is definitely correct. Hindu astronomy was fairly accurate (though it was tied with astrology) and Hindu mathematicians IMO were the most advanced in the world at their time. eg. Pythagoras theorum was discovered at the very latest during same time as Greeks but probably earlier.
 * 5) ISCKON claim they are non-Hindu but so do other new "Hindu movements." They are Gaudiya Vaishnava.
 * 6) Answered
 * 7) Hindutva is Hindu nationalism. Some people regard it just as proud of being Hindu while others associate it with extremism, far-right wing, anti-Muslim/Christian group. The ambiguity is the problem. If the former, I am a Hindtuvaadi, if the latter I am not.
 * 8) Don't know about the US. I will tell that I am strongly against George Bush. Period
 * 9) Not a fine line like I said earlier. I tried to resolve the issue on Talk:Partition of India. On Wiki, those who claim to be Hindutvaadis are patriotic of Hinduism and say that are not anti-Muslim or anything. IMHO a fundamental concept in Hinduism is to respect other religions. That is why only very few orgs like ISCKON promote conversion. I am very anti-conversionist (forced conversion, not by choice I support that)
 * 10) No he isn't. This is his page Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. Only a stub.

Extra comment:

I think that you are an evolutionist. Creation/evolution has never been formally discussed in Hinduism. It errs on creation there are some hints of evolution in the scriptures. One line in the Bhagavad Gita acknowledges that there are microscopic organisms. Those who believe in reincarnation, state in an order very close to how they evolved. In vertabrates for example, fish -> frog ->reptile ->bird -> mammals. The Dasaavatara also resembles evolution. Hinduism believes in cyclic universes of every 20 billion yers or so. But overall, is does err on creation because of its belief in God (by most). I don't consider theism to mean creationism though. There would be some who say that the reason the Big Bang happened was an action by the Formless, Infinite Being called Brahman (Advaita sect). Creationism relies on God but evolutionism doesn't rely on no God. Einstein, proposer of the theory of relativity, father of quantum physics believed in God. So did Newton and Galileo despite their controversies with Church.

Hope that answers your queries. GizzaChat  &#169; 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To add to Gizza's "Extra comment": I think there is little conflict between Hinduism and modern science in general because (a) there is no universal accepted "gospel" in Hinduism that sets out a particular view of the material world, (b) to the extent that the Vedas, Upanishads are  counterparts to the Testaments, the typically the interpretation of the former is highly non-literal, (c) the common practicing Hindu is hardly aware of the exact contents of the foundational texts, (d) there is no social or religious priesthood hierarchy in Hinduism which can establish a fundamentalist or monolithic doctrine of Hinduism (the Hindutva movement can be thought of as a political movement aiming to establish such a "unity"). So you will be hard pressed to find common Hindus (as opposed to Hindu scholars) who will even be able to tell you what the Hindu creation myth is, or what Hinduism says about contraceptives, stem-cell research etc - and if you did find such Hindus, their answers would not agree :-)
 * That said, there are Hindus in India and elsewhere who believe in concepts generally considered pseudo-scientific, such as astrology (Jyotisha), Vaastu Shastra, or swamis with supernatural powers; or are skeptical of the value of "science", "The West" or "economic liberalization" - however IMHO these beliefs have socio-economic, cultural and educational basis rather than a religious one.
 * Hope this addresses at least some of your queries. Abecedare 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers to more questions
Thank you so much for answering. I hope I did not offend and I do not want to offend in any way shape or form. Permit me to ask a few more questions then:

Roughly what fraction of Hindus would you find who claimed, based on Vedic scriptures or teachings: --Filll 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "I believe that man was alive at the same time as dinosaurs",
 * "I believe that the earth is more than 5 billion years old,"
 * "I believe that man does not evolve physically with time"
 * "I believe that my ancestors were NOT rat-like creatures, and before that lizards, and before that fish, and before that primitive sea creatures"
 * "I believe all living creatures on earth do not have the same ancestors"
 * "I believe the earth has been through multiple cycles of rebirth and men were recreated each cycle"
 * "Man is descended from demigods and goddesses at the start of each cycle"
 * "the following are sciences: astrology, vastu, yogic flying, Vedic creationism, transcendental meditation or ayurveda."
 * Would agree with
 * would agree with
 * would agree with


 * More answers:


