From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Previous archive Next archive

Talk page archive This is an archive of talk-page discussions. Do not add any discussion to this page. If you wish to reply to comments here, start a new discussion on the current talk page. If you believe that a discussion was archived prematurely, move it from the archive back to the talk page.

Contents 1 'Universe' 2 s or e? 3 Logo 4 Congratulations and goodluck 5 From one antipodean to another 6 Disambiguation system 7 Britannica 8 Bible references 9 American-centric 10 Genuine Question 11 Objection? from Human (copied from a user talk page) 12 On-mission articles. 13 Definitions of evolution 13.1 Short articles? 14 Conservative? 15 Statistical nonsense 16 Qualifiers in articles - one opinion. 16.1 Minor break for edit link insertion 17 Whilst v. While 18 Talk page archiving 19 Copyright 20 International spelling 21 Cheyenne Cherry 22 Attacks on CP? 23 Debate space 24 Cat for the Main Page 25 Inviting input in providing answers to questions about Christianity 26 Disgusting 27 The China quote 28 What religion leads to 28.1 And of course ... 29 This site is growing rapidly

'Universe'

Here is the sentence which I mentioned in PJR's talk page: "This is an encyclopædia about the universe we live in." As I said, this statement is overly naturalistic.

Here is my suggested revision: "This is an encyclopædia about the universe we live in and the spiritual realm that accompanies it." I think this would be recognizable biblical terminology. For example: "God has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. When Jesus died and rose again He appeared to his disciples and then ascended up into heaven (Acts1:9-11)." Ruylopez 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

hmm, I'm not too keen on the implication (albeit only slight) that the spiritual realm is not part of the universe. The universe is essentially "everything that is", apart from the Creator himself. Evangelicals (at least those that have put much thought into this) accept that the spiritual realm (i.e. heaven, the angels etc) was created during Creation week. I had a look over a few definitions for "encyclopaedia" and most invoke "various topics" and "the range of human knowledge". So how about "This is an encyclopædia about various topics from across the range of human knowledge, just like other encyclopaediae." (This then includes the next sentence as well) It's not as succinct as "the universe we live in" but it essentially says "this is a normal, general encyclopaedia" (and it also explained right after this that having assumptions doesn't make A Storehouse of Knowledge different). BradleyF (LowKey) 05:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page I agreed with Ruylopez that the universe refers to the material existence, although perhaps I've been too influence by all those secular scientists! Certainly the "spiritual realm", excluding God Himself, is part of His creation, but does that make it part of the "universe"? I don't know.

But perhaps it's best to do what you suggest by changing the wording to avoid the word "universe" altogether. I'll give some thought to your altered wording, and wait a bit to see if there's any other suggestions forthcoming.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 06:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost off-topic. Have you read C.S. Lewis's "Miracles: A Preliminary Study"? He makes an interesting observation about how "universe" is a term that we each interpret subjectively, base on our beliefs.BradleyF (LowKey) 06:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I haven't. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 07:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Among other things he says we each have a presuppositional belief regarding miracles. We either believe in them or we don't, and no amount of proof of itself will change our minds.BradleyF (LowKey) 10:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps avoiding the word universe is the best solution. An alternative: "This is a general encyclopædia covering a broad range of subject areas." Ruylopez 11:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be such lame nancy-panzies. "This is an encyclopædia about all of God's glorious creation." That's what the front page says, without having the stones to say it. ħuman ^{Number 19} 05:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

s or e?

The plural of encyclopaedia is technically encyclopaediae but encyclopaedias is more common, and is used on the main page (and I expect others). Do we explicitly go for the correct, or the popular? (Acknowledging that with English, the popular soon enough becomes the correct). In most matters I generally go for the technically correct over the popular, which may be right but is not always wise :) Is it even important to be consistent in this? BradleyF (LowKey) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My (pocket) Macquarie dictionary, which spells the word encyclopaedia, doesn't list encyclopaediae as the plural, which I take it means that they would consider encyclopædias to be correct. As I've stipulated Australian English to be the norm, that is what I would go for. Of course, this is only for articles in the project and help namespaces (and I'll include the Main Page in that, even though it's in mainspace), so anywhere else would be according to the standard rules for language use. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Logo

(Dove & flood) As it's on every page & represents the site I think that it could do with improving- it's got jaggies (edge artefacts) on my screen at least. User 11^{speak to me} 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree! I have some Photoshop Skillz, but the only ones on point for that challenge are "blur" and "Gaussian blur" :).-Ames 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See aSK:Projects/Logo --TimS^talk 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and goodluck

I just wanted to say congratulations for finally leaving Conservapedia and starting this new wiki. I knew a man of your principles couldn't compromise his beliefs for too long. Perhaps, "compromise" is the wrong choice of words. Rather, I should say that while you never wavered in your principles, you chose to remain a prominent contributor to a project that as a whole, does far more harm to true Christian values than good. Anyway, that's in the past and I wish you the best in this new project of yours.

Godspeed(just kidding!) bless Tealish 04:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

More congratulations and good luck from me. You'll need the latter :) Ajkgordon 12:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can simply say thank you for dropping the thing about only using American spellings. Ligatures FTW!Umlaut 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what ligature means. Anyway, though I still disagree with the aims of this site, if it replaces CP, I won't complain. Phantom Hoover 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Philip! Some people complain about what should be done, and others roll up their sleeves and do something instead. --DinsdaleP 16:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck with your new project Philip. I'm sure things will be a lot less stressful for you here. DogP 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Phillip, I created this account almost exclusively to wish you good luck. So here it is- Congradulations and good luck.. It would be great if you could create a account looking at modern day events and controversies from a moderate, conservative view. We need one of those. Good luck! Theemperor 17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can we please remember the fact that he's a pseudoscience pusher? Phantom Hoover 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he's entitled to his opinions, you can have a conversation with him, and most importantly of all - he's not trying to run a teaching program to unfortunate children. DogP 19:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, best of luck and hope you succeed in your efforts to create a family friendly and Christian encyclopedia (not so much on the "Christian" part but whatever) and have fun while doing it.

...and sorry for using the "retrieve password" feature on your CP account that one time(s)... NF 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Philip. Best wishes for your new venture. It would be nice to see you succeed where others have so miserably failed. Genghis 20:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Since he wants non-Christians to be second-class citizens and large chunks of science banned by law from being taught, no, it won't be nice. --Gulik 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, argue against it then. Or maybe you'll find that's not what PJR wants. Ajkgordon 09:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I also will extend my best wishes. We have argued about dinosaurs back in the day in the past, but you were very understanding. I'm not sure how I will contribute--perhaps chemistry, or something--but good luck nonetheless. Sterile 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. I'm really happy that you've done this, Mr.Rayment. --JArneal 00:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too. I doubt I will contribute a lot but I've enjoyed adding a few pages. Really hope it works out. RedDog 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

From one antipodean to another

Hey Phillip, I cant see myself contributing to a heck of a lot over here (our purposes, ideals and worldviews are totally different) however I would like to extend a "good luck". We have debated on CP before (under several guises but I promise not to troll here) and you never called me "clueless" nor "Liberal ____". So best of luck buddy! Ace McWicked 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation system

Some sort of disambiguation system is going to be needed soon. In fact, the Queen and King articles linking to descriptions of chess pieces kind of suggest now is the time to start! Edit: Unless there already is one, that I haven't seen tealish^..... 07:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a quick template to help kickstart the disambiguation system: {{disambig}} --Sid 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think all the "chess piece" articles should be renamed like "Pawn (chess)" since all the piece names have broader, generally more important meanings. And, yes, a disamb. system is needed to help people find what they really want to read about. ħuman ^{Number 19} 21:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Britannica

Could someone change the link from Britannica on the main page to Encyclopædia Britannica, as I have just written this article. Thanks--MikeM 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter now, I've created a redirect that does the job.--MikeM 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bible references

Anyone know how to implement one of those bible verse citer things like they've got over at CP? Neveruse513 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I do: http://www.logos.com/reftagger

Ironically enough, that domain is in the spam blacklist. ;) --Sid 18:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

American-centric

One problem I see occurring is a tendency for articles to re-hash the US-centricism of CP--see Gun control, for example. This is the WORLD-wide web, and I think it would be interesting to have articles that reflect broader global perspectives. TheoryOfPractice 17:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The gun control article is currently US specific, but I wouldn't call it US centric yet (though it would bear watching). The US info is at least in it's own section clearly marked, but granted it is the only such section. Hopefully this one will balance out over time. If there are others that you know of, either go ahead and address it, or or let us know.BradleyF (LowKey) 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to fix the March 21 article, it actually claimed that March was in the Spring! ;) Somebody got their planet upside-down... ħuman ^{Number 19} 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I would agree that Spring starts on March 21, but 21 March is a couple of weeks into Autumn. 'Course anyone ought to know that with all those continents, gravity would pull the Northern Hemisphere to the bottom! BradleyF (LowKey) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What are all these nothern-hemisphere-centric views doing here? We here in the southern hemisphere are on the top and you northern-hemisphere people are on the bottom! Didn't you know that?  :-) Philip J. Rayment^discuss 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A gun doesn't look as threatening upside down. :-) Taytopacket 23:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Genuine Question

