Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

19th Century geology

I made this change because, in the first half of the 19th Century at least, there were a number of so-called "scriptural geologists" who held out against the old-Earth view [1]. I'm not entirely happy with the wording "new breed of", but it's the best I could think of at the moment. Philip J. Rayment 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the "more evolved geologists"? :-) ^rossnixon 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How about modern geologists? How about mainstream geologists? Let's call a spade a spade.--Filll 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Humanism has nothing to do with it. This is like the Naziism big lie. Repeat it often enough and maybe it is true. Makes me sick--Filll 20:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to simply "humanists" and "geologists." I take humanists to mean those who put man, not the supernatural, at the centre of their worldview, and thus try to explain the world in terms of natural processes. As for the geologists, remeber that we're dealing with the very early days of the development of geology as a science: even a geologist who takes the scriptures as his explanatory framework is still a genuine scientist if he's willing to change his views as new evidence an better theories to explain it become available. PiCo 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Humanism is a very recent term. It certainly did not exist 150 years ago. And it is not widely used except among a very few extremists on both ends of the spectrum. And by not putting the supernatural in science, one is not a humanist. This is ludicrous language. As was stated elsewhere on this page, by denying biblical literalism, one is NOT an atheist. This is a lie and a lie that fundamentalists tell over and over. And you did not change it to geologists but to scientists. And only the scientists who changed with the times, the mainstream and modern geologists that you are referring to in that sentence, not all scientists. Some scientists were mossbacks (and still are, frankly, although they are a teeny tiny minority now).--Filll 03:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why science excludes the supernatural

Because allowing the supernatural lets the scientist off the hook. It is not much different than cheating. Suppose a kid who wants to do his math homework. He knows what answer he wants from the back of the book. There are 20 steps and he can only get to step 3. To get the extra 17 steps, the student cheats, and "waves his hands" writing "a miracle happens to get from step 3 to step 20". Then complains when the teacher gives him a bad grade for not doing his homework. THAT is what letting supernatural in science is like.--Filll 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe metaphysical would be a better word. Does science exclude metaphysics? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics is part of philosophy, not part of science. I am not sure that calling this belief metaphysical is that accurate.--Filll 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics is so-called because it was a number of essays by Aristotle that came after the essays in Physics, so they were called "meta physical" essays, or "after physics".--Filll 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It also means "above physics" and can be concrned with the modern day study of things such as consciousness. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics includes many many things, such as "what is reality?", the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value, categories of things that exist (like an ontology), existence of God, cosmology, "what is the ultimate nature of being?", "does every event have a cause?", etc. It is a bit difficult to tell much about some of these questions without a deep knowledge of physics, especially now that we know about quantum mechanics. Nature of the observer in quantum mechanics for example has a huge influence on the mind-matter question. What exists and what is the nature of existence is also deeply affected by quantum mechanics. Determinism fell with quantum mechanics. So to have philosophers shooting their mouths off about this is just sort of nonsense and word games.--Filll 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"does every event [effect] have an [adequate] cause?"

In order to raise that question one perceives that it is theoretically possible that there is at least one self-existent effect (which is its own cause) that is unmolested by such constraints as sequence or time, is naturally beyond the ability of man to comprehend, and is not repeatable or inducible—is not “natural”.

To be honest. in science we do not delve into philosophy or religion. these are very different and we do not worry about them. In quantum mechanics, there are things without cause of course.--Filll

What person born blind would ever consider the “concept” of color lest he is introduced to it by someone who lives and knows it? The mere fact that the question of a self-existent cause would even enter into the mind of one who is wholly constrained to live in a “natural” world is intriguing. Evidence of such a self-existent cause would naturally be expected to be present all over the place. A fine question Filll.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FFFF (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 December 2006

So why don't you bother to sign your posts? Unsigned posts are quite unpleasant. And we are not here to debate cosmology, multiverses, oscillating universes, alternate universes, anthropic principles, etc. There of course definitions of a deity as an uncaused first cause. This story is as old as the hills, and does nothing to explain Noah's Ark in particular or the lack of evidence of "miracles" and other supernatural events in general. And again a lot of your statements make no sense and indicate a complete lack of scientific knowledge. Are there supernatural events? Maybe, but we have no evidence for them. And science studies the natural world, not the supernatural world, so explanations including supernatural causes are NOT SCIENCE.--Filll 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They're... SUPERSCIENCE!! (sorry, couldn't resist!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course a self-existent cause is NOT SCIENCE. But your contemplation of such a self-existent cause is not nearly as intriguing as your passion about it and ability to classify it. But most interesting is our presumption that we (which do have a cause) are qualified to categorize it, I mean if it existed, theoretically speaking of course, ya know, for your argument’s sake.71.100.172.27 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I go with the definitions of the over 100 science societies worldwide plus the US supreme court and dozens of other US courts and the vast majority of scientists and major dictionaries. You have a problem with that? I never claimed to be an atheist or even a nonChristian (although you might classify me as such; heck you probably classify Presbyterians and Catholics as nonChristians). My views are somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is what the mainstream says.--Filll 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are free to choose whom you regard as reliable. What point was it that all your reliable sources spoke to? (I kinda like some of them too) Was it the “self-existent cause” topic? Sorry, I didn’t catch why you referenced them.

The reason I mentioned them is my one point here: Science does not include the supernatural. And I seem to have a lot of people who agree with me. And for a good reason, as you can see below. Allowing the supernatural in science will destroy science.--Filll 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have certainly observed much of modern science to take that view. Science is conducted by humans who naturally understand that all things have a cause, and rationally operate on the premise that everything has a natural cause that we are capable of comprehending. By definition a self-existent cause (the only supernatural thing I can think of off hand) would be inimical to modern science. Historically that has not always been the case. And certainly there are some learned scientists in our day that hold both views, (but not individually at the same time of course).71.100.172.27 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as a “problem”, I do sorta have a problem that you suppose I would classify you as an atheist or nonChristian. And I do sorta take exception to your conjecture of how I probably group religious affiliations (May I request your evidence?).

I have no strong evidence. Just a hunch. It has happened very often previously. If you would not, I withdraw it and apologize.--Filll 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Hopefully I can avoid the temptation of using stale classifications as a substitute for reason. Please point it out if I do.71.100.172.27 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I also take exception that you would suggest “mainstream” is a standard for relevancy. (Confusing “Mainstream” Source and “Reliable” Source as synonymous would be problematic.). That rings of “freedom of thinking not allowed,” which is ironically what you seemed to have perceived, and taken exception to, when you asked if there was a problem.