 * 1) I can't speak for all the one billion of Hindus out there, but probably yes (or that dinosuars didn't exist)
 * 2) Strange you asked this since the fundamental Christans believe it is only 4000 years old or so, lol. Ummm... see Yuga. Hindus believe in cycles, so there probably was an "Earth" 7 million years ago, but not this one. :-)
 * 3) Like I've said before, never properly talk about in Hinduism. If you see Kali Yuga the current age, it says Humans evolve backwards morally and spirtually. Hmmm...
 * 4) I said that that there might be elements of it, like first reincarnating as plants, then primitive rats, then apes, then humans.
 * 5) Don't completely understand, in science only a few apes much have genetically mutated to become humans and also all life came from one cell I think. There is Manu the first man of this "Maha-Yuga." In general infinity and eternity are prominent themes in Hinduism. This means there was and will always be life in another universe in another dimension or another time/age/Yuga or something.
 * 6) Never heard of descended from demigods/demigoddesses (ie. devass/devis). I suppose we descend from the supreme God. Don't completely understand what you are trying to say though.
 * 7) Would vary. Depends how conservative you are. Some of it yes of course. Like I said before, even non-Hindus agree that some of Vedic science was actual science. Ayurveda has been proven in many cases (not sure all). Harvard University were recently studying how Hindu sannyasis survived living in below zero temps in the Himlayas. They found out that certain breathing methods and maybe some other stuff in Yoga meant that they can keep their body temperatures warm. Hatha Yoga is another example. They are exercises/stretches on keeping your body fit. In Hinduism, they are seen as the first step in spirtual development more often than not (now modern Hindus see it from the same angle as the West as well as from the traditional side)
 * 8) To an extent.
 * 9) Not necessarily. Like I said Hindus respect other religions. Many saints and monks in Hinduism stress that Allah and Jesus Christ is the same as Ishvara/Bhagawan (Indian name for God), eg. Mahatma Gandhi. Some say Christ is an avatar. Inclusionism not exclusionism, always looking for new paths, new ways. Once again please see Hinduism
 * 10) Hinduism is very unmaterialistic. It clashes with globalisation/capitalism so modern Hindus are weakening on this aspect. Some people see the legends in Hinduism as myths, but good stories to learn morals/ethics. Some truly belive in them. Even those woh believe in them won't try to make others believe in it. It is their personal choice, Hindus respect others. There are exceptions like there is in every religion. A few extremists are there, probably aligned with Hindutva. Similarly to the point on science, there is fact in many of the legends. The chance of Rama being the king of Ayodhya is 99% likely. There is a lot of evidence. Whether it was the God Vishnu in the form of a human is the only contentious part (and the other magical creatures in the stroy like the monkey god Hanuman). GizzaChat  &#169; 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Well i'm not offended or anything! It is just that you have messed up your references... Calif.Txt.Book doesnt even remotely belong here. Hindutva is a poliical movement rather than a religious, creationism i daresay is hardly on top of their minds! Creation isnt even central to Hinduism.

Whats more calling Hindutva a supreamacist movement is nothing but far from thruth. Though i'm not their supporter, i know better! अमेय आर्यन DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Hindutva is an ideology rather than an organisation. rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is its main proponents.


 * Their ideology is political rather than religious.
 * No they odnt discriminate against Dalit, they are rather anti-caste
 * Yes they are militantly anti-Evangelist...
 * Deep rooted scepticism of Islam is central to Hindutva
 * They are thugs, but then everybody on Indian political scene is. So lets not read too much into newsreports..

Cheers,

<b style="color:#FF9933;"> अमेय आर्यन DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hinduism doesn't talk much on creationism, Hindutva doesn't talk at all about creationism, the furthest back they go in history is the battle between the Aryan invasion theory and the Out of India theory. Hindutva is often misrepresented by its political opponents for political reasons (the opposition party in India is a Hindutva party). The philosophy is not extremist but is nationalist. See details here. Hindutva is more of a Hindu cultural and Hindu rights movement in a land which, despite being the religious homeland of the Hindus, is becoming increasingly pseudo-secularist by introducing things like quotas in universities for minority religions. Hindutva does not support forced conversion and seeks to make it illegal in India, one of its key aims is to adopt a Uniform Civil Code so all Hindus, Muslims are treated equally. It should be noted that many opponents of Hindutva (a right-wing ideology) are from the far left (CPI/M), it's very much political.  Noble eagle  <font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow"> [TALK] <font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow"> [C] 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for sticking up for me. I believe the Swastika removals are absurd. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not European/Jewish. In fact, there are more Hindus than Europeans and Jews and many Indians/Hindus now have English as their second or third language. Regarding Hindutva, like I said the supporter say it is nationalist but the opponents accuse it of being extremists and many people, like me lie in between. I wouldn't say BJP (opposition party in India) is a Hindutva party since they a few non-Hindu members like Muslims. They are definitely closer to Hindutva ideology than the other party, Indian Natinal Congress which is centre-left but calling at one stage (when they were in power) more than half of the Indians who voted for them as Hindtuvaadis is a bit strong. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi...
I have moved the disussion to here, that way there will be more of a diverse answerers. Thank you for your interest. CHeers! &mdash; Arjun 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism
Looks like you're getting alot of good answers from people who are more familiar with the broader aspects of Hinduism than myself. &#2384; Priyanath talk 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy people
I thought you'd get a kick out of this. Someone has made a page documenting the dates that athletes have been arrested, and is justifying it based on..."There's a page on the timeline of the Big Bang":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Athelete_arrests