For those around at the time did CP start out like this? Noble ideas? Mutual respect? A real reluctance to ban and a seamingly genuine attempt to engage. RedDog 21:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious to the answer to this question as well. I doubt CP was always the epitome of hypocrisy and hatred as it is now, but I would also think it was never too great in terms of being open-minded, as the owner ironically keeps calling on editors to be. This of course is only my guess based on what I've seen. Perhaps I am dead-wrong on this. tealish^..... 21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, CP started off "quietly" and for months the only people there were Andy and his homeschoolers (roughly Nov 06 - Feb/Mar 07). Then the blogs found it and a zillion people turned up. People who disagreed with things like Andy's abortion/breast cancer fetish got pretty short shrift pretty quickly - by mid-May 07 it was a rolling disaster. ħuman ^{Number 19} 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Andy started to advertise it as he was interviewed on the BBC Radio4 Today programme. BrianCo 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Objection? from Human (copied from a user talk page)

Copied here by BradleyF (LowKey)

On the main page, this wiki (honestly) claims that 1/3 of the human race identify as "Christians" (I respect adherents.org as a source). However, in that 1/3 are huge numbers of RCC (old earth, evolution is ok, etc.), "nominal" (ie, baptised when 3, exchanges Christmas presents), Episcopal (gay priests), etc. The claim then continues that all those 1/3 must surely take the Bible as the literal "truth" (not allegory, etc.). I'm having some trouble with these narrow minded claims. Why I typed this on poor old ToP's talk page is anyone's guess. Just practicing for the big time? ħuman ^{Number 19} 06:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Human, it specifically says;

Consider this: One out of three people in the world consider themselves Christian[2],
which in principle means that they believe what the Bible says, and the Bible says that
God created the world.

The statement is laying out the principles underlying the site. Notice it says "in principle". Yes there are differences in belief about historicity and even applicability, but we have to start somewhere. This is laying out the reason for this site's existence. Anyone reading the content (including those you listed above) is free to say "well I don't believe that". One of the problems with trying to cater to all of those above is that they each choose different parts (or at least not identical parts) to interpret as allegory, or out-of-date or otherwise inapplicable. It's impossible to reconcile them all, so the easiest position to take is to treat the whole Bible as true and factual, with historical/allegorical/poetic/apocolyptic/other determined from the text itself. This is the actual evangelical (i.e. many "denominations") position anyway, so it covers both a large part of Christendom and is at least middle-of-the-road and explicit for the rest. In fact it wouldn't matter if a site's position was totally invalid, provided it was stated upfront and held to consistently. Well, I'll never get that 2 cents back.BradleyF (LowKey) 06:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't fault the guy, he did say he was practicing for the big time. tealish^..... 06:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I copied it here because I thought it deserved a thoughtful answer, so no criticism of Human is intended at all.BradleyF (LowKey) 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a further reason for that screed and this site. Yes, it's true that some aspects of this site, such as it's opposition to evolution, is not shared by many of that third. However, one thing that that third presumably has in common is believing that God is behind it all. While many people, even ones that don't call themselves Christian, are happy to go along with God somehow being involved, there are many others, including in influential positions, who object even to that. That is they don't just want evolution, for example, taught, but they want naturalistic (God-free) evolution taught. One case, which I believe was featured in the documentary film Expelled (which I haven't seen yet), is that of Guillermo Gonzalez. He wrote a book which was made into a film, The Privileged Planet. The theme of this film was that Earth was in one of the few inhabitable parts of the galaxy, and only at the very end it added that this indicated that there was some purpose to the universe. It did not try to prove the existence of God, and the "film says nothing about religion, evolution, Darwin, or even Intelligent Design" (Gerry Bergman, Slaughter of the Dissidents, p.280). Yet evolutionists mounted a campaign against the film.

So all those ask me, "couldn't God have used evolution", are to some extent using a dishonest argument. Because the argument is, in effect, "why don't you accept evolution but add God to it", yet when some people try to do just that, the cry then is, "you can't add God to it!".

So about one-third of the world—without counting theistic non-Christian religions such as Islam, which would increase that fraction considerably—believes that God created everything. Yet do the main encyclopædias, such as those mentioned on the main page, acknowledge that? Does Wikipedia's article on evolution claim—or even admit the possibility of—God using evolution? Of course not. So the atheists have several encyclopædias promoting their atheistic (naturalistic) views, yet we have people here who quibble about whether all of that one-third reject evolution, rather than objecting to the mainstream encyclopædias totally ignoring a large percentage of the world's beliefs. Methinks there is something other than a desire for accuracy and fairness at play here.

Sure, what this site holds to is not held in total by all of that one-third. But at least we are doing something towards countering the bias of the mainstream encyclopædias. And it's a complex question anyway. Okay, many Catholics accept evolution. So what does that mean? That we should cater more for evolution? But official Catholic teaching is that Adam and Eve were real people. So do any of you evolutionists object to us at least saying that unequivocally? Or is it that you really want a total capitulation to the evolutionary point of view?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "person with reality-based worldview" over "evolutionist," myself--the "ism/ist" suffix makes it sound as it belief in scientific fact is akin to dogmatic religious belief or a political stance, which it is not. That being said, official Catholic teaching has said a lot of things over the years, a tiny bit of it good, most of it bad--ask your local Aborigine population about that. The idea of the "Adam and Eve" myth and its effects on science, have come to fall clearly in the second category. TheoryOfPractice 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "person wit ha reality-based worldview" applies to creationsts!  :-) And evolutionism is a belief. See here. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have two comments at this point.

1, "Consider this: One out of three people in the world consider themselves Christian[2], which in principle means that they believe what the Bible says..." - I don't think that follows. While I will certainly yield that most, if not all, Christians consider the Bible to be very important, I would contend that if someone considers themselves to be Christian, all I can deduce from that is that they think/believe that: God is responsible for all existence in the universe, and more importantly, for human life, which is a special creation having free will (similar to God Himself), and that God was incarnated on Earth as His Son Jesus Christ, in order to suffer and die as people do, and be resurrected and then finally returned to Heaven in order to provide a path to salvation for all humans in spite of their sinning nature. And even that might be overstating it a bit. Everything else they think/believe depends on what various theology/dogma/teachings they adhere to.

2, Bradley F. says above, "It's impossible to reconcile them all, so the easiest position to take is to treat the whole Bible as true and factual..." - I would counter that the easiest position to take would be to distill the core of the project from what they all agree on - which would be something along the lines of what I clumsily wrote above, although I am not a theologian.

In summary, it would make more sense to me for the basic "mission" behind this project to be focused on the Word and Message of Salvation of Jesus Christ as presented in the Gospels, which can largely be reconciled with each other by understanding the different audiences they were written for, and, again, distills to something like what I wrote above. Please forgive me if I erred in using too many capital letters out of respect for this environment. And thank you for bringing this discussion to this talk page, Bradley F. ħuman ^{Number 19} 00:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first point seems to be trying to force a non-existent distinction. Sure, a Christian is, loosely, one who believes those things, but they believe those thing because those things are what the Bible teaches. So they believe those things because they believe the Bible.

The problem with your second point is where to draw the line and why include views that are clearly unbiblical. For example. your first point included "claims" that even some in mainstream Christian churches reject. See here for an example. In other words, stick to what all Christians agree on, and you stick to almost nothing.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, I would argue that that is not a "loose" definition, it's the core one. I would also argue that a Christian worships and has faith in Jesus Christ, not the Bible. If sticking to what all Christians believe is "almost nothing", then what is Christianity. I again still argue that all Christians believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Anyway, hopefully at some point this wiki will have a very good article on Christianity which I can refer to in order to understand this wiki's view of what it is. ħuman ^{Number 19} 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus invoked OT scripture as factual and true, including the creation account. So to accept Jesus as divine but not accept Scripture as true and factual . Also we believe His divinity and resurrection because it is claimed in the Bible (I'm pretty sure Philip already said that). Also, beyond considerations of who to cater for, Philip has adopted this site's worldview because he (along with me, and others) holds that worldview and therefore holds it to be the correct one. The reason that you definition of a Christian is loose is that it only deals with belief, it leaves out the core of what one does with that belief (e.g. which is what you added in your last post, regarding worship and faith).BradleyF (LowKey) 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: your first sentence, not to nitpick really, but when Jesus was asked which was the most important commandment, didn't he make up two new ones instead of picking from the list God gave Moses? Your second sentence appears to be an unfinished thought, since it lacks a verb and predicate - where were you going with that? As far as your explanation of the reason(s) for the adopted worldview, I can accept that, but I must say, it makes your look a tad narrow-minded and unaccepting of "other" strains of Christian thought/theology and traditions of worship. Thanks for trying to answer my question, though. ħuman ^{Number 19} 23:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Actually, although they were not 2 or the 10 they were from the Old Testament (Deutoronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 both given to Moses by God). Although we say "the" Ten Commandments, they were not the only laws ("Commandments") in the Old Testament. IIRC the Pharisees had a list of some 600 odd. As to the second sentence, you are absolutely correct. My point was that if Jesus held the OT to be true and factual it is paradoxical to hold Jesus as divine but the OT as not true and factual. (A variant on the axiom that "No, Lord" is a paradox).