If one is writing an encyclopedia, one would be very remiss not to go with the overwhelming majority. It would be very unreasonable and irresponsible to go with a definition that is subscribed to by 1% of scientists or 0.01% of scientists or a definition that is at odds with the accepted legal opinions. Can they be wrong? Sure. But should one put that it in an encyclopedia?--Filll 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am persuaded an encyclopedia would be remiss if they excluded reliable sources or fabricated ridiculously small percentages with the intent of discrediting a group of reliable sources. 71.100.172.27 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So you will notice that I take no exception at all to your freedom to think and rely on whom you will, mainstream or not. All of my exceptions are merely to demonstrate my (and everyone else’s) right to the same. Surely, who can have a problem with that? 71.100.172.27 23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is good and something I would support and defend to my fullest extent. What I find reprehensible, and I notice that the US has far too much of, are people that want to push their religious views on everyone else, even threatening or using force and violence to do it. The US was founded to AVOID this. And it makes me sick to see people who call themselves "Christians" (appropriating the name for themselves, claiming to speak for all Christians or even excluding large groups of other Christians) behaving like this and acting like bullies.--Filll 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you personally like. However, for an encyclopedia, we are on very different turf than what you personally believe.--Filll 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My exceptions were not about my personal beliefs as if I was hoping to POV them into an encyclopedia (which I don’t recall doing) but my exceptions were about YOUR conjectures and propositions on a discussion page that limited a free discussion, which is necessary on discussion pages if there is any hope that NPOVs will be realized in the articles. 71.100.172.27 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very sensitive about defining things as science which are not science. That is all.--Filll 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see from the Columbia university press definition of metaphysics, that philosophical theology is a part of metaphysics in some definitions. I would put Noah's ark and the Flood mythology as part of theology, so by that definition, I would call it part of metaphysics yes. However, it is sort of a vague term that has multiple meanings. And it is not a very common word either.--Filll 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So how can it scientifically be assumed or precluded that the force governing quantum mechanics is not only sentient, but far more superintelligent than any human being, and capable of getting pissed off? How can it be scientifically assumed that this force is incapable of willfully choosing to simultaneously convert every H20 molecule on the planet that it is a gaseous or solid state into a liquid state, or that there is no point in trying to calculate how many cubits over the highest mountain it could occupy if that happened? What it boils down to, Genesis does not ascribe any cause to the event other than God, and that is why this can never be either science or pseudoscience, because these are concerned with human understanding, which is limited. Is there scientific evidence for God? Well if you see a Cadillac, is it evidence that some intelligence designed it? If not, the law of infinite probability states that a whirlwind blowing around in a car parts store might, in an infinite amount of time, produce a perfectly running Cadillac without any intelligence. So believe that if you want. But don't expect me to. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess what ? Quantum mechanics is STOCHASTIC. Do you know what that means? Inherently random. Far more random than evolution ever was. Your cadillac example is just plain wrong, as I am sure you are aware. It probably does no good to tel you that since you have been probably told that thousands of times, and continue to ignore it. It is like saying that since my grandmother was older than me, it proves that the number 12 is smaller than the number "my dog Spot". So do I believe randomness can be angry? Sure in the same way that the color green can be large. If you want to believe that, feel free. However, do not expect to shove it on anyone else, and do not get upset if people object to having you push your viewpoint on others. Might all these supernatural events have happened in the bible? Yes, if you posit that somehow God was malicious enough to have them happen and not leave any evidence or contradictory evidence.--Filll 13:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is random or stochastic, it is far more likely to be CONTROLLED but you just don't understand it. There may be other scientists that agree. Most of it is theoretical anyway. And I found your refutal of the Cadillac example was less than convincing. You said it was wrong, but didn't explain why. If a Cadillac can be used as solid evidence that it was either 1) designed by something intelligent or 2) produced randomly, how much more so something even more complex and efficient? (Say, a Ferrari ;o) ) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. You have never seen an explanation of why that cadillac example is nonsense? Surely you are not so uneducated. This has been around for at least a century. Evolution is not random. Mutations have a random component, it is true. But natural selection is as far from a random process as you could imagine. And that is the simple explanation. It can get far more technical, but that should suffice. Surely you have heard this before? This dismissal of that moldly old chestnut is as old as the hills. Just even dragging it out looks ridiculous. It will convince no one except those who do not know what evolution is. So just a bit of advice: dont bother trying it again, because it makes you look silly. Of course, there might be a deterministic version of quantum mechanics which is not apparent to us, but people tried for decades to find it. Including Einstein. And all that they did was succeed in proving that it was random. Will we find out otherwise in 100 years or 500 years? Maybe. But you or I cannot say so. All we can say is that the current version fits the data, more accurately than any other scientific theory in existence. Period. Of course this stuff is theoretical, but you probably do not know what the word theoretical means, do you?--Filll 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be too much for my limited understanding. But please forgive my stupidity for not being as smart as you. I will just say that what it looks like to me on the surface, is, given the unlikelihood of something as complex as a Cadillac being produced by unintelligent means, which cannot even reproduce itself, the unlikelihood of something that CAN reproduce itself and has a consciousness being produced by unintelligent means is much much more improbable. But I'm sure you've already figured out all the secrets of the Universe, to allow you to sit so smugly. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not smug. I am not a biologist. But if you look on any website such as talkorigins.org you will see this dismissed. Any book on evolution you will see this dismissed. It is a nonsense objection. Surely you know this. Sorry.--Filll 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know what "theoretical" means, thank you. But the whole point is, one man's "theoretical" is another man's "pseudoscience". Quantum mechanics is said to be "theoretical". But once it starts delving into stuff like consciousness causes collapse etc., science is not excluding the "supernatural"; in fact such "interpretations of quantum mechanics" are not that far removed from things like the 100th Monkey (q.v.), that have been classified as bona fide pseudoscience. To suggest that things can be forcibly altered, through the mere act of observing them...?! If there is such a thing, it is axiomatic that it must be controlled, because of the obvious fact that it is limited, as I'm sure even Einstein could see. There are goads that cannot be kicked against. If it were uncontrolled without limit, anyone visiting Mexico for even a day would come back a Roman Catholic. If it were uncontrolled without limit, a single man chanting a mantra on a public bus in Minneapolis could cause the entire US to vote 100% for Ralph Nader. It is controlled, there are limits in space and time as to how fast and how far influence can travel, and that force that sets these limits is what can scientifically be deduced as "the controlling force" - it may appear random, but how can we say for sure it is not superintelligent, "dungeonmaster"-like for its own entertainment, or powerful enough to do tricks with water? Therefore, as I say, "one man's theoretical is another man's pseudoscience", and terms like "pseudoscience" cannot be applied to any subject neutrally unless there is no significant disagreement. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus, if you do not understand that evolution works because of gradual changes over generations, you really don't deserve to comment on it. What does a Cadilac have to do with biology? On top of that, if you do not understand that observing something changes it, try measuring the circumference of a ball of cotton. I'm sorry, but someone so ignorant of physics and biology would do well to keep silent in discussions on physics and biology. -- Ec5618 15:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken but I think the "observing" talked about in the theory does not even have to involve touching the "observable". For example, if you took a photograph of the cotton ball and measured that. Anyway, thanks for the ad hominem fallacy, which I am trained to avoid. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus, I hope you realise I said more than that. I also hope you realise that measuring the image of the cotton ball changes the image. Thirdly, I hope you realise that when you take a photograph, you are measuring the effect the object has on this world, and as such, you are changing the object. Similarly, measuring the speed and position of an atom can only be done by measuring the effect of the atom on a sensor. Finally, I hope you realise that you misunderstand physics and your expertise.