ISKCON
Hello Filll - in response to your questions regarding the International Society for Krishna Consciousness on the Hinduism noticeboard please see the above linked article, it is pretty accurate. You might also find Hare Krishna, Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism interesting. Iskcon (in their aims) are a 'non-sectarian movement' based on the scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita which are classified as Hindu texts. Thus philosophically Iskcon shares many similarities with Hindu traditions (as well as with other world religions). From a theological perspective it's correct to call Iskcon a sect of Hinduism, but for followers this would not be the case. To quote the movements founder: Hoping to be of assistance, ys, Gouranga(UK) 09:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Yes, you can call it Hinduism, but actually it does not belong to any "ism." It is a science of understanding God. But it appears like Hindu religion." No Culture--Just Money, May 19, 1975

Requests for comment/Raspor
You need to come in for a few of your comments. A couple of people are trying to show how horribly we treated this guy. Whatever. Orangemarlin 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindu creationism
These guys are more defensive than Christian creationists could ever be. It doesn't sound like you have dug up anyone who knows both the religion and its creationist philosophy enough to add and revise. Orangemarlin 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was merely attempting to make some informed edits the the article mentioned above - why revert them as violence and leave bold messages on my talk page? Whatever one may think about Michael Cremo's theories I can't see how anyone can say he got his theories from Vivekananda? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand it must be frustrating to create such an article amongst everyone's sensitivites. No offence taken. I was not removing content in anger, but having read Cremo's book and many statements by ISKCON's founder in regards to evolution was just being slightly bold in a few edits. For Cremo to follow the theories of Aurobindo and Vivekananda would be going against the grain to say the least. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the introduction to article overly defensive and seemingly designed to appease Hindu sensibilities, so I have taken the liberty to rewrite it a bit. Hope I have not interrupted a work-in-progress ! By the way, do you know of any academic study of the issue ? I'd be interested in (and able to) look it up and contribute to the article. By the way, I think "Hinduism and creationism" will be a better title for the article. Abecedare 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As GourangUK stated above your frustration is understandable; but with all due respect a disagreement with the conduct of a few editors is not an excuse for lashing out at all editors or a community/religion. After all, you wouldn't want Francis Collins even with his exemplary resume to be thought to be representative of the scientific view of evolution.
 * That aside, I'd like to comment on your last message on the article page: there is a difference between having a non-darwinian and anti-darwinian/creationist viewpoint. All religions, philosophers, scientists etc had a non-darwinian  view of the world before mid/end-19th century ! (If that were not so Darwin wouldn't be held in such high regard) But it would be wrong to label all such entities creationists. Similarly while there are Hindus and Hindu organizations who are creationists, IMO they do not form a widespread movement which could be labeled "Hindu creationism". So I do concur with the objections expressed towards an earlier version of the article.
 * Finally, while you seem to be frustrated by the sensitivity of editors to being called creationists, I look forward to the day that all thinking people will consider such a label to be a slur !  Abecedare 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to this version of the article, as the one that "disappeared" ? If so, I have to tell you that the current version is much better - the previous version was teeming with factual errors, unsupported claims, invalid surmises and non-sequiturs. I don't mean to sound harsh at your good-faith effort, but looking over the evidence I don't see any great Hindu cabal acting to destroy the article. Of course, you can attribute my opinion by assigning me membership in that same abal :-) ... but I am giving you my honest opinion. So lets settle back and work on improving the article together. Abecedare 00:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove the Ganesh picture, but I can understand why it was done. Hope that answers your question. Abecedare 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The main objection would be mainly relevancy, since the picture would suggest that there is a link between mainstream Hindu worship practices and creationism. (For example one would not illustrate an article about the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases with a picture of Jesus on the cross or even the Pope) An appropriate picture to include would be, say, of ISKCON logo or a picture of Swami Prahupada if we present his personal (as opposed to his organization's follower's) views.
 * Secondly the caption of the picture "Murtis or deities and their worship (puja) play a crucial role in Hinduism. Shown here is the popular figure of Ganesha." was inappropriate because:
 * It presented a naive view of the use of icons in Hindu worship (see Hindu iconography of Hinduism).
 * Why was the Hindu form of worship germane to the topic ?