On-mission articles.

I'm wondering about the extent to which this wiki needs articles on linux, chess, jazz, hockey, etc. People want to come and write about stuff they like, fine, I get that and am guilty of it myself (although my contributions re : John Coltrane and J.S. Bach did deal with the religious aspects of their music.....) ASK's user base is far to small to really come up with anything that will allow it, at any point in the foreseeable future, to become an alternative to WP. And that's okay. I think PJR should think about limiting the creation of new articles to topics which are DIRECTLY on-topic (religion, creationism and related issues, moral issues related to religion, etc) and which would allow for edits which would be left out at WP. The chess articles, for instance, are poorly-written, poorly-conceived stubs which do NOTHING to advance this wiki's mandate, and probably never could, even if they ever became decent articles in their own right. There isn't much of a Biblical angle to add to chess problems, especially when you don't have a decent article on Augustine or dinosaurs or the role of Catholicism in the genocide of the American Indians.

And stop with the dictionary entries. No need. Gets in the way. TheoryOfPractice 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are being overly pessimistic. The site has only been around about a week - why not give these articles a chance?--CPalmer 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Because they're distracting from the point of the wiki and by nature will always be. TheoryOfPractice 16:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Writing plans for all! Seriously, though, I agree with ToP. We're still in our infancy here, so let's stick to our stated goal. I think it's still an extremely broad spectrum of articles to initiate, but let's keep it at least somewhat attached to religion, creation, and a biblical worldview. Though I'm not sure exactly how religious Coltrane was... --Jeff W. Lauttamus^Discussion 16:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the chess article?? RedDog 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. It's concise and informative. However, I think our articles need to steer a little bit closer to our stated goal. That's just my two cents, though. --Jeff W. Lauttamus^Discussion 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC-This site is growing rapidly!11!) The articles on the pieces are horribly written. Really. Sorry. If the Queen (chess) article was the first one I read on this site, I wouldn't even bother to look at another. And 'Trane was DEEPLY spiritual--though not dedicated to any particular religion AFAIK. Are you not familiar with "A Love Supreme?" TheoryOfPractice 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I didn't say spiritual, I said religious. He was Christian, then addicted to heroin, then muslim, then Christian...too much to handle for me. His early stuff was much better—before he got clean. Also, let's fix up the chess articles if you think they're that bad. Even if it's not on-point with the project, they should still be well-written. --Jeff W. Lauttamus^Discussion 16:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Page, top right: "This is an encyclopædia about the universe we live in. We will have articles about a broad range of topics, just like other encyclopædias." Doesn't say "religious topics only"...--WJThomas 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but there also is somewhat of a mission statement, isn't there? I think what ToP is trying to say—or at least what I'm trying to say—is that if this is going to be an encyclopedia written from a biblical viewpoint, there are numerous articles dealing with creationism and the like that still need to be written. Perhaps we should be focused on those and let the other articles fall into place. We have to start somewhere. --Jeff W. Lauttamus^Discussion 16:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that the idea that Christians are obsessed with the creation vs evolution 'debate' and similar matters promotes a harmful and unjust stereotype. In my opinion, informative entries about diverse topics will present a much more rounded and constructive view than a site devoted to spinning out the endless origins bore-fest even further.--CPalmer 17:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What Jeff said. It's like a first-year history undergrad who wants to write a paper on "World War II" or "The History of the British Monarchy." You can't. What you can do, and possibly do well, is stake out a small, well-defined corner and do that corner justice. TheoryOfPractice 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you shoo away contributions on wider subjects, you'll end up as a religion-only site. If that's what PJR wants, I have no beef, but if his goal is a more general family-friendly wiki, you're shooting yourself in the foot.--WJThomas 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All I'm trying to say is that there are basic biblical articles that need to be written. I think those should be a priority, even if they're stubs at the moment. There are a lot of red links that shouldn't be. Shooing away other contributions is not what I had in mind, but politely nudging them toward a more religious subject matter is. --Jeff W. Lauttamus^Discussion 17:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm trying to improve the articles on chess, but it's difficult. The think I have to do is boil down advanced knowledge into something suitable for beginners, and the result is, disturbingly often, a poorly written mess. I'm trying to improve, but still. Another thing I that I despise stubs, and will try to lengthen my articles as much as possibel, even when not nessecary, such as Bishop (chess). The refrence to church and state hab little to do with the game, but extended the article, and often I'll try to draw things out, and fail. I'll try to improve. Theemperor 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the (unspoken?) purpose of the wiki: to promote the anti-scientific creationist viewpoint. If people are encouraged to write and improve articles on any subject in which they feel qualified, then they will be exposed necessarily to the viewpoint(s) of the site. If discouraged, they will probably depart without looking at anything. So: discourage them all you wish. User 11^{speak to me} 17:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cut the nonsense. Creationists are not "anti-scientific". It was creationists who started modern science! Philip J. Rayment^discuss 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I see both sides here. The broader view, as I see it, and as the main page states, is that Philip wants this to become a general encyclopedia, but with a Young Earth Creationist Christian perspective where it applies. The other side of the coin is whether getting the "core" of the articles where it does apply written as a priority. It's a bit off-topic, but I remember writing articles on the Fourth of July and the Pledge of Allegiance and, I think, the US Flag at CP six months after it had been started. I would humbly suggest that if it were possible, any red link that relates to the YECC perspective be prioritized - hopefully the more "on mission" among you can bring in friends, family, church members, etc., and jump-start the core of the project so an "environment" is developed. Reading well done "mission"-based articles is a good way for a newcomer (or "outsider") to absorb how to contribute here. ħuman ^{Number 19} 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I see Theo has come round to my way of thinking. See eg Danish, which (s)he created.--CPalmer 19:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

for a particular reason. TheoryOfPractice 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused. "Young Earth Creationist Christian perspective where it applies" seems to be the basis for this site. But for much of science subjects it certainly applies. Uranium and its decay products for example , the article on the Mammoth "Mammoths first appeared over 4 million years ago" certainly isnt a YEC worldview ? Hamster 03:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As a general reply to this section, we already have topic-specific Wikis (e.g. CreationWiki) and other sites (e.g. www.creation.com). The point of ASK is to have a general encyclopædia with a biblical basis.

It is true that for a lot of topics the biblical worldview may make no real difference. For example, the history of the railways of Melbourne (something that I worked on at Wikipedia) is unlikely to be affected by the worldview. But there's also a lot of topics that are not directly Bible-, theology-, or creation-related for which the biblical worldview does make a difference. One such topic might be ecological care. This can be approached from a nature-worshipping perspective (per the "greenies"), or from a biblical perspective (God has created the natural world for our use, but it's His creation that we need to look after and not abuse).

On the one hand I appreciate that perhaps we should concentrate on the articles where the biblical worldview will make a difference (and I agree with TheoryOfPractice that we don't want mere dictionary entries), but on the other hand, I don't want to discourage contributors by telling them that we don't want them to write on the subjects they know about simply because we want other subjects written first.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of evolution

Like all pseudosciences, "Evolution" is defined in a slippery way. This works to the advantage of proponents, because if you can't pin them down on what they are actually saying, you can't point out their errors. So the first thing we should do is provide an accurate definition of "evolution". Or if it turns out that there are multiple definitions, depending on context or something, we should provide each definition.

I want to know in particular what evolution means in a sentence like this:

• X percent of the American people believe in evolution - or,
• The Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution

I tried to clarify this at Wikipedia, but they got their arbcom to stop me. They labeled me a "POV pusher" because I caught them pushing a pro-evolution POV. If the leadership here will permit, I'd like to write a Definitions of evolution article that distinguishes between:

1. "gradual appearance": the idea that various forms of life appear (over tens of millions of years) in the fossil record
2. "naturalistic evolution": the theory that physical processes are sufficient to account for this gradual appearance

Note that Young Earth Creationists disagree with both points, while Old Earth Creationists accept the first but also disagree with the second.

Note also that all three major groups - supporters of naturalistic evolution, YEC's and OEC's accept the scientific idea that small changes can accumulate within a species (see Microevolution), producing for example different breeds of dog such as chihuahua and Saint Bernard. The disagreement is over how cats and dogs could have "evolved" from a common ancestor. Let's clarify the reasons for this disagreement. --Ed Poor 12:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what your problem is. Evolution is not defined "in a slippery way" at all. There is literally tons of scientific literature of the subject. Could you please explain what you mean?

As regards the two sentences that you provide by way of example: I suggest that in case of the first instance you would have to ask whoever took the survey what the precise question was that was put to those surveyed (and perhaps what they would have been told had they asked for clarification of what was meant by evolution); in the second case I would suggest that you would have to ask the Roman Catholic Church. Neither example is in any way indicative that evolution itself is defined loosely.

In relation to your proposed article I suggest that the concept that you call "gradual appearance" is not evolution as anyone defines it. So to define it as such in an article would be wrong.

Finally, simply put, if everyone agrees that "microevolution" occurs then everyone presumably agrees that evolution on the larger scale occurs. After all evolution is just microevolution over a long period of time isn't it. --Horace 05:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Horace, evolutionists often equivocate about what they mean by evolution. Conservapedia's Definition of evolution article (which I wrote some/much of) explains it fairly well.