Again, someone so ignorant of physics would do well to keep silent in discussions on physics. -- Ec5618 15:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think C.S. is not understanding what the uncertainty principle etc means. You do not have to touch the cotton ball. In fact, no one really knows what it means to "observe it". But certainly even having photons carry the information of the size of an object is an observation. And those photons are going to have an effect on the object. But it is far more mysterious than that, as Schrodinger's Cat shows. The size of the cotton ball can have multiple answers, all "true", all "correct", all at the same time, and only when you observe it does one size get chosen. So the cotton ball might have multiple simultaneous copies that only condense when an observation takes place. And who can observe? A machine? An animal? Something conscious? What is consciousness? This is far deeper and far more complicated than you seem to understand. I would suggest reading about it. You might even find a place in there to slip in a "god of the gaps", because this is a part of science that is not well understood at all at the moment.--Filll 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus response

Absolutely amazing. I will take the liberty of analyzing your statement line by line.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know what "theoretical" means, thank you. But the whole point is, one man's "theoretical" is another man's "pseudoscience".

Your examples demonstrate that you do not know what the word theoretical means. Do you think that people with degrees in theoretical physics are doing pseudoscience? Theoretical chemistry? Theoretical biology ? What do you think they are doing? Why do respected places like Cambridge University have departments of theoretical physics?

Quantum mechanics is said to be "theoretical".

No it isn't. Where did you get this idea? There is applied quantum mechanics up the wazoo. It is demonstrated in experiments over and over and over. There is a theory called quantum mechanics, but no person who studies theoretical physics works on pure quantum mechanics, or very few. It is a tool that one masters and uses for other things. It is not an active area for theory any more for the most part.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But once it starts delving into stuff like consciousness causes collapse etc., science is not excluding the "supernatural"; in fact such "interpretations of quantum mechanics" are not that far removed from things like the 100th Monkey (q.v.), that have been classified as bona fide pseudoscience.

Quantum mechanics is a theory that makes extremely reliable predictions. It might seem like a crazy theory, but it works. And that is all that matters in science. A theory has to work. If not, it is thrown out on the ash heap, like creationism or Noah's Ark or the Flood.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that things can be forcibly altered, through the mere act of observing them...?!

This prediction of the theory fits the evidence, as strange as it sounds. And it includes creating matter out of nothing as well. And all kinds of other strange things.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is such a thing, it is axiomatic that it must be controlled,

Why? This is philosophical nonsense.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

because of the obvious fact that it is limited

How is it limited? --Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

, as I'm sure even Eiisnstein could see.

What does THAT mean?--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There are goads that cannot be kicked against. If it were uncontrolled without limit, anyone visiting Mexico for even a day would come back a Roman Catholic.

This makes no sense.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were uncontrolled without limit, a single man chanting a mantra on a public bus in Minneapolis could cause the entire US to vote 100% for Ralph Nader. It is controlled, there are limits in space and time as to how fast and how far influence can travel

Apparently not. Ever hear about superconductivity ? BCS theory? It won a Nobel Prize you know.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

, and that force that sets these limits is what can scientifically be deduced as "the controlling force" - it may appear random, but how can we say for sure it is not superintelligent, "dungeonmaster"-like for its own entertainment, or powerful enough to do tricks with water?

What on earth? Look miracles and magic might happen, but we have no evidence of them. Period. So the definition of science eventually came to be restricted to the study of the natural world only. And natural causes. Supernatural causes are part of superstition.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, as I say, "one man's theoretical is another man's pseudoscience", and terms like "pseudoscience" cannot be applied to any subject neutrally unless there is no significant disagreement. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There will always be disagreements from those who believe in the supernatural. They do not want to be excluded from science, because to them it conveys a feeling of approval, of doing something that is respected.--Filll 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My favorite lead sentence in all of wikipedia is the one for Interpretation of quantum mechanics... I may have to put that quote on my user page! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you're suggesting that because the article calls quantum mechanics a theory, it is somehow theoretical. Please stop making a fool of yourself, Codex Sinaiticus. Read theory of gravity, then try to find out if gravity is an applied science. -- Ec5618 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do scientists, instead of helping people to understand science, call people fools for not understanding something that even they admit they do not understand? I'm trying to understand science for myself, but you aren't helping. Is it some "survival of the fittest" ethic that makes you want to keep knowledge to yourself? I may be wrong, but I had thought that if a theory was conclusively and irrefutably proven for all time, it was referred to as a "law" rather than a "theory", in proper English. That's why we speak of the "law of gravity" but the "theory of evolution", "theory of quantum mechanics" etc. Is there some re-definition of the terms going on that is making this hazy, that perhaps you could patiently explain to me? The laws of physics are firm and inviolable and, it had seemed to me, a proof of the type of limits I was talking about. What I was suggesting is that the article (now quoted on my user page!) about interpretation of quantum mechanics, a theory that is supposedly the "state of the art" in mankind's understanding about the universe, plainly testifies that nobody can even agree what the hell it is saying anyway... Or as Coolio put it: "If they don't understand it how can they teach me? I guess they can't..." (you know the rest) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. Are you trying to blame others for failing to explain the word theory to you before you used it? If you don't know something, don't claim to know it. If you don't understand a word, don't use it. Better yet, learn about it. Please.