Help Request
Hello, you used the helpme tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.)&mdash; D e on555<b style="color:purple;">talk</b><b style="color:orange;">desk</b><b style="color:brown;">sign here!</b> 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries  &mdash; D e on555<b style="color:purple;">talk</b><b style="color:orange;">desk</b><b style="color:brown;">sign here!</b> 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some information
Here is some information that you may find interesting/useful (I forewarn you that I'll perhaps be over simplifying a complex topic): In summary, while Hinduism/Hindus/Hindutva do have many flaws and deficiencies, promoting creationism is not a prominent one among them. So while, we should write an article detailing the cases of anti-evolutionary Hindus -we should make sure that the coverage is in balance with the importance of the issue within the religion/society. Hope my comments help ! Abecedare 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Hindutva is mainly a Indian Nationalism movement not a Hindu Supremacy movement. Their main focus   is instilling pride in being an Indian (comparable with Black pride rather than Nazism) and therefore they go to great lengths to praise/defend/reinterpret Indian history and culture, emphasize certain aspects and underplay others (like casteism, dowry, sati). This can sometimes result in Aryan supremacy claims being made by certain individuals, but it would be a mistake to identify that as the mainstream
 * 2) In certain sense religion is only peripheral to the movement - its proponents often define Hinduism to be synonymous with Indianness (you can imaging why the ~200 million non-Hindus in India may object to that).
 * 3) That said, Hindutva has little to with creationism. While the associated organizations do rail against other standard scholarship, such as aspects of Indo-Aryan migration, and promote Vedic science (which as can be expected for any so many millennia-old system contains both genuine knowledege and pseudoscience) pursuant to their nationalistic goals - the movement has little motivation to argue for creationism. You can see Californian Hindu textbook controversy  to see what issues are considered important by the movement. Similar issues were also part of a textbook controversy in India.
 * 4) There are Hindus who defend pseudo-scientific concepts  perhaps stemming from an anti-science/anti-West (perhaps even luddite) attitude. However the areas of their concern are usually  jyotisha, ayurveda, yoga etc and hardly ever creationism - simply because that is not such a prominent feature of Indian culture or Hindu theology (unlike the role Genesis plays in Judaism/Christianity). An analogy will perhaps help - contraceptives are issues of primary focus among Catholics, but hardly an issue among middle-eastern Islamic countries, even though the former are on the whole more progressive societies than the latter. So while, certain Hindus promote pseudo-scientfic concepts like creationists, we should be careful not to label them creationists except when directly applicable (like in Iskcon case).


 * Just to be clear, I do believe critical appraisal of Hindutva (including the supremacy aspects) and Hindu pseudoscience belongs on wikipedia and am not calling for its removal ! It should even be included in the creationism article, but only if we are specifically referencing Hindutva forces or vedic science based promotion of creationism (and not simple pseudoscience). My aim is not   to be inoffensive, but rather to be factual and on topic. However it is not sufficient to present, "anti-science or pseudoscience beliefs that are reminiscent of western creationism" in this article. Abecedare 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Lost thread
Sorry, I seem to have lost the thread of the conversation. Can you please remind me what your recent comment "That is what the references say. If you have references that say the contrary, please produce them so they can be incorporated" was in reference to ? Thanks. Abecedare 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page
You posted a comment on my talk page regarding the notability of somebody. As a newpage patroller, I tag for speedy deletion several pages a day. I am unsure as to which article you are referring, so please feel free to comment back regarding this article in question. --Адам12901 Talk 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just tag the articles, I don't remove them. If you feel that is sufficient reason to keep the article, put it onto the talk page, and an administrator will take a look at it. --Адам12901 Talk 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mutation gloss
Here's the restoration to October. I've restored to Candorwien's last version. Adam Cuerden talk 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Searches for Noah's Ark
I read your rendition of the searches (or at least I think it was your version) on the discussion page. I wanted to discuss it here in the hopes that it will limit some of the trolls from causing a war. I have a few points that I think will go far towards my idea of NPOV and reducing some of the undue weight given to the Creationists running about trying to find this mythological ark:


 * First of all, unless it was carried up the mountain, it is impossible (if there is a stronger word than impossible, I'd like to know it) for it to come to rest at 3000 meters or so above sea level. It is pseudoscience for anyone to look for it there.
 * The expedition to Iran run by a Creationist found what some believe to be petrified wood (and that would be the only interpretation of those rocks that would be close to helping their cause). I don't have a clue how long it takes to petrify wood, but I'm guessing on order of millions of years.  But again, I'm not a plant paleontologist.  (Nor do I play one on TV.)  I am an amateur geologist (OK, somewhat above amateur level, but not getting paid to do it, so not a professional), and those rocks look volcanic in origin.  Basalt plug sounds reasonable.  My point is that once again, this is pseudoscience.  Looking at best some petrified wood that is millions of years old, or more reasonably, volcanic rocks, does nothing to confirm the existence of Noah's ark.
 * Then of course, there isn't one single iota of evidence that this thing exists. At least with L'Anse aux Meadows there was some evidence that was historical, as opposed to Genesis which is probably a compilation of a number of Middle East myths.