Regarding microevolution, it is here that I disagree with Ed. Sort of. That is, the leading creationists (Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis explicitly, and probably Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society also) say that we should avoid using the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" for just the reason apparent here: They imply something that is not the real issue. That is, the real issue is not the amount of change, but the direction of change. Evolution requires increasing genetic information in massive quantities. Creationists reject that requirement totally. Rather, creationists say that information decreases. It is this decrease that would account for most examples of "microevolution" (small changes), whilst supposed examples of "macroevolution" need increases.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume by the way this "article request" has been presented that it is meant as a sort of "honey pot" to attract bile and controversy. The premise demonstrates a sort of ideological tunnel vision about the subject that will essentially prevent reasonable discourse on the topic and can only sow discord. This discord I believe is the editors intent. My advice to Ed (and by extension all of ASK) would be to contribute to the cannonical article on evolution rather than start a politically charged and frankly ridiculous spur article at this early stage. Given the power structure here. biblical literalists will win out without going out of their way to poke ridiculous and entirely spurious sticks in the eyes of non-literalists. My last word on the topic is a writing assigment for our uncle from CP. Explain the resonance between your questions and the ones I offer below with special empahasis on why pairng the sets of question show how useless and irrelevent they are:

I want to know in particular what god means in a sentence like this:

• X percent of the American people believe in God- or,
• The Roman Catholic Church accepts God as fact.

Please do this privately and off line. Sheesh! 14:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we can make jokes about 'writing assignments', but nobody here has any authority to actually impose writing assignments on other contributors.

If that was an attempt to show that Ed Poor's question was silly, it failed, as the analogical question you posed are in fact quite legitimate. And Horace has already explained how they could be answered.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Philip. I was in fact joking about the writing assignment thing. I apologize.

On to substance, I think Horace's response shows precisely why the original questions were not particular useful, if not downright silly, as the obvious answer in all four cases(including my variants)is it depends on what the questioner meant by X' and, as was demonstrated, what assumptions the audience has about X. Not so bad in itself perhaps but when combined with the assumption that theories of evolution are pseudo-science and "proponents" of theories of evolution something like snake oil salesemen we're left with base mockery. I've the general impression you're not in the business of creating "Bash X" articles.

Back to Ed's point, it seems as if the sort of critique he is aiming at might best be included in the evolution article itself where it could be framed in a site appropriate way or, if it is actually a discussion he is looking for, perhaps created as a debate topic.

Sheesh! 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No need for the apology. I thought you were, but yours wasn't the first reference I've seen, and I just thought I'd clarify before anybody started getting the wrong idea.

I think it's essential for the evolution article to make clear what evolution is, or at least what exactly the article is talking about. However, in line with the desire to keep articles short, I think that should be kept brief, and there be a link to a more detailed discussion of definitions in its own article. I mean, evolution is a big enough topic all by itself without going into a lot of detail on that point!

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If I could offer a general rebuttal - noting first that yes, this is a site tailored to a biblical point of view; and also accepting that this is an entirely legitimate point of view; your argument relies too much on the redefinition of terms. Evolution as described by biologists, the people trained within the field and knowledgeable about one of the most important facts in science, is the standard by which all definitions ought be measured. You would not allow the Pope to define the Baptist church and their beliefs, so you should not define evolution on your own terms. Define it the way biologists define it; which is the way any competent resource on the matter defines it. Otherwise Evolution does look like a pseudoscience built upon the slippery slope of deceit: you're characterizing something you have no reason to objectively characterize!

Now, none of that is to be taken to mean that you shouldn't argue that evolution is incorrect, just that if you're not actually talking about evolution, then you're not actually refuting it, and this leads rational people to believe that you do not actually have a logical leg to stand on, thusly undermining your efforts. But debating is also for another page; insofar as Evolution concerns the existence of God, instead of representing a mechanism He installed so that Creation would operate properly, you can talk about the short comings of its metaphysics. That is more than plausible. Lemarkian evolution, for example, is not panning out by the looks of things. Also, since science does not deal with metaphysical issues, that means the ball is in your court; as long as Evolutionists stay out of the bible, you're more than free to take the mechanisms they uncover as more evidence for an orderly universe as defined by an all knowing and all rational God.

Otherwise I think the creation/evolution war will spin on and on and on and on forever until creation falls out of favor with everyone save those with fundamentalist leanings, because Creationists were too busy chasing phantoms to fight in the war they started to being with. Jirby 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that you didn't actually read Conservapedia's article on the subject. Correct? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I was responding to Ed's position that Evolution is a pseudo-science, mainly. Jirby 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Short articles?

Above, PJR wrote "...in line with the desire to keep articles short...". Did I miss that guideline? Surely some topics, at least, are eventually going to result in rather long articles? Like, for a random example, World War II, which would probably be spread over dozens of fairly long articles? Just curious. I guess I am also wondering if there is a target age range, for all or part of articles (like intro written at high school level, say, even if an article gets complex later)? ħuman ^{Number 19} 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See Rules and regulations for the article level. The article length is mentioned on the Main Page, but I guess should be mentioned in the Regulations also. I would like to think that the articles could be kept short by breaking them up into separate articles. The evolution article, for example, already has a couple of sections where the information is in summary form, with links to separate articles (albeit not written yet) that will cover those aspects in more detail. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Conservative?

PJR - You have stated your position regarding the Christian basis of aSK but could you elaborate on the "conservative" aspect? This was probably a bigger bone of contention at Conservapedia than the religious viewpoint. Genghis 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What 'conservative' aspect? Where have I used the term that needs elaboration? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 08:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Genghis reading the front page I can't find a mention of conservative. All I see is biblical. Just write article from the premises that the bible is factually and historically correct. If you see people going on about liberal/conservative they are point of view pushers. The articles should be politically neutral. The idea that liberal=atheist and conservative=religious is a false dichotomy, created by people who wish to use other people's religious views to further their own political agenda. Π 09:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Statistical nonsense

"One American study showed that 5% of scientists believed that God created man, which equates to 100,000 scientists in the U.S. alone rejecting at least that aspect of evolution." This is abject nonsense, a false dichotomy. Evolutionary theory neither demands the inexistence of God, nor does belief in creation rule out evolution. An enormous number of those scientists would be following some form of deism or theistic evolution. To name one example: Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, is an avowed evangelical and a stalwart defender of evolutionary theory. To suggest that a scientist's belief in creation is a scientific rejection of evolution is patently false, or worse, deceitful. Publius 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The study found that 5% of scientists believed that humans were created in their current form less than 10,000 years ago. In other words, they were created, not evolved. Does Francis Collins believe that humans were created in their current form less than 10,000 years ago? Or does he believe that humans evolved, even if he believes that God started the process off? The latter is classic theistic evolution. Believing that God created humans is not classic evolution. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 04:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you should actually 1) phrase it accurately, and 2) cite the study. I had to go searching for it, to find that yes, 5% polled (in 1997 (or 1991?)) believed in a recent creation, and 40% believed in theistic evolution. Thus, 45% believe that God created man. And of course, you ignore the matter of expertise completely, as a 1995 study found that only .14% of earth and life scientists (35 times fewer) gave YEC any credence. Thus 5% still manage to know the truth in spite of "indoctrination"? More like 5% maintain their religious indoctrination and a priori argumentation despite two centuries of evidence laid at their feet. It's not hard to do engineering, computer science, or industrial chemistry as a YEC, since in such fields one has no training in biology or geology, and never actually has to address the evidence. Publius 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the phrasing is accurate, but I agree a link to the study could be added if you have one (my source was secondary, although that could be added failing a primary source). At least you have agreed that the figure is accurate, so implicitly agree that you mistitled this section. Thanks.

Evolutionists are happy to quote "scientists" when it suits them (see Project Steve for an example), but then try and switch criteria when it doesn't go their way. And your last sentence begs the question; ignoring the peer pressure (to put it nicely), it's also not hard to do biology or geology as a YEC either.

Many creationists become creationists because of the evidence, so your claim that 5% are creationists simply because of their religious views is nonsense. And yes, when the creationary view is actively suppressed in academia and the media, then "indoctrination" is a valid term. Only on Sunday last was I talking to a woman who had become a creationist because of the evidence, and who said that her emotional reaction on hearing the evidence was one of anger, at not being given the evidence sooner. I've heard of this reaction in other cases also.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Qualifiers in articles - one opinion.