Please read any of the Wikipedia articles on theories, evolution, the creation-evolution controversy, or some such. Several of those try to explain to lay-readers (such as yourself) what the word theory means in science.

The reason we speak of the law of gravity, is that the law is a mathematical equation. It explains nothing about the nature of gravity; it merely notes its effects. In fact, the law of gravity is based on Newtonian physics, which is wrong. Newton's Theory of gravity was disproven, and the Theory of relativity took its place. The law of gravity remains though, because it is still useful in practical applications.

Now, if you have further questions about science, feel free to leave a message on my Talk page. This page is meant to be used to discuss improvements to the article. -- Ec5618 17:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus, Filll had posted a link to an article explaining the meaning of 'theory' in this context. Please read it. I will move this discussing soon. -- Ec5618 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested before, this comes down to a confusion about the word "theory" which is a fundamentalist problem of longstanding. I wrote the article Evolution as theory and fact to discuss this. I am working on a rewrite now that is even more detailed and explicit tracing the confusion of this concept and semantic misunderstandings.--Filll 16:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that this page should be for the article improvement only, I keep hoping that if we can bridge the cultural divide with creationists/intelligent design advocates etc, we can have people who can agree on the article improvement and how to present the material in an accessible and NPOV way. Also, I learn about what their arguments are and misunderstandings, which can help me produce better articles and materials. If someone really wants to learn, I am glad to try to help them. However, it can be tedious to explain the same things over and over. And some creationists are not really interested in learning, and so it is frustrating. Now to make some comments: Why do scientists, instead of helping people to understand science, call people fools for not understanding something that even they admit they do not understand?

I do not mean to call people fools, but I get frustrated when people do not read the material here or ever seem to learn anything. I have learned the creationist codewords and traps and arguments. Surely creationists can learn these things too...

I'm trying to understand science for myself, but you aren't helping. Is it some "survival of the fittest" ethic that makes you want to keep knowledge to yourself?

Nope. It gets tiresome to explain the same thing over and over and over--Filll 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I had thought that if a theory was conclusively and irrefutably proven for all time, it was referred to as a "law" rather than a "theory", in proper English.

Not in science, no.--Filll 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why we speak of the "law of gravity" but the "theory of evolution", "theory of quantum mechanics" etc. Is there some re-definition of the terms going on that is making this hazy, that perhaps you could patiently explain to me?

No you didnt read my article evolution as theory and fact did you? Read it.--Filll 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The laws of physics are firm and inviolable and, it had seemed to me, a proof of the type of limits I was talking about.

You have it all wrong. Let me try to explain. In science you have "facts". Facts are data; observations (out of the lab) and experimental results (in the lab) These facts have error bars. A hypothesis is a guess at how to explain this data. Theories are attempts to explain the data that have been able to "fit the data"; that is, models based on the theories have produced predictions which are close to the data. An accepted theory is one that has matched a lot of the data and people have decided is not too bad. A law is a simple rule that has fit a very large amount of data, and is simpler than a theory in general. It might be mathematical or it might not be, just as a theory might be quantitative or it might not be. There are no proofs in science and you cannot prove anything. Proofs are in mathematics and logic, not science. There is no ultimate truth in science. Theories are provisional. Laws and theories can change if the data require it. They are not inviolable and firm. And what we call the "Theory of evolution" is not the first "theory of evolution". And what we call the "Theory of gravity" is not the first "Theory of gravity". There have been many many theories in many fields discarded over the years.--Filll 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What I was suggesting is that the article (now quoted on my user page!) about interpretation of quantum mechanics, a theory that is supposedly the "state of the art" in mankind's understanding about the universe, plainly testifies that nobody can even agree what the hell it is saying anyway...

If you go to the bleeding edge of science, you will always find this is true. Quantum mechanics is very complicated, and it is not very old. It might take centuries for humans to digest it and understand it. Humans might never be able to do it. It at the moment appears very deep and very very mysterious. But apparently, true. Quantum teleportation. Spontaneous generation of matter out of nothing. Having multiple things be true at once. Loss of causality and determinism and all kinds of things that people cherish. But they are true.--Filll 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Or as Coolio put it: "If they don't understand it how can they teach me? I guess they can't..." (you know the rest) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not easy. If you want the bleeding edge, you will find it is very very complicated. But compared to that evolution is a cakewalk. It is trivial. It is so simple and so well established there is really no sensible reason to question it. The only parts that are interesting now are in the more exotic details which one finds in the journals, as we learn in detail how genetics works.--Filll 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Deception?

This is an interesting aside for you, Filll... According to my trusty copy of Charles' Pseudepigrapha (the one with the footnotes that aren't included in online editions), the text of 3 Baruch is every bit as contemptuous of your "scientific" understanding, as you no doubt are of it... Check this out:

In chapter 4, it states that "Hades" is a being on another plane that drinks a cubit of water from the oceans on Earth every day, but the sea level does not go down because rivers fill it up again... Then in chapter 10, after being shown a mysterious plane in the Heavens (not on Earth) including among other things a pool of Water, the Angel explains to Baruch "the water is that which the clouds receive, and rain upon the earth, and the fruits increase..." Baruch asks "Lord, and how do men say that the water which descends in rain is from the sea?" The angel replies (According to a footnote, the Slavonic version of the text here inserts: "The race of man is deceived knowing nothing. All the water of the sea is salt, for if the rain came from the sea, no fruit would grow on the earth") "The water which descends in rain - this also is from the sea, and from the waters upon the earth; but that which stimulates the fruits is from the latter source. Know therefore henceforth that from this source is what is called the dew of heaven." An interesting view, shows that the contempt can cut both ways... Especially "the race of man is deceived knowing nothing"; I'm sure you have a similar opinion of whoever wrote that, right? At least it shows a drastically different understanding of the water cycle than that of "the race of man", perhaps it is just "one word against another", with each claiming the other is deceived... But if the race of man is the one that is deceived, it might be pointless to wonder about where the water of the flood went...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There are of course many discarded theories, hypotheses, myths, etc that have been constructed to explain natural phenomena. This is the scientific method. If the explanation does not fit the data, then it is GONE. It might be of historical interest, it might be nice poetry, it might be allegory, it might be a famous legend, a beautiful mythology, an important tradition, part of a given society's culture. However, it is not science. That is all.--Filll 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not science, maybe we could call it "anti-science!" ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is supernatural belief, myth, legend, tradition, allegory, poetry, pseudoscience, etc. It is not science. --Filll 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)(Filll)