I just don't want to encourage a casual reader that there is real science here. It frustrates me. Orangemarlin 07:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism and creationism
Just wanted to let you know that i have moved "Hindusim and Creationism" to "Hinduism and creationism"  so that the title follows the wikipedia manual of style. I have also fixed the double-redirects from earlier moves. Hopefully this will be the last move ! Abecedare 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great job Filll ! Thanks for incorporating the references I had listed, especially so quickly. I think the article now is well developed and better balanced and hopefully will only improve from now.
 * My personal bias is towards using secondary sources (ideally peer-reviewed articles in well-established publications) rather than primary sources, especially while writing articles on controversial topics, since with the latter it is hard to gauge how well-accepted the expressed idea is. (With your work on evolution-creation debate you undoubtedly are aware of this issue - with creationists citing "evidence" to  show that scientists doubt evolution or Darwin recanted his theory.) So I will try to add more/better references to the article and flesh out the details, though that work may be spread out over several days and weeks. By the way I didn't realize that the student survey dealt with Phillipines ... will keep a lookout for more relevant reference. :-)  Abecedare 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how many Hindus there are in the Phillipines, although I assume there are some. I just didnt get to look at the article. I am glad to incorporate articles and viewpoints from those that disagree; that is what makes this topic interesting to the reader. Hopefully if it is better balanced it will not be such a magnet for attacks. I am wondering if it needs some documentation of the varying POV about ISKCON: some claim that ISKCON is part of Hinduism, while others disagree and claim that ISKCON is not part of Hinduism. Some claim that ISKCON itself disavows Hinduism; I do not know if this is true or not.--Filll 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "ISKCON's relation with Hinduism" debate can be limited to the ISKCON page. Here we are only claiming that it is an organization associated with Hinduism, which I feel is undeniable. Abecedare 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review my suggestion at Talk:Hinduism and creationism. Abecedare 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is really critical, so perhaps we can leave it as is till one of us comes upo with a really bright idea. Abecedare 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave a response to you just now
Just making sure you saw it on my talk page, I kind of took a long time getting around to it, for some reason, whenever I try to debate someone for too long on Wikipedia I just start losing gusto.... Homestarmy 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

East India
I'm not sure I understand your message. Can you please point out which page may need the tag ? Abecedare 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the distinction between concepts of ethnicity, race, clan is pretty nebulous (someday I intend to remedy that ! :-) ) - so I cannot enter into an informed discussion about which of the "East Indians" should be labeled as ethic groups. However I was surprised to see that the article East Indians (ethnic group) did not cite even one source (not even an external links  that establishes usage) ... and of course it is pretty useless to google the term since there are so many alternate, more widely used, meanings! So I have tagged it as unreferenced. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about the topic will come along. Abecedare 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, the disamb. tag is correct and very useful on the page. Sorry for taking so long to catch your question. Abecedare 04:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

bonner refs
Still need wikifying. DGG 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Each one goes in as a formal book reference in an academic paper:

That's the simplest proper way & anything less  invites negative comment. DGG 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Author(s) (some are joint authors)
 * Title.
 * Place of publication
 * publisher
 * Date
 * ISBN.

You presume correctly
And thank you for your kind words. It's reinvigorating and calming at the same time. Whatever the result, it was already worth it to have made a few very nice new acquaintances. Sending you wishes of peace and my sincerest thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetics glossary idea in mainspace
I finally wrote some additional definitions for the old genetics glossary idea, which also thanks to Willow, resides in a fancy template at Template:Genetics glossary. The collapsible template version has now been added it to the gene article. What do you think? I'm a little apprehensive about the positioning, since putting it at the top requires the browser to reformat the whole page every time you expand/hide a box, but putting it at the bottom of the article isn't very useful. I almost want a floating div, but floating expandable boxes will probably make old browsers faceplant.

As for the content, do you think that's enough basic definitions, or do any of them need further simplification? Anything obvious I missed that would be useful (or anything excessive in there)? Once this is sorted out, we can add it to related (ought-to-be-)basic-level articles like genetics; I imagine that would obviate the need for introduction to genetics? Opabinia regalis 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very impressed. It is absolutely beautiful. The only thing I wonder about is when the articles it links to are a bit complicated. If they all had very simple LEADs themselves, or at least the first sentence or two of the article were super simple, it would be better. I finally managed to get the first two or three sentences on evolution to get to be very simple. Hopefully they will stay that way. I do still like the idea of having a sort of baby article that can get people up to speed. We have had some people who were quite grateful that one was provided at Introduction to evolution, which is, let's face it, a far simpler subject to get into than genetics is. Obviously at the more advanced level, they are equally complicted since evolution and genetics are so intertwined in their more sophisticated and modern versions. I have not heard back from my collaborator (a high school biology teacher) who was supposed to help me write the Introduction to genetics which is still pretty sparse, I have to admit. So I could be convinced to give up on the idea, but I still like it. Are you dead set against it? Does it clutter the article too much? It could be moved from the head I suppose to the "See also" section if it is too ugly at the top of the article. I can also work on recruiting others to help flesh it out if my biology teacher collaborator is not able to work on it. I could try it myself, but I am a bit out of my depth and was hoping to use this as an avenue to learn a bit more about it myself, since I have some mathematical ideas that I am interested in having to do with Genetic distance which is a pitiful little article (I would like to flesh that out too, but I am more interested in some research questions outside the purvue of Wikipedia). Comments?--Filll 05:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The linked articles probably do need rewriting, if they're anywhere near as bad as genetics. One thought is to decouple the genetics glossary article page from the definitions in the template, so that the template contains short pithy versions of what's spelled out in more detail in the glossary article. My main objection to introduction to genetics is that it shouldn't be necessary; gene and genetics ought to be written at a rather introductory level anyway. I'd rather see effort devoted to fixing the existing, largely poor articles instead of creating yet another one. For now, I think the glossary template just needs more eyes; someone will eventually complain if it makes their browser squeal.