TheoryOfPractice is taking the "Creationists believe" type qualifiers out of articles on the basis of redundancy. Apart from a few notable exceptions, in my opinion this is the correct approach. I have said elsewhere that all articles should be taken to have an unwritten "According to the Bibical worldview" at the beginning (which in many cases will not make a difference to content). My point at the time was that the articles should both present and represent the Biblical worldview. TOP's point, which is at least as valid IMO, is that "unwritten" means unwritten. The POV is declared for the whole encyclopaedia and does not need to be constantly invoked. As to the exceptions, when an article is specifically dealing with differences in position, or a Biblical perspective on a non-Biblical position, it would be appropriate to use qualifiers for both positions. (Eg. "(SOME CULT) states that God is X, but according to the Bible God is Y"). In other words a Biblical worldview is the default POV, and only needs to be explicitly invoked in a minority of cases. This is of course my own opinion, but I raise it here for discussion.BradleyF (LowKey) 23:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. Wikipedia (for example), doesn't start its evolution article with "According to evolutionists..." despite claiming to be NPOV, so why should we do it when we do put our POV up front? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would much rather an article that reads, for example "Dinosaurs and man coexisted" than "Creationists hold that...". TheoryOfPractice 23:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there only one biblical world view? Do you mean young-earth creationist, literal Bible view? Sterile 23:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'biblical worldview' is the worldview that the bible teaches. There may be disagreement about just what it teaches, but conceptually that is what it is. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they mean --> biblical worldview <--, so while there are many ways to use the Bible to shape your view of the world, there is only one The Biblical Worldview. --Sid 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see... Sterile 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much my reaction, too. *shrugs helplessly* --Sid 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, well we had better changed the Evolution page to read, "Evolution is an incorrect biological, scientific theory...". The Starlight problem page should simply read, "The starlight problem is no problem at all". The Feasibility of the Great Flood page should read, "The Great Flood is feasible". I'll get started. --Horace 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. An honest attempt to lower friction and standardise style, and this is your reaction? You are all simply having a dig at A Storehouse of Knowledge's declared POV, but adding nothing to the discussion about qualifiers. Whether you agree with a Biblical worldview or not, or whether you think Biblical worldview is representative or not, should make no difference at all if you follow the regs, guidelines etc. TOP and I agree on almost nothing, but if we can agree on this, maybe you should think there is some objective merit in it.BradleyF (LowKey) 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you feel the need to say "Good grief". I was attempting to make what I thought was a legitimate point. In my view the stated position of this site causes some considerable difficulty. If you actually start articles with the phrase "According to the Biblical worldview" you run into the problems that I attempted to highlight. The problem is worse if you simply assume it rather than expressly include it. I know that Philip has put considerable thought into the POV policy but I think it still has problems. My post was a genuine attempt to add to the discussion. If you got nothing out of it, then so be it. --Horace 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Horace, "Good Grief" was not directly only at you. My reaction was due to the fact that generally, the unhelpful responses were potshots at the Biblical worldview as ascribed and described at A Storehouse of Knowledge rather than on the practice of qualifying redundantly. The point that I made was that one's opinion of a Biblical worldview (or even this site's expression of it, if you see a difference) should have no effect on our practice regarding qualifiers. Given the qualifier is on the main page (which is first on the navigation panel)expressly including it again all over place makes this whole site a polemic, rather than a general encyclopaedia.BradleyF (LowKey) 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather thann making a hard rule just include the "according to ther bible . . . " caveat where it seems to matter, like when you're drawing a distinction between received truth and that whacky science stuff, for instance. Sheesh! 03:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Bradley, but the site's definition of "biblical worldview" is going to make many Christians go "Dude, what?" because it suddenly claims that unless you believe in YEC and a completely literal approach to the history according to the Bible, you can't claim to have a biblical worldview. I'm sorry, but this sort of Bible Interpretation Monopoly strikes me as somewhat arrogant, and it's going to lead to friction as this project progresses.

In fact, this might be the one CP mistake Philip didn't avoid while creating this project: Andy redefined "conservative" to mean "everything I believe to be good". And on this site, "biblical worldview" just happens to be exactly Philip's interpretation. As such, I think criticism of it and of your proposal to present it as universal, unqualified truth should be embraced and not met with "Good grief".

Assuming this as The Truth in an encyclopedia project will lead to problems, just as Horace mentioned. Evolution currently states that it's a scientific theory - this is of course laughably wrong according to The Biblical Worldview. The entire article should be axed and rewritten from scratch to simply say that it's an incorrect pseudo-science and that there is no evidence for it. Young Earth Creationism needs to be completely rewritten. The first sentence is completely redundant, and the second sentence implies that there is evidence for an old Earth and that it's possible to believe in an old Earth "while recognizing the literal truth of the Bible". Yes, OEC is just as wrong as evolution, with the added deceit of presenting itself as being compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I apologize if this comes over as trolling, but there is a problem with this site's "YEC as Truth" (which only reveals itself once people read through the article linked from the main page) POV, and I think your suggestion will make things worse, not better. --Sid 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What you (and other before you) misrepresent as my view of the Bible is, as I've explained before (probably on Conservapedia), the traditional Christian view for most of the past 2000 years. Only in the last 200 years or so has there been a growing change in that view, and that is demonstrably due to extra-biblical influences, so does not count as a legitimate alternative biblical view.

"Scientific" does not mean "truth". "Scientific" means that something can be studied in a scientific manner. But when so studied, might turn out to be wrong. Now whether evolution is even scientific in this sense depends on what angle you are coming at it from. Certainly science can be used to investigate some aspects of it, but creationists have also argued that in many respects it is not scientific. So the reference to "scientific" in the evolution article may be misleading, but it's not necessarily outright wrong, which is why I haven't removed it.

As for the Young Earth Creationism article, I'll change that to a redirect to the older Biblical creation article, just as there is already a redirect from Young Earth creationism.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Philip, you pretty much make my point: During the last few centuries, the common view (in the sense of what regular people think and are often even taught) has shifted away from only interpreting the Bible in the way you do today. When the average Christian today reads that an encyclopedia project follows a biblical worldview, they will not expect that to mean "YEC as truth" - or at least not as "only YEC as truth".

But I'm actually not here to debate about what you The Centuries Old View regards as biblical (or scientific, or whatever). I'm not here to "prove you wrong" or anything. If you paid attention (And I know you: You did.), you will have noticed that I'm not part of any biblical debates. Personally, I quite honestly don't care what you want to present as The Truth. I want you to have at least some degree of success - if just to annoy Andy. (:P) Which is why I even bothered to comment here in the first place.

So from that angle, I will point out that right now, you're setting yourself up for a repetition of [[cp:Talk:Gun control]], just with a biblical subject. And this time around, you will be in Andy's position while some intelligent and polite Christian will be in yours. And he will argue that his worldview is biblical even though he doesn't believe in a young Earth, just like you argued that not fully agreeing with all of Andy's views doesn't automatically make you a liberal.

Just look at Sterile's comment up there - I doubt it will be the last time someone asks such a question.

If I could rewind time, I would advise you against establishing one specific biblical worldview as The Biblical Worldview on your wiki. It only limits the potential of the wiki and makes those who disagree with this one interpretation frown - to say the least. But I'm stuck in the present, so I will at least advise you against establishing The Biblical Worldview as the absolute, unqualified truth. It might look redundant to you, but a little reminder (and be it just in the way of a cleverly placed wikilink) in the article intro may go a long way in not alienating/confusing the people you want to reach out to.

Regardless of what happens now, I will give my best not to debate about this any further. I said what I wanted to say - what you make of it is fully up to you. Well, that, and I quite honestly got better things to do than debating about what view is or is not biblical. --Sid 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sid, while I understand that you are not wanting to argue about which view is correct, your argument implicitly assumes that both arguments are of equal merit, or both biblical. I would normally consider "biblical worldview" and "Christian worldview" to be synonymous, but this is a case where they are not. That many Christians hold a favourable view towards evolution or towards a Earth much older than 6,000 years does not mean that those view are biblical. See creation week and old Earth creationism for why the non-YEC views are not biblical, but compromises with secular views.

The raison d'être for this site's existence is to have an encyclopædia that doesn't accept anti-biblical secular views—which an old-Earth and theistic evolution are partly based on. The secular world has already caused many Christians to compromise their faith (their belief in what the Bible teaches) in this way, and this site is one small brick in the wall intended to hold back that tide. To accept such views here is tantamount to boring a hole through that brick.

Secularists often "use" theologically-liberal Christians to advance their cause. For example, atheist Eugenie Scott once said, "I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!" Richard Dawkins recommends that Christians read a book by Kenneth Miller, a Christian who supports evolution. But does Dawkins respect Miller even though he's a Christian? No. Elsewhere Dawkins said of such compromisers: "The moderates’ [liberals’] position seems to me to be fence-sitting. They half-believe in the Bible but how do they decide which parts to believe literally and which parts are just allegorical?" He also said, "Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual. Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!"

The point is that atheists and their ilk realise that theistic evolution and other forms of Old Earth creationism are not biblical, but are compromise positions. Yet such people continue to insist that biblical creationists must accept or accommodate such views. Really, this is nothing more than an attempt to have their view promoted, by subtly undermining the biblical view by pretending that the compromise view is still 'biblical'. Sorry, but this site is not going to conned or used like that. It will stick with what the Bible says, not what compromising Christians say (even if many of those Christians honestly believe what they do and don't realise that they are compromising).