Well, I can't really argue with you there, and I certainly wouldn't assert that it is science either... just interesting... I just wanted to throw it out there to see what you would say really! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is beautiful poetry. Like the story of the earth sitting on top of an elephant's back, and the elephant resting on a turtle which is standing on a bigger turtle, which is standing on a bigger turtle, and so on forever. Do I believe it? No. And the methods of science give us strategies for rejecting such "knowledge" as unreliable.--Filll 23:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the supernatural can not be part of science

Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some math homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. Understand?--Filll 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The example is illustrative yet has a shortcoming. There is nothing supernatural about cheating. I assure you I have often thought of doing it (Ok ok, I have actually done it too, maybe even this week!). We cheat because we are not happy. We propose a reality that we would like, and then seek others, perhaps a teacher, to affirm our desired reality with us. Cheating comes naturally.

Those who I have observed to hold to supernatural causes are not trying to cheat. They are actually admitting the truth. They are admitting that they are stumped and no matter how many ways they look at it they expect that they will never be able to comprehend it. That is not cheating. It is an admission of a disbelief in the collective human capabilities to adequately explain everything. If they don’t have faith in people to be able to explain something by natural cause then they just don’t. I don’t see any basis for demanding they affirm human abilities that they cannot observe (especially when the naturalist’s primary criteria for themselves is “observable”).

Perhaps they can be accused of declaring the limited intelligence of humans without everyone’s concurrence. You could even accuse them of disbelieving the studious declarations of the learned mainstream, but it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are cheaters (well sometimes they are) but they are not any more adept at cheating than any other group of natural born cheaters. Their process of discovery and explantion is not based on deceipt but on honesty.71.100.172.27 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You can try to explain it away. But it is not science. It is something else, but it is not science. And it is pure poison to science so we should make sure we distinguish between mythology, legend, religion, pseudoscience, magic, the supernatural or whatever you want to call it, and science.--Filll 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

DEar Filll and Codex

Perhaps you two could just exchange private emails? A talk page is a talk page, but this is being trapped in an elevator. PiCo 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

you make a good point. Is there provisino to just delete the discussion page to start with a clean slate. I do not object to the deletion of all my posts.71.100.172.27 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe we can wipe the talk page. But this is now very long, and we should think seriously of archiving it. PiCo 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you included my name, what are you referring to? I only included the part about Baruch 3 to get closer to the topic of the article, which is not science, nor should it be. This is not a science article and should not pretend to be, so I don't know what all the fuss is about. Are you going to call every article that is not about science, "pseudoscience"??? I also don't know what anyone is referring to that the article assumes either the existence or the non-existence of the Ark: it should do neither, and as far as I know it does not, so what is all of this back and forth "Yes it did happen" "No it didn't" over and over again for? As far as I am concerned it should all be blanked, because our job as editors is not to decide if it did or didn't; our job is only to look for citeable opinions or info on the subject, and make sure that the article stays neutral between them, that's it. I know I've said all this before, but this can't just keep going on ad nauseam. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. The Noah's Ark story has a component of pseudoscience in it; the searches for a real physical ark are pseudo-archaeology, for example, especially if a world wide flood as literally described in genesis is postulated. And I am not going to insist every article that is not about science be called pseudoscience, but things like the search for the loch ness monster and arstrology sure should be called pseudoscience. And Noah's Ark, at least in the biblical literalist form, is pseudoscience.--Filll 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that is one of the main reason why the "Searches" was made into a sub-article from this one, but it hasn't stopped all the endless ranting on this article. Once more again, all we have to do here at this article is look for published opinions and info, not go on endlessly about our own. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(continuing rant) It's kind of like calling the article on Hammurabi "pseudoscience", because there is no evidence he ever existed outside of the documentary evidence, so he can't be scientifically proven or falsified. This is not the realm of science. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an IMMENSE difference between Hummurabi and his stone tablets and Noah's Ark. They are not in any way shape or form comparable. You think they are? --Filll 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim the article should be labeled as pseudoscience. But Arkeology and searches for Noah's Ark, especially when assuming biblical inerrancy, are verging on pseudoscience. The story itself, especially in its biblical inerrancy form, is far closer to myth than history.--Filll 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but this has substantial relevance for how the article is written and classified. I do not feel quite as strongly as orangemarlin that the text sounds like Noah's Ark is being assumed as factual and historical, but I am quite sensitive to treating it or as such or assuming that Noah's Ark is real and proven to be true with substantial uncontradictory evidence behind the story. I will grant you that there are multiple flood stories in different cultures about ancient floods. But the details are not the same, and the stories all disagree with what else we know. So it should not be treated as a factual event or a factual object or a verified historical event. If you want to do that, you will have me to contend with and orangemarlin and plenty of others. --Filll 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You have said twice now that you are sensitive about science being properly defined. Why such sensitivity?