 * I hadn't really read genetic distance before, but it is a sorry mess at the moment. If that's something you're interested in, maybe I can poke you in the direction of computational phylogenetics, which is a rich source of technique-related subarticles waiting to be written or expanded - eg, UPGMA is almost worthless, neighbor-joining isn't much better, etc. Opabinia regalis 07:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * there are some good articles on related subjects--look at natural selection.DGG 22:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

nn
Please send me links to the other articles you mention. If they've been deleted tell me the name & date & I will ask for undeletion. If what we are posting gets no attention, instead of just removing tags I will nominate all the questionable ones for AfD, which is very visible--about 30 regular followers. DGG 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the notability people are discussing the issue, and were discussing it anyway, the first thing is to see if they react positively, because then we have a good chance of actually changing the guidelines in a positive direction, so this sort of thing will happen less often. It's only if they don't take the opportunity that I would want to bring the AfD. (Technically, an appeal of a speedy goes not to AfD but to Deletion Review, which is a very unpredictable process. This would not be the appeal, but one can bring up an article one supports on AfD, to establish that there is a consensus for keeping it. ) In my experience of bureaucracy, there is an advantage--here as elsewhere--in going one step at a time, so as to have the most opportunities to appeal an unfavorable decision. It's like appealing something to the supreme court in RL--it is wise not to do this if not necessary, because if you lose, there's nothing else to do but try to amend the constitution.  At this point what I want to do is  not fight an action judicially, but to change the rule for the better. Give it 2 days. During two days that should be another two examples. I'm going to reply to O.r. on her page. DGG 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you know of any other articles that have been improperly speedied, let me know and I'll undelete or userfy them as appropriate. Opabinia regalis 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Help on Noah's ark:
I wrote the following section to Noah's ark, but everytime I paste it in, it causes the bottom part of the article to disappear. Can you help me out? here's what I wrote:

The Ark

According to Genesis 6:15, the ark was approximately 450 feet long which would make it one of the largest wood ships ever built. In 1909, the schooner Wyoming was built by the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. Utilizing state-of-the-art shipbuilding technology, which would not have been available to Noah, she was the longest ship with a wood keel and hull ever built. And at 329 feet, the ship was approximately 120 feet shorter than Noah’s Ark. Percy & Small built sixe other schooners of 300 ft or more. Seagoing ships, by their nature, are subject to significant stress, and wood is not strong enough to prevent separation at each joint, thereby allowing for water to enter the hull. The Wyoming had 90 steel crossbraces to support the frame of the ship in the hope of reducing leakage.. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. Even utilizing the best marine engineering principles of the day, the steel bracing could not prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The boat had leaked every day that it was in the water until it sank 14 years later during a storm when it foundered. It was reported that the Wyoming would snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the amidships) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the amidships) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised.

Few other wood sailing ships were built greater than 300 feet in length. One ship, the Great Republic, built in 1853, was reported to be the longest wooden ship ever built with a length of 325 to 334 feet. This ship also had 90 steel or iron cross braces, each four inches wide, one inch thick and 36 feet long. Unfortunately, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda and was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet.

Given that relatively advanced shipbuilding techniques were able to build only marginally seaworthy ships, and ironworking sufficient to build cross braces was not available to Noah, there is little scientific evidence available that an Ark of that size is available..

The animals

According to Wilson and Perlman, 2000, 1.6 million species have been described to date. They estimate that there are probably 30-100 million total species of all organisms on the planet. Given that the belief in Noah’s Ark presumes a belief in all of Genesis, all of those animals must have been in existence at that time, and for them to exist today, Noah would have need to “saved” them, according to the myth. Even eliminating sea-dwelling organisms, plants, and other non “air-breathing” animals, 50-100 thousand species would have had to been collected. Some biblical scholars insist that the interpretation of the accounts should be that only a representative of the genus of air-breathing animals were taken (using the word, “kind” of animals, as stated in Genesis), that would be anywhere from 5-15 thousand genera. However, the rate of speciation of complex organisms, such as vertebrates, is anywhere from 10 to 100 thousand years, which indicates that it would be nearly impossible for 15,000 genera to evolve into 50-100 thousand species air-breathing species in just a few thousand years.