Is that clearer?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt St. Augustine was a secularist. He wrote the following (as I have quoted elsewhere):

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

and

... it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

It may be a compromise, but it is one that has been realized for 1600 years as one that faith needs to make by the earliest fathers of the Church. To stick to the literal interpretation of the Bible is something that Augustine recognized as dangerous and foolish - and counterproductive to the messages of evangelism and salvation as it turns away people from Christianity. --Shagie 00:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What a compromise! It's almost NOMA. The quotes you supply are saying that Scripture only need be taken as accurate for matters of salvation, and in all other matters human conclusions are the "received truth" and Scripture that appeared to contradict such conclusions could be safely disregarded as not applicable/relevant and somehow not really contradictory. I don't see how quoting someone as advocating a "Human ideas first, Biblical where there's still room" worldview bears on the current discussion about a Biblical worldview other than showing that a compromised world view is not a Biblical worldview in principle. A worldview that merely includes the Bible is not the same as a Biblical worldview.BradleyF (LowKey) 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating St. Augustine and claiming that the Bible is an authority on matters of salvation. Religion is a matter of the soul, morality, and the relationship with God. It wasn't claimed to be a history book or a science text book in 460 AD by the church fathers. It doesn't need to be claimed to be one now. The literal Biblical worldview is forcing our gift of reason to be subverted to faith when each should be working hand in hand to understand the universe. This is what was understood in the early days of Christianity. If reason says one thing and it contradicts the Bible on something that isn't a part of salvation (as I understand it, the statements in the Nicene Creed are what is necessary), then it is reason that should take precedence. It is unfortunate that learned people are turning away from Christianity because those evangelizing it are restricted to a narrow world view - and to instead find material such as "The Universe In a Single Atom" by His Holiness the Dalai Lama that seeks to integrate rather than exclude reason (from the review of the book "Science shows us ways of interpreting the physical world, while spirituality helps us cope with reality. But the extreme of either is impoverishing. The belief that all is reducible to matter and energy leaves out a huge range of human experience: emotions, yearnings, compassion, culture. At the same time, holding unexamined spiritual beliefs, beliefs that are contradicted by evidence, logic, and experience, can lock us into fundamentalist cages."). What I quoted above is the Christian worldview - or at least that set down in the earliest churches and continuing to this day with Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. There may be some branches off from those early theologians, but that tradition is at the foundations of Christianity. If you want to drive people away from here and Christianity as a whole, by all means don't heed St. Augustine's warning - continue telling a story as if it was literal truth so that when others find something that makes them question part of it, they lose faith and question all of it. I doubt that is what you want. --Shagie 08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec, lowering indent level by two to keep the replies apart) Philip, You are aware that I wasn't trying to debate anything "pro-anti-biblical" (Now here's a construct I never thought I'd use!) or about the merit of the differing views, right? I was just telling you that today, there are more views on the Bible (biblical worldviews) than the one you advertise as The Truth and The Biblical Worldview. And that you will generate friction by monopolizing concepts like "biblical" and "truth" like that, even with fellow Christians and even fellow Creationists who would have loved to edit in a Christian project instead of one that locks them into a specific and narrow interpretation of the Bible.

This is what surprises me the most: You were the one who argued with Andy about being conservative without fitting into Andy's narrow view, and yet you repeat this pattern here by branding Old Earth Creationists and other Christians as having/pushing non-biblical or even anti-biblical views. I can understand that you fiercely believe in the correctness of your position, but I can't help but frown at the speed with which you seem to be heading towards a confrontation with people who- oh you know what, forget it. It's almost three fricken AM, and you've shown that you're determined. I'll just lean back and watch the fireworks later on.

Changing vote to full support for Bradley's suggestion. --Sid 00:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor break for edit link insertion

No, Augustine was no secularist. But neither did he disregard the historicity of the Bible as you (Shagie) allege. He was criticising "mistaken" and "ignorant" Christians, "reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture", Christians with "foolish opinions" and "false opinions" of the Bible who bring the Bible into disrepute by giving what they presume to be the meaning of the Bible, but actually "talking nonsense". He is afraid of what non-believers will think about the Bible's writers not because of what the Bible's writers say, but because of what these mistaken Christians say.

So Augustine was not talking about rejecting (or allegorising) anything in Scripture for which mankind had different opinions. In fact Augustine criticised those who didn't accept the biblical timescale: "Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed."[1].

Augustine was saying that we should not put people's salvation in jeopardy by expounding foolish interpretations of the Bible. He was not saying that the Bible is only an authority on matters of salvation. On the contrary, he repeats the concept of Jesus' words in John 3:12: "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?", in which he is clearly saying that if you don't believe the bits that you can check (the history), why would you believe the things you can't check (the spiritual).

Your point about opting for reason over the Bible on matters that are not to do with salvation begs the question: the things that we are discussing here, such as long ages and evolution, are not things that "reason" says; they are things that atheism says (and many Christians have foolishly adopted).

It's also not true (as a generalisation) that "learned people are turning away from Christianity because those evangelizing it are restricted to a narrow world view". The part of the church that accepts the historicity of the Bible is the part that is growing. The part that doesn't is the part that is dying.

It's true that Truth cannot contradict Truth. But you are claiming that reason can contradict the Bible (on matters not related to salvation), which means that not all the Bible is accurate. Now you might believe that, but that is not a position that this site can accept.

Obviously we will not please everyone. But what will drive people away is pretending to be faithful to the Bible while actually compromising with anti-biblical ideas, as is happening with those liberal churches. There will always be those who question the truth, but that is not reason to stop proclaiming truth as truth.

To Sid, yes, I know you weren't trying to debate the merit of the different views. I said as much. But I also pointed out that your argument was based on an implicit assumption that they had equal merit, so you were implicitly putting a position on their relative merit.

This site will "generate friction" whatever we do, so that's not reason to compromise on what the Bible actually says. I also reject that the biblical creation view is "narrow".

As for arguing with Andy, I was not disagreeing because he was being "narrow", but because he was wrong, so the comparison is invalid.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to the claims about a YEC view turning people off, this article just posted has some pertinent comments including examples of where the opposite is true. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst v. While

Is "whilst" standard Australian English? I changed a whilst to while earlier today, and I just found another one. I don't want to change something that is correct. In American English "whilst" sound pretentious and archaic. Sterile 02:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

update! It says on the WP page the exactly what I said: OK in Australian, pretentious and archaic in American English. Fascinating! Sterile 03:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You've learnt something! Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in the English language, and I don't understand all the terminology surrounding language and exactly how words are used in every case. "Whilst" is one of those words that I have a "gut feeling" (based on life experience) about it's use, but may occasionally use incorrectly. The one you changed I didn't change back because I wondered if I had used it incorrectly there (although I realised that wasn't your reason for changing it). Philip J. Rayment^discuss 05:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Some talk pages are getting quite long. Is there an archiving policy? Sterile 02:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No formal policy; just the normal: archive when they get too long (a matter of judgment) and don't archive likely-ongoing conversations (again a matter of judgment). There is a template ({{archive}}) to use on the archive page, which does put a minor restriction on the archive page name. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

I can't find a link to the site's copyright position on the main page. I think it should be readily available whatever it is (and if I couldn't find it it but it is there, it should be easier to find). ħuman ^{Number 19} 06:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

International spelling

Reftagger and SMW (and the doughnut article) have given me an idea. We have a “default” spelling standard of Oz English with no “correction” of other spellings (as long as they are correct somewhere). Wouldn’t it be good to be able to hover over a word that has multiple spellings and see the alternates (with a little “US” or “UK” etc to indicate whose spelling)? I have no idea if this exists anywhere or even if it is technically feasible (or practical), but it does rank as “wouldn’t that be handy”. BradleyF (LowKey) 05:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A thought something like this has crossed my mind before, although I hadn't related it to SMW or Reftagger. The problems I see are:

• The SMW route means tagging such uses of words. This method is probably technically feasible, but requires more effort by editors, and unless you hover, the spelling is still a particular variety of English.
• Reftagger works by scanning the text for recognisable text (e.g. "Matthew") that matches its requirements (e.g. it must have a chapter and verse as well). This is feasible as there are a limited number of strings to search for (66 book titles plus abbreviations; I don't know how many in total). Searching for American spellings (for example) would probably be far more strings than that, plus you have the problem of only needing to translate some words in certain contexts. For example, "points" means the same in American English as Australian English, except where you are talking about railway points, which are railroad switches in American English.

So the Reftagger route is impracticable, I believe. Is tagging worth the effort? What I'd like to see is not a pop-up box, but (say) a Javascript scan of the (tagged?) text which converts to the users desired spelling. But although you could do that for logged-in registered users, what about others?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The (in my eyes) more important question: Would that last solution be worth the effort (assuming that you don't immediately find a MW extension for this)? --Sid 09:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point. Rather, we should celebrate the rich, internationalist mélange of internet culture.--CPalmer 09:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably not worth the effort. But if someone wanted to do it (perhaps for no better reason than they love the challenge), then who knows?

Actually, CPalmer, that is similar to another aspect that I though of. If articles written in Strine* were automatically converted to American English for Americans, then all those Americans would remain oblivious and uneducated to the fact that not everyone spells words the way they do.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 10:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC) *—Actually, I'm not sure I agree with WP's definition.