For several reasons. But for an encyclopedia, it is inappropriate to adopt a fringe extremist definition of "science" that has been rejected in the courts, in academia, in the scientific establishment and in major dictionaries and encyclopedias.--Filll 03:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You also said “it makes me sick to see people who call themselves "Christians" (appropriating the name for themselves, claiming to speak for all Christians..)” I think I have read about scientist who may experience the same thoughts with regard to other scientist, for the very same thing. That’s why NPOV is useful. According to so and so this group of scientists holds these premises, and this other group of scientists holds those different premises. They both have reliable and honest sources, they both are paranoid about their definition of “science” being subsumed by the others, but NPOV is the "lifeboat" that they both must share, in wiki. 71.100.172.27 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are misreading my statements. It makes me sick when people who claim to be Christians act to spew hatred and claim their extremist minority viewpoint is the majority. I do agree that it is important to establish what is the majority view. Which is why I am suggesting very strongly we go with the mainstream opinion of the scientific community, not some fringe elements. Do you claim we should cater to some tiny fringe elements, that constitute at most the view of 5%, and more probably a tiny fraction of 1% ? A fringe that disagrees with all the legal definitions and the US Supreme court and the major dictionaries and encyclopediae? A fringe that disagrees with over 100 of the biggest most influential international scientific organizations worldwide? I think that would be silly at best. You can try to twist this discussion, but I have the references and the sources. And you do not. So please let's not continue this charade. And why dont you log in ? --Filll 03:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a science textbook. Wikipedia is not owned by the scientific community. It should reflect views in rough proportion to those of the wider community. Your claims of "spewing hatred" are just silly. Happy New Year to all! ^rossnixon 07:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of times the people who spew hatred cannot recognize it for what it is. Remember the parable about the mote in the eye? Remember what the bible says about Pharisees? Who in US society is most like a Pharisee do you think? Wikipedia is not a religious tract, meant to be used as a tool by right wing religious extemists to advance their agenda. History and its associated disciplines use the tools of science. Noah's Ark and the Flood are to History what Astrology is to Astronomy.--Filll 13:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is a humanist?

This reads like some recent Discovery Institute or Creation Research Institute propaganda. This has no business being in an encyclopedia. And ALL scientists? I thought that there were still some who were conservative and believed in the old theistic theories??--Filll 02:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An article on Noah's Ark has no business being in an encyclopedia? I doubt that you reallt mean that.

Of course. You are misreading my statements. I was referring to the term humanist. See?--Filll 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The line that riles you reads: "For those who still believed in the literal truth of Genesis the discovery of the Ark would afford tangible, incontrovertible proof that the humanists and scientists were wrong." Note that it's talking about the attitudes of biblical literalists in the mid to late 19th century, not the entire population. Of course, at that time, biblical literalists would have been a majority, but they were increasingly losing their dominance of the intellectual debate, and it made them afraid, and so they wanted to find concrete evidence of biblical inerrancy, of which the Ark would have been a prime example.

Might be good to get a few solid references or sources for this. It is plausible, but sounds like it is too much personal hallucination for an encyclopedia. And I am not sure about lumping all scientists in there. I have no idea what fraction of scientists believed what as a function of time. Might be good to try to find that.--Filll 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Their world-view was essentially supernatural - the universe had been created by God, and should be explained within the theistic framework. Quite naturally, they viewed the new ideas within that same theistic framework - their opponents (they felt) were anti-religious, putting man and his powers of reason above God and his revelation.

Some might have, some might not have. I gather when Wallace lectured in the US, it was supported at first enthusiastically. Sort of like Pope Pius XII proclaiming repeatedly that the Big Bang theory, produced by Catholic Priest G. Lemaitre proved creation. And now right wing fundamentalists in the US attack the theory (which they do not even understand) rabidly as being atheistic. It is pretty funny really.--Filll 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They therefore used the terms 'humanist' and 'scientist' as denigratory descriptions for Darwinists, biologists, and all those who threatened what they saw as a safe and moral world.

Better get some references for that. Historical. Solid. Peer-reviewed.--Filll 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And since this section of our article is taking a historical aproach to the subject of ark-searching, it's quite appropriate to use these terms. PiCo 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If those are the historical terms, fine. I have to see evidence.--Filll 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved Biblical Literalism section

I moved the Biblical Literalism section down right after the Ark in various traditions section; this is a tradition, and is related to that section. It should come before the Ark Under Scrutiny, as that section makes no sense without this section coming before it. I feel the article flows better this way, as all the various traditions are together. It felt like it was randomly hanging between the first section and the documentary hypothesis section. Titanium Dragon 23:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Search for Noah's Ark too long

I think the new summary for the Search for Noah's Ark is too long; I much preferred the shorter summary. Why was it changed? It is getting too much space; it really isn't very important when compared to all the rest of the article. That's part of why it got a subarticle; there's a lot of information on the topic but it isn't hugely important. Titanium Dragon 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the new information, but it should be put in the separate search article. The one paragraph summary that we had should be put back there, maybe with a sentence or two that says searches continue blah blah.--Filll 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I'm not sure if "searches continue" is appropriate though, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Titanium Dragon 23:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I drastically shortened the section (which is ok, as I wrote it in the first place). I'm happy with the "searches continue" phrase as it expresses the optimism of those who search - I don't think that failure to find anything is going to stop them. PiCo 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you moved all that new material into the searches article, if it is not in there already. I would be loathe to lose that material.--Filll 03:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But it's all in my head. I'll have a try at re-ordering the Searches article and making it more comprehensive...one day. PiCo 04:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. That is not good. :( --Filll 04:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You doubt the long-term storage and retrieval capacity of my neurons? So do I sometimes. Fortunately there's a back-up: it's also recoverable through the History function at the top of the article. PiCo 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

Just to let you know that I'm withdrawing from involvement in this article. Some time back I decided to keep away from creation-related articles because of the extreme POV-pushing of anticreationists and the lack of control over such on Wikipedia, despite its NPOV policy. I finally decided to venture into involvement with one article (this one), because at the time it seemed that the editors were reasonable and that I could make a contribution. However, almost no sooner had I done so, and Filll and Orangemarlin jumped in and all the old one-eyed POV-pushing flooded back in.

With both, I offered to debate this via e-mail rather than clog up this talk page with off-topic discussion, but neither took up the offer, preferring to push their POV on the reality of the Ark here, despite this article being about the ark, not about the reality of the ark (a common tactic of the anticreationists is to put refutations into every article about creation/flood topics, as though they have to force their viewpoint on everybody, instead of just allowing the article to describe the topic neutrally).

I was a bit annoyed that Titanium Dragon archived on-going discussions before I had a chance to reply to responses made to me, but it has prodded me to make this break now, so it was (in my case) actually for the best. I've wasted far too much time responding to nonsense.

I realise that this "goodbye" is likely to provoke response, and I guess that I might return here to reply to comments made in this section only, but frankly, the people named deserve it. Filll, at least, has repeatedly claimed certain things about the creation model that I've said were strawmen (i.e. that his claims are not true), with one in particular being some absurd claim that creationists believe that the laws of physics changed at the time of the flood with regard to rainbows. I have asked him what on Earth he was talking about, but he has made no attempt to provide any evidence of the claim (desoute repeating it). Yet he keeps demanding evidence from creationists for claims that they are not making!