Moreover, the people living at that time gave names to each “kind” of animal which is roughly at the level of species Furthermore, the Creationist assumptions then mean that most of the species were left off the Ark (over 30-100 million). According to Genesis, "He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground". It becomes difficult to imagine how we have so many species so soon after a catastrophic flood. It would have also been nearly impossible for Noah, in seven days, to collect even a small portion of these species. Some species existed in polar regions (penguins and polar bears), some species on isolated islands in oceanic areas, and some species are only endemic to certain locations (such as Australian marsupials). Within the seven days time allocated to Noah according to the Genesis myth, there would not have been sufficient time to travel the earth to find all of the animals.

Additionally, only a small portion could fit on the Ark, no matter how it was constructed. The weight of the animals would have unbalanced the ship, causing it to founder in rough seas. Predators and prey would have to be separated and fed; therefore, additional weight would have to be supported in the ship. Finally, some creationists and biblical literalists accept fossils as being the remnants of organisms that perished in the flood. This belies the fact that dinosaurs and other extinct animals do not exist, so were not brought aboard the mythological ark.

The Flood

Analysis of the possibility of the flood can be broken into three sections:


 * 1) Where did all the water come from and where did it all go? Setting aside the possibility of sufficient water to cover 10,000 meter mountains, where presumably fossilized sea life would have been deposited by a global food, raising the water level of the world by only a few meters would have raised atmospheric pressures sufficiently high to raise oxygen and nitrogen concentrations to toxic levels.  In addition, a “canopy” of water vapor, sufficient to induce rain for 40 days, would have superheated the water, raising it to the boiling point and thereby killing everything in the world (sterilizing it in effect).  Water that would have come from beneath the ground (another proposal from Creationists) would also have been superheated by the earth’s core, which would have sterilized the earth also.  In effect, most commonly cited methods for the water to come and go depend upon miracles that are not proven by geologic record, cannot happen as a result of physics, and have been dismissed by verifiable science.  Therefore, a worldwide catastrophic flood requires reliance upon pseudoscience.
 * 2) Why is there no evidence of a flood? Simple problems such as the difference in substantial erosion of the Appalachian mountains versus the relatively minimal (geologically speaking) erosion of the Himalayans.  There is a lack of flood evidence in Greenland ice cores.  Polar ice caps would have floated in a flood; in fact, some of the ice caps, such as over Greenland and Antarctica could not have reformed in the past 10,000 years because climatic conditions would not have allowed it.  Other areas of analysis, tree ring, deep sea sediments, terrestrial sediments and soils, and other geological features lack any data that would show evidence of a global flood.
 * 3) Why did plants survive? Assuming that Genesis ignores plants, there are currently over 300-500 thousand plant species on earth today.  Most plants would be destroyed by submersion for even a few days.  The several meters of sediment deposited by such a flood would have smothered any seeds or other plants.  Salt water intrusion would also destroy most plants.  It is conceivable that Noah collected seeds from plants, but as with collecting animals, plant species range all over the world, not ever plant would have seeds available on the seven days allowed to collect them, and most plants require the right environmental conditions to germinate.


 * Can you give it a try. Still can't get it to work.  Try pasting it into the article, and see what happens.  Thanks.  Orangemarlin 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Remember when I was having a problem before when I was working with you on an article?  It was the same thing.  Oh well, it looks good now.  I need to update a couple of references.  Again, thanks for your help...and make the section better in any way you see fit.Orangemarlin 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is fucking ridiculous to say that what millions of people believe in is a myth. You have no respect. I don't mind that you oppose Genesis, but by deliberately inserting the word "myth" everywhere in your useless argument really doesn't help anyone, except you to feel better. <FONT FACE="MS Reference Sans Serif" COLOR="#FF0000">► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫</FONT> 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read your dictionary. Flying off the handle due to your own ignorance of the terminology reflects poorly on your argument. FYI read below.
 * English mythology is in use since the 15th century, in the meaning "an exposition of myths". The current meaning of "body of myths" itself dates to 1781 (OED). The adjective mythical dates to 1678.
 * Myth in general use is often used interchangeably with legend or allegory, but some scholars strictly distinguish the terms. The term has been used in English since the 19th century. The newest edition of the OED distinguishes the meanings
 * 1a. "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon", citing the Westminster Review of 1830 as the first English attestation.
 * 1b. "As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre." (1840)
 * 2a. "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief" (1849)
 * 2b. "A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious)." (1853)
 * 2c. "A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth." (1928)


 * Note that the the second meaning is a rumour, misconception or mistaken belief, in marked contrast to the meaning "stories of deep cultural or spiritual significance". David D. (Talk) 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