Ah, now if someone wanted to take it on as a programming challenge I suppose I wouldn't object, but there are surely better projects people could work on. For example, I'd like to see a template which made a link to look up the title of a page in an online concordance like this one. In fact, I might see if I can make that myself...--CPalmer 10:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done it - check it out! {{concordance}}.--CPalmer 11:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea and well done! Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheyenne Cherry

If you guys haven't heard already, Cheyenne Cherry is a 17 year old girl who threw a kitten into an oven, cooking it to death, as a "practical joke". She also stole a dog at gun point last year. Is there any way we can blame this on homosexuals, evolution, or atheism? WebOfLies 04:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuals might be a stretch, but evolution and atheism are possible candidates. :-) But this isn't Conservapedia with its front-page news items, so why are you suggesting it? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on CP?

The Conservapedia sysop TK said that aSK attacks CP's owner and Admins and tries to legitimize lies but I haven't found any indication of this. Does anyone here know what he was referring to? --OscarJ 17:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, do not believe anything TK says - ever. He is almost the embodiment of everything that is bad about the internet. As for his claims, when Philip left Conservapedia he published a list of valid, and supported, claims and allegations against Andy, TK and Ed in particular (I do not have the link at present). TK, of course, cannot stand be slighted in an environment where he cannot ban people who disagree with him (or who point out his lies to him) and has to resort to a petulant stamping of his foot and moaning about being "lied about". It is basically a case of a) the truth hurting and b) him being too cowardly to discuss his differences with Philip outside of CP, where he has no authority, no power and certainly no respect - but then he doesn't have that on CP either, from what the other sysops told me during my brief time amongst the cream 9thick, rich and full of clots) there. -- KotomiT_Ohayou! 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC, a pox upon you Kotomi)This. It gets in the way of TK's goal of destroying CP. EddyP 17:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yare, yare. My first edits in a month and I am cursed already! {^_^} Thank you for the link... and for saying so succinctly what I was feeling. -- KotomiT_Ohayou! 17:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers and the link. --OscarJ 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most enlightening.--Bob M 18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Debate space

I know there's something about debates here somewhere. Is there a debate space? For stuff like in the atheism talk page? Sterile 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I said right at the beginning that I would create a debate namespace sometime. I haven't done so yet, and have no immediate plans to do so (or not do so). Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created a debate subpage of my userpage. It's not open slather for everyone to create debates, but we can move debates/discussions in which I am involved over there if they get off-topic. BradleyF (LowKey) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cat for the Main Page

The Main Page, being the first thing new guests see, needs a category. Who will give it? --JY23 01:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Inviting input in providing answers to questions about Christianity

Please see here if you are interested. BradleyF (LowKey) 03:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disgusting

This site is absolutely disgusting in its promulgation of anti-scientific mumbo-jumbo. In the real world people like this should be in secure accommodation looked after by caring medical staff. --JohnHarrison 23:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating by your example that people who object to this view so often do so with invective and without providing a shred of reason. It says a lot about your objectivity. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 06:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip, you should turn the other cheek. This poor lamb has lost his way. Do not treat him harshly merely because he is yet to see the light. Rather, extend the hand of kindness that he may see what true Christians are like. Yours in God. --The Ghost of Horace 02:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The China quote

I don't like the bit about Chinese Christians equating Christianity with "giving up Darwin". Surely there is more to the religion than that? Surely even creationist Christians do not see creationism as the most important aspect of their faith? If these Chinese Christians really sum up their faith as opposition to evolution, rather than, say "turning to Christ" or "renouncing sin" or "loving God and my neighbours" then I wonder whether I would even recognise them as Christians.--CPalmer 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The main page says that "becoming a Christian is equated with 'giving up Darwin'", but doesn't elaborate on how this is the case. From my understanding, it's more of a reaction from others. So a convert might say "I've become a Christian", and their non-Christian friend might respond with "so you're giving up Darwin?". The other example "summaries" you offer are not likely how the non-Christian friend will see their conversion. As such, this does not indicate that "giving up Darwin" is the prime change in the understanding of the convert, which seems to be your concern, although given that general attitude, presumably a convert would also give up on evolution. Philip J. Rayment 02:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. That does make sense. I do find it concerning that many people, Christian or non-Christian, seem to see the creation issue as being so central.--CPalmer 09:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But it is "central", or more accurately, foundational:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.

That quote says that Christianity fights "science" for this, but of course a fight takes two sides, and this also explains why atheists are fighting for evolution—that quote is from an atheist. But if you would prefer comment from a Christian, Dr. John Macarthur of Grace Community Church in California made the following comments (taken from the flap of his book, "The Battle for the Beginning"):

The moral catastrophe that has disfigured modern Western society is directly traceable to Darwinism and the rejection of the early chapters of Genesis.

Everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1–3 teaches about Adam's creation and fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.

All sorts of theological mischief ensues when we reject or compromise the literal truth of the biblical account of creation and the fall of Adam

Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of Genesis have embraced a hermeneutic that is hostile to a high view of Scripture. Those who adopt this approach have already embarked on a process that invariably overthrows faith.

Jesus Himself referred to the creation of Adam and Eve as a historical event. To question the historicity of these events is to undermine the very essence of Christian doctrine.

Philip J. Rayment 13:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So Philip: you know better than the guy in Rome? Better get your robes ready then, you're obviously destined for high office. LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.[2] (first response on googling pope evolution.) 14:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: Or is the Pope "no true Christian"? Theresa Wilson 14:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ding ding ding! You got it. PJR is a more authentic Christian than the Pope and his bible makes his science more rigorous and better informed than that of all those atheistic evilutionists seeking to destroy poor Jesus Christ! Teh Terrible Asp 14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Philip isn't a Catholic and the Pope can't be said to speak for all Christians, not by any means. What's interesting though is the distinction between 'central' and 'foundational' - which of the two is more important? A quick look at the news will show you the consequences of greed, war, violence, selfishness and so on - all things that Christianity preaches against, and all things that most people would agree should be higher priorities than belief in evolution. What I think Philip is arguing is that those things can't ever be solved without getting to the root of the problem, and to do that you need Christian doctrine, and for that you need to accept the creation story that underpins it. That is a valid view, but my approach would be to put the greater proportion of energy into promoting the more practical teachings of Jesus (faith, love, selflessness and so on), rather than creationism which in my experience can tend to derail discussions and distract from rather than support what's really important.--CPalmer 15:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying that Benny is no true Christian? He speaks for the largest single denomination. Philip seems to think that "Biblical Inerrancy" is at the core of Christianity with the other stuff being rather peripheral - that's the impression we get on this wiki, anyhow. Theresa Wilson 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, in my view the Pope is clearly a Christian. What I meant was that Philip isn't going to be as worried about disagreeing with the Pope as you two seem to think (from your tone), since his branch of Christianity parted ways with the Holy See many centuries ago.--CPalmer 16:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reminds one of Lemuel Gulliver's Little-endians & Big-endians. Arguing over something that has no relevance whatsoever to reality. What it matters what a primitive tribe had as their creation myth is beyond me, but when it comes to teaching it as TRUTH, I get really annoyed. The Pope is just another purveyor of myths, but he's got a bigger following. The weak brained can pick between them as they choose. Theresa Wilson 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But who here is arguing with the Pope? It is you who have taken the discussion off on this mad tangent. I wonder, if we stopped posting altogether, whether you might continue to work yourself up into a frenzy without us having to say anything at all.--CPalmer 17:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Give it a try. Stop posting altogether and we'll show you. Teh Terrible Asp 17:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

EC) As long as there are total idiots promulgating some of the absolute tripe on this web[deleted]e, then yes, I will continue to "work myself into a frenzy". You are all really stupid. Bye! Theresa Wilson 17:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

His Holiness is perhaps the ONLY true christian. After all he is the chosen successor to Peter, to whom God personally gave the keys to Heaven and the authority to set the rules. So be nice to the Pope and he can slip you into Heaven through a back gate. He also speaks 'ex cathedra' with the actual voice of God. Hamster 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CPalmer has summarised the situation quite well (particularly the first part of his post of 15:34, 24 February). The critics' argument about the Pope is (roughly) one of the following:

• The Pope, being someone I accept the authority of, disagrees with me, so I am wrong.
• The Pope, being an expert in the topic, disagrees with me, so I am wrong.

As CPalmer has pointed out, I don't accept the Pope's authority, not being Catholic. So if that is the argument used, then it fails for that reason.

If the second form of the argument is the one being used, then this is being argued hypocritically, as (most of?) the critics are rejecting the Pope's obviously-greater expertise on spiritual matters than on evolution. If they reject his expertise on spiritual matters (God exists, Jesus is God, etc.), then why do they think I should accept his limited expertise on evolution (and probably even less expertise on the creation model)?

Responding to CPalmer's further comments about what he thinks is the best approach, I would point out the problems with his approach. The word "foundational" is pertinent because what he is talking about is building a teaching on something with shaky (under attack) foundations. If the foundations are not right, whatever is built on them is not stable. Also, what is important depends on what is already understood. When Peter and Paul preached to the Jews, they didn't talk about creation, as the Jews already knew all about this. They preached Christ. But when Paul preached to the Greek (Act 17), he found this didn't work, so he went back to the beginning and taught the Greeks the foundational stuff: who God was, that He was the creator of mankind, etc. Up to around 50 years ago Western society knew who God was, knew what sin was, and needed to be convinced that they should repent and give themselves to Christ. But society has changed, and now we need to restore those foundational teachings which have been forgotten.