I can back up all the claims I've made here, but there is no point in doing so if people are not willing to actually read what I've said and respond accordingly, rather than respond with more abusive rhetoric.

Philip J. Rayment 10:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The repeated pushing to put Noah’s Ark is in the same classification as fairy tales is humorous, as they themselves obviously do not believe their own rhetoric. But even if they did, (I am unconvinced), the article is not about what is true or false, but what reliable sources have already published on the topic of Noah’s Ark, as you have pointed out repeatedly.

The religious propositions of both Atheism and Creationism are not relevant, but somehow supercede the topic.

Since the pushers of POV are self-described defenders, I wonder if truth feels enriched, or if it rather finds itself capable even to speak in silence. But first, we restrain ourselves unless there are feeble sources to say so. That is the premise of Wiki and it would be workable if none took it upon themselves to protect their god by censoring reliable sources that talk about ancient fairytales.Katherin 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the only reasonable response is to flood the article with references that demonstrate that Noah's Ark and the Flood were not historical events, and that no serious historian expects the search for the Ark to turn up anything. I guess you doubt such sources exist?--Filll 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would be so observant Fill your presumpionts would not be exposed. Take a little time to look at my edits that PiCo deleted yesterday and you would notice that I already included material in the Article and qouted several of these sources that you assume I don't believe exist. Gee Filll, do you expect me to help you with everything? I already put the sources in the article for you.Katherin 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I archieved a great deal of the ongoing discussion because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia; the talk pages are supposed to be about improving articles, not chatting like in a forum, and everyone (myself included) forgot it. As it is very tempting to continue to respond when they're sitting on the front page, and no one was showing any signs of stopping, I simply moved the discussion ones to the archieves rather than let them sit there until things got to the point of no return. I think the page has been more focused on improving the article since the archiving, rather than debating the subject of creationism. I'm sorry you felt slighted, but I'm glad you've decided it was for the best. Titanium Dragon 11:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow I didnt realize I was such a "bad guy". I am sorry you feel that way Philip, but to be honest, Orangemarlin, myself and others do not want a nonneutral WP article either. It is a matter of POV whether a given article, or given statement in an article is neutral or not. This might have been frustrating for you. However, it is also incredibly frustrating for someone interested in NOT pushing a particular narrow religious view of some extremist groups to have articles and editors attacked as being atheists, satanic, stupid, ignorant, etc. If you want a debate by email, maybe I will drop a line on your page. However, the "physics changing" I was commenting on I realize might have been in error. Maybe not. I had thought that the rainbow was a covenant between God and Man to never Flood the earth again. Before the Flood, there were no rainbows and after, there were rainbows. What do you think causes rainbows? Rainbows are caused by the differing coefficients of refraction of different frequencies of light i.e. dispersion of light. Now to claim there was no dispersion before the Flood, and then dispersion after the Flood means that a huge number of things in physics were different before and after. Of course, there are many fantastic other things to swallow in the Flood account or other parts of Genesis, so this should not be a surprise. After some reading, I realize that at least in some interpretations, there had never been rain before the flood, since things were perfect. And only after the flood was there rain. I had never read this interpretation before, but I guess it might be one interpretation. This as well would entail a change in the laws of atmospheric physics. No evaporation of water? No water vapor? No clouds? No condensing of water vapor to form raindrops? And there was still all the same types of life before the Flood as After, more or less? Wow, that is an awful lot to imagine; in fact it is far more complicated than the change of dispersion (although the change of dispersion migth have many far-reaching consequences too). I have no problem with someone believing this. I have no problem reporting it. I think it is an interesting exercise to imagine what it means exactly and why it is unrealistic and what the consequences of believing in this are. However, to claim that this is something different than allegory or a religious myth or poetry or legend in a general secular worldside ENCYCLOPEDIA is asking a bit much. If you believe that it is NPOV to claim that the Flood story truely explains why there are rainbows, or why there is rain, then what do I say to:

• those from thousands of other religious traditions with other creation stories of their own, and other ancient stories purporting to explain where the rainbow comes from, or the rain. How do I explain ramming aggressively some right wing fundamentalist evangelical bible inerrancy Christian bible mythology down their throats as true history? How can I or should I allow it? What do I say to them? I believe it is irresponsible to allow that. I am sorry. I am not some mean ogre. I taught Noah's Ark in Sunday School class even to my students. Do I like Noah's Ark and the Flood? Yes I do. It is the myth I was taught and I am comfortable with it. It is a beautiful story and great poetry. Everyone in our culture should know it (and the reasons it is impossible scientifically) because it is part of the cultural fabric of AngloSaxon culture and many others. But it is not the only such legend that exists. It is only one legend of thousands, and just so happens to be the myth tradition of a lot of people who speak English and have access to the internet and use Wikipedia. Is that the reason it should be described as true? Would I be allowed to teach it as true history in a US public school under the Supreme Court rules? I doubt it. So why is it so awful to abide by the standards of the US Supreme court? I do not think they are pushing some agenda, as often as this charge is made.

• those who know the Ark and the Flood as myth, and expect an encyclopedia to be scientific in nature and about the verifiable and mainly about the dominant position of experts in that area? Do you think many meteorologists or geologists or physicists or biologists would accept an encyclopedia that claimed that REALLY TRUELY the Flood story explains where rain comes or where rainbows come from? Do you think that Encyclopedia Britannica does this? Do you think that World Book Encyclopedia does this? How serious do you think they would take Wikipedia then? Wikipedia is accused of being unreliable because anyone can edit it by Library Scientists and Academics. So what would people think if they came across articles claiming that
  • Noah's Ark is real in all biblical details
  • the Flood was real in all details
  • Rainbows are explained by the Flood
  • Rain is explained by the Flood
  • Fossils are explained by the Flood

How many major museums claim this? Ever seen any other major encyclopedias claim this? Why do you want or expect Wikipedia to claim this? How serious would Wikipedia be taken then?