About "you"
I'm glad we're in agreement on the principle. I'm not happy with the way my last version reads; it needs to be completely rewritten to orient the text differently. (As it is, it's basically an algorithm, and algorithms are hard to portray in text without resorting to the imperative.) I will make another stab at it after I've folded my last load of laundry. :-) --Tkynerd 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Off topic
You're a naughty boy for engaging people in off-topic chat on Talk:Discovery Institute. I thought of making it worse, then recanted, but thought you might like to see my draft response. Please also remember that some people are blindly ignorant and annoying like a fox ;) ..dave souza, talk 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok tell me 5 great famous creationist scientists.--Filll 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Off topic, but if we define a creationist scientist as one who believed that God created life and the universe, may I present Charles Darwin when publishing The Origin. .. dave souza, talk 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Issac Newton? :) David D. (Talk) 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've found it best to restrict informality to friends and to be extremely polite and correct when dealing with others. Don't always manage it, though ;) .. dave souza, talk 14:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd go for Darwin while he was on the Beagle, I'd have doubts later on. With regards to Newton, was there really an alternative in seventeenth century England?  If the alternative didn't yet exist, you can't really consider someone an advocate of an idea if they have not had the opportunity to choose between it and an alternative?  Guettarda 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence my smiley ;) Yet, I have seen many creationist sites that roll out people like Newton as some sort of evidence that ........ actually, I have never been sure what their point is. Clearly it is irrelevant to modern creationism. David D. (Talk) 15:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the questions is post-Darwin creationists who were great scientists and by creationist we mean either OEC, YEC or some other form that rejects common descent (so not counting any neo-Lamarckians) the first one I can think of would be Henry F. Schaefer, III. Note however that he is a chemist, not a biologist and that while he is first rate, it would be very hard to call him "great." However, there are even YECs who do good science, it just never has anything to do with their YECism or is in spite of it. JoshuaZ 17:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to your comment on my talk page, yes I'm aware that he doesn't meed the conditions you requested. It was however, the closest I could think of. I doubt your challenge is answerable. JoshuaZ 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Challenge
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
 * currently alive and actively working in science
 * believes in biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy
 * works in a part of science that overlaps with creationist claims, such as biology and in particular, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. --Filll 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The best I can suggest are two very legitimate biologist who are modern creationists (it is debatable how prominent they are). Todd Wood and John_C._Sanford. Wood was always a creationist but has published mainstream papers on evolution. Sandford is a little more interesting since he became a creationist later in life. Obviously there are some like Jonathan Wells, who have a biological training but he has always, apparently, had the goal to use his degree as a tool to fight science. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way I would regard Wood to fit your criteria but he is quite an anomaly. I 'll try and think of more but don't be surprised if i can't come up with more. Sandford has quit science as far as I am aware. David D. (Talk) 17:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's reaching with respect to Wood.  This guy belongs to a couple of societies (I think the AAAS is open to anyone who sends in a check) that aren't exactly the top level research societies.  I don't even know if he's doing research now.  Bryan College is not exactly Harvard.  Is it even a research university?  Anyways, this guy is not exactly "prominent."Orangemarlin 17:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sanford might qualify. So we're up to 1.  LOL.Orangemarlin 18:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clear that Wood has moved to an environment that is more sympathetic to his ideas, and who can blame him, but his science with Rod Wing speaks for itself. I agree that is he not exactly prominent but he did teach a CSHL course on bioinformatics and that says a lot with respect to his credabitliy as a scientist.  He is also on the advisory board for a large NSF collaborative grant that expires in 2005. I'm not suggesting there are a ton of creationist biologists out there. But if the goal is to identify some who are legitimate, then Wood is the real deal, although, I will note that he has to compartmentalise his roles as a creationist and a scientist. His published work with Wing and his role on the NSF advisory are clearly not from a creationist perspective. I can't explain him but he is what Filll is looking for witth respect to his criteria. David D. (Talk) 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wood is a scientist, and if you doubt it, read his papers--the positions mentioned above are both significant, but I consider his work is about molecular biology, not evolution. The hardest cases is pseudoscience come when someone who really is a scientist has erratic views within his field. The most prominent of current people in this class is Peter Duesberg, a first-rate virologist, a full professor at berkeley, dozens of papers,  grants, etc.  who doesn't think HIV causes AIDS, and has gotten immense media attention & has affected policy in several nations. I consider him   a much worse threat to the immediate welfare of mankind than any anti-evolutionist. I think there is no need to be defensive about evolution. The explanatory power of the theory speaks for itself. :There is no contradiction between a literal belief in the bible and excellence at most forms of science, even genetics. People compartmentalize. DGG 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do hear a lot of these HIV doubters. I do not know what to make of them. Is there really substantial contrary evidence about the cause of AIDS? I have not looked at the evidence, but I do wonder. I am all for trying other hypotheses and thinking hard about facts that do not fit the current theory. However, sometimes people get seduced by what looks like contrary evidence and get fooled. We will just have to see I guess.--Filll 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But is interesting, that even if we reach down to community colleges and retired scientists etc, it is still hard to come up with 5. So what does that tell us?--Filll 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a big emphasis on might. It is not clear that Sanford believes in the literalism and inerrancy etc. It is not clear how much evolution is in computational chemistry.--Filll 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll
Filll, please stop offering the troll food, he'll never get the hint at this rate. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes please, I came here to post that very request. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good doggie. Don't bite me !! I hope I see your tail wagging.--Filll 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)