See more in an article just published today, at http://creation.com/issue-of-issues.

Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So the OT over-rules Jesus?

Up to about 50 years ago? What happened? <hysterically amused expletive deleted> Ah! SCIENCE happened!

If this history in Genesis is unreliable, then the Bible does contain error, and all the rest collapses anyway, even if it takes a few generations to wake up to that. (from the CMI article - which is short on proof & long on wishful thinking btw)

True! So why not forget the lot, 'cause Genesis is a load of <expletive deleted>? Theresa Wilson 08:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Will you read this? (I read the CMI stuff, so do me a favour) Theresa Wilson 09:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the OT doesn't overrule Jesus, and I don't know how you get that from my comments.

Yes, "science" happened. That is, after the Russians got the jump on the space race, the Americans and other western countries increased science education, and this included evolution.

The CMI article was for CPalmer's benefit, and wasn't intended to be one containing proof.

And no, Genesis is not a load of nonsense. It's accurate history.

Thanks for the link. I might quote some of that article. I did read the whole article, although I wonder if you did. What you linked to was a quote within an article rebutting that quote! The rebuttal is correct: creationists don't treat the Bible as a science text book. The person being quoted seems to think that if a book is not a science textbook, then it does not contain accurate statements about past events. This is like saying that a history of World War II does not tell you what actually happened during the war because it's not a science textbook. The Bible is not a science textbook, but does contain claims about past events, i.e. history, and it is either correct or not correct about those claims. Creationists say the claims are correct, you (with other anticreationists) say that they are not correct, whereas the quote you linked to claims something different again, that Genesis is only trying to explain spiritual truth, not past (historical) events.

Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What religion leads to

Not a million miles from believing in the guy in the sky who made it all in a week: and you wonder why I despise religion. Theresa Wilson 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the members of that cult also likes to say "the truth shall set you free." I've heard that from another creepy religionist somewhere. It might even be in the bible. Teh Terrible Asp 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What religion leads to The problem is in conflating most or all religions as though they all have the same problems. And it ignores that atheism is a religion* (depending on the definition used).

So this really makes as much sense as "political parties all have problems, so we shouldn't have political parties. We should follow my policies instead". Arbitrarily excluding one's own views (as not being "religious") and lumping everyone else's views in together (as "religious") is self-serving nonsense.

Atheism and the sect in the linked article probably (the article is vague about the beliefs of the sect) have something in common: they both reject the plain biblical teaching. So just as the original poster tried to lump this sect in with Christianity, I could if I chose lump it in with atheism, by being selective (as the original poster was) about what point I'm comparing.

Philip J. Rayment 02:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"No true Scotsman" Say no more! Theresa Wilson 09:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

lol SallyM 13:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sally! Sterile 03:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it a "No true Scotsman"? Elaborate please, because I can't see it. A "No true Scotsman" scenario would be if the sect is considered Christian for all reasons except for one in question, but there's no evidence here that that is the case. Philip J. Rayment 02:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Inigo Montoya 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Philip J. Rayment 05:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I assumed it was referring to Theresa's use of "No true Scotsman." BradleyF (LowKey) 05:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If Inigo is thinking what I think he is thinking then LOL and I suspect your not close Hamster 05:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

*And bald is a hair colour! [deleted]!

You're being silly, Philip. They're a religious sect praying to a god - just like YOU! (I never mentioned Christianity - just religion - you brought up your particular variant)Theresa Wilson 10:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

*And bald is a hair colour! Typically, you don't actually refute the claims; just mock them.

You're being silly, Philip. They're a religious sect praying to a god - just like YOU! The also eat breakfast - just like YOU! So what?

(I never mentioned Christianity - just religion - you brought up your particular variant) You could have said "What some religions lead to", but you didn't. Your comment was all-inclusive, thereby including Christianity.

Philip J. Rayment 13:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Undent
Just come home from three hours arduous shopping round Retford market. I was a bit low - congrat's, Phil. You give me something to laugh at every time. You've cheered me up no end; keep up the good work. Theresa Wilson 15:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1. "Bald is a hair colour" is an established putdown for "atheism is a religion": I'm not going to go through a whole litany every time you say it!
2. Their gripe with the child was that he was possessed by a demon Baltimore - Cult members concluded Javon Thompson was a "demon" after the baby wouldn't say "amen" at mealtime and starved him to death, witnesses told homicide detectives, according to records obtained by The Examiner. remind you of anyone on your wiki? His death was due to their interpretation of YOUR religion: nothing to do with breakfast! (really silly argument btw).
3. As you bring Christianity in: the requirement to say "Amen" does make it sound just a tad Christian,no? You no doubt know that "Resurrection" of the baby was promised? Familiar?

As I said, Philip, You're always good for a laugh, have you thought about a career as a stand up comedian? Theresa Wilson 15:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I find such conduct , by anyone as simply inconceivable. Even my Handbook of Atheism says "do NOT starve children or animals (includes birds and reptiles) , or deprive them of clean drinking water , and wash them weekly, or as the weather permits. " Hamster 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Bald is a hair colour" is an established putdown for "atheism is a religion" Yes, but that's all it is: a put-down, not an argument. A put-down is all you appear to have, yet again.

No, it doesn't remind me of anyone on this Wiki.

...their interpretation of YOUR religion... Which makes it effectively not "my" religion!

...nothing to do with breakfast! (really silly argument btw) That's the point: it was silly just like your argument.

Philip J. Rayment 12:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A put-down is all you appear to have, yet again So: every time you say "atheism is a religion" I (we) have to go through the whole stupid discussion again? I think you'll find it's been covered many, many times on this wiki alone.

No, it doesn't remind me of anyone on this Wiki. You haven't met anyone on here who believes in demons? Not been taking notice then, have you.

Which makes it effectively not "my" religion! No True Scotsman! say no more.

Nothing to do with breakfast but everything to do with religion.

As you bring Christianity in: the requirement to say "Amen" does make it sound just a tad Christian,no? You no doubt know that "Resurrection" of the baby was promised? Familiar? - No comment?

I get the feeling that you are trying to get me to use "unparliamentary" language to give you a valid excuse to block me: tough! Theresa Wilson 15:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Which makes it effectively not "my" religion! Then perhaps it's you who isn't a Christian. After all, you believe in god the father, the son, the holy spirit and the holy oracle CMI that leadeth man in to all knowledge. Perhaps it's you who isn't the true scotsmans, ya quadrene heretic. --Jeeves 15:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So: every time you say "atheism is a religion" I (we) have to go through the whole stupid discussion again? No. Just accept that atheism can be described as religious as the evidence indicates.

You haven't met anyone on here who believes in demons? Not been taking notice then, have you. I don't recall anyone saying that they believe in demons, so it doesn't remind me of anyone in particular. Further, you comment was not just about the existence of demons, but was more specific. Again, that doesn't remind me of anyone.

No True Scotsman! say no more. Last time you made that accusation (in this section), you failed to substantiate it, despite me pointing out how it was not applicable. Yet here you are again claiming it without substantiating it!

Nothing to do with breakfast but everything to do with religion. Really? Just because you say so? And (importantly) what particular religious belief(s)?

No comment? My other comments covered this also. Sure, there are similarities with various views, and also differences. And there are almost always similarities, but the differences are important.

Then perhaps it's you who isn't a Christian. Perhaps, but just suggesting the theoretical possibility is not much of an argument.

The issue is this: Theresa has found an example of a religious group doing something bad. She therefore uses that example to impugn all religions, regardless of whether the example is typical of religions generally or an isolated exception, and failing to distinguish between different religions which often have quite different beliefs and practices. Of course, most people, regardless of religious belief, would not agree with the actions in this example, which she would surely know, so therefore is deliberately misusing this example for improper propaganda purposes. Further, theistic religions are one category of beliefs or worldviews, so she, oh-so-conveniently for her own beliefs, uses a term that maligns essentially all other beliefs/worldviews except her own.

Philip J. Rayment 00:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we reading the same thing ? she seems to be addressing Christians , as the child killers claimed to be a christian sect. The Bible actually has child sacrifice to God, so this sect isnt far off. That they did it carelessly is just slopiness on their part. Hamster 04:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned Christianity - just religion - you brought up your particular variant Theresa is claiming that she is not addressing Christians. BradleyF (LowKey) 05:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't - as I said in your quote, Phil brought up Christianity. I've subsequently allowed his view. Theresa Wilson 08:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, sorry , hadnt read far enough back, my error Hamster 19:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And of course ...

...there's the "slightly" more loopy end. Read and be afraid, be very afraid. Is this what you want, Philip? That's what it leads to, folks. Theresa Wilson 11:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This site is growing rapidly

There's approximately 4 (four) sympathetic editors on this site - Give up and go back to archiving for the Belgrave Heights Convention ^{(or playing with railways)}, Philip. Or do you feel that martyrdom becomes you? Theresa Wilson 10:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops: five: forgot the so sensitive Oscar who Could Remove All Profanity. Theresa Wilson 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"It's an ambush, Sir. There are two of them!" BradleyF (LowKey) 12:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)