• Did you ever consider that the reason you find yourself in a minority on creationist articles on Wikipedia is that maybe, your POV is a minority? Among your friends or in your church, it might not be. But in the world at large of educated computer users, it might be a minority POV. Ever consider that?--Filll 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So you repeat that the exclusion of minority POVs is your agenda (Rather than NPOV required by Wiki). I think your agenda was already pretty obvious, but it was thoughtful of you to point it for those who may have missed it.Katherin 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all POV's have equal weight, so you think that a minority POV has equal or better precedence than a majority one. What's unfortunate in your thinking is that a POV, majority, minority or otherwise, is POV. A neutral POV, by definition, is verifiable and can be substantiated. How does one substantiate a religious dogma or myth? By faith? Faith is not something that can be described in an encyclopedia. The lack of geological, archeological and biological data is verifiable and substantiated by data. Orangemarlin 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll and Orange look like sock pupets to me.Katherin 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest a look at WP:SOCK, wherein it describes how to make that accusation formal. If you do not actually believe what you said, then I would suggest reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Just so you know, I am located in California, Filll somewhere on the east coast, and since Wikipedia tracks IP addresses, it would clearly show we are not sock puppets. In addition, I am a physician and CEO of medical products company, and Filll is a researcher in physics (or mathematics, I'm not sure which). I like hockey and baseball. I don't know if Filll covers sports. I'm Jewish, don't know about his ethnic background. Orangemarlin 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty funny. One can look at our edit histories and our messages to each other on each other's pages. One can also look at our collaboration on at least one article, and several more drafts we are working on. It would be pretty funny if I were collaborating with myself. I am glad to have OM's assistance because he sees a lot of things I miss, and he has a very different background. He is an MD, I am a PhD in mathematical physics. I am from Canada originally and speak French. I doubt that OM does. I do NOT like hockey or baseball, in spite of being from Canada and having an uncle who was a professional baseball player. I have probably edited very different articles than OM; a lot of geography articles, the Frere Jacques articles and a bit of physics and math. I am single with no kids. I live just outside Washington DC, although I used to live in San Diego. My sister converted and is Jewish and my two nieces are Jewish. I was raised Protestant and even a Sunday School teacher. I even taught the Noah's Ark story to my kids !!! (Of course I did not teach them it was literally true, but it is a nice story anyway). We do not even agree all the time (although we agree a lot of the time I think). So it would be pretty funny to have a sock puppet inquiry. I say, bring it on! I would have to be pretty clever to never make a mistake with my proxy IPs and sending myself messages and editing myself and having conflict edits with myself, all from two different IPs and never making a mistake in many many edits. What OM and I share is a desire to not let mythology and pseudoscience corrupt science. Myths are great fun. Legends are great. I love reading about them and hearing about them and learning them and teaching them. One has to be careful where the line is between myths and reality. And in things like science and history, one has to be very careful with the evidence, and state exactly what the evidence is; I think that is one thing a person learns from doing science research, or medicine. It is VERY easy to fool yourself and so you have to guard against it all the time. And if you let yourself get fooled, you can waste a lot of time, you might waste huge sums of money, or damage your career or even destroy your career, or waste other people's time on nonsense, or even kill one or more people. One cannot be wishy-washy about scientific facts. Even when you try as hard as you can, you still will be wrong a large fraction of the time. Why make it any tougher by starting out by being dishonest, or ignoring reality? That does not mean you will not make a mistake; there are ALWAYS surprises that emerge. But you will guard against mistakes by being as conservative and cautious as possible.--Filll 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I get it. Outstanding selective reasoning. Wiki has selective credibility. I get it. It has been said, “Argue the facts if you have facts. Argue like $#%^ about something else if you don’t.” The sock puppet comment was a subtle joke. Too subtle I guess. Or too convenient for another rabbit trail. Yawn. Enjoy the sandbox and by all means protect the sand castle from the blustering winds.Katherin 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest anything that you feel is useful. I said “look

like”. It was not an accusation. It was a casual observation based on your argument “What's unfortunate in your thinking is that a POV, majority, minority or otherwise, is POV.” That sounded a lot like the reasoning of Filll.

Nice introduction. Enjoy the following reading too:

WP:NPOV

WP:VERIFY

WP:NOR

Mob_rule

Katherin 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to exclude minority POV. But I want to make sure they are not mislabeled as though they were majority POV or mainsteam, and I want to make sure I make it clear why this is true. --Filll 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I get it. You want other POVs to be defined in light of your POV. I get it. I get. I get. Really, I get it. But you don't.Katherin 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Back up. Should a SECULAR worldwide nonreligious encyclopedia present a "theory" (and I hesitate to call it that, more like a hypotheses sort of) that contradicts meteorology and geology and physics as established and supported, verified? As a historical event? --Filll 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no need to clarify you point or to repeat yourself. Your POV defines all other POVs and excludes the one you don't like. Already got that point. Realy I did. No. seriously I really did. Don't repeat yourself on my account.Katherin 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not overly impressed with martyrs, so if it is your choice to no longer participate, then so be it. However, you should know that your points were reasoned and intelligent, so I had no problem with you. Fundamentally, I believe religion is a POV, while verifiable facts are not. As long as you believe that your POV of religion is the correct one, then, yes, it is going to be frustrating. Orangemarlin 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's not much for me to respond to here. Filll's long post above (13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)) he has also put on my talk page, so I will respond to him there.

One thing that I will do, as part of my parting comments, is to highlight where the dispute seems to me to be. Several of us (me, Katherin, Codex Sinaiticus, at least) have accused Filll and Orangemarlin (at least) of POV-pushing. I stand by that. However, Codex Sinaiticus has argued that POV-pushing is wrong. It is, but everyone accepts that. The problem is not that Filll, etc. are intentionally pushing their POV, the problem is that what they see as a neutral viewpoint, we see as a POV. Conversely, Codex Sinaiticus, Katherin, and I also want the article to be neutral, but what we see as neutral, Filll, etc. see as POV-pushing. (Filll and Orangemarlin argue as though it is self-evident that the evidence favours their view. They might think it favours their view, but the fact that there are a number of others disagreeing should demonstrate that it is not self-evident, so they need to support their assertions much better than they have been doing.) I would ask that both sides stop accusing the other of knowingly POV-pushing, and therefore stop referring to WP:NPOV. The NPOV debate needs to be on whether particular statements in the article (or the article as a whole) are POV. I seem to recall Codex Sinaiticus asking for examples of POV in the article, but not getting any response, other than broad and non-specific claims of the article as a whole being POV.

Orangemarlin, I appreciate your compliments about my arguments. Like Katherin said, you and Fill have appeared to be somewhat like sockpuppets, although I accept that that is not the case, but I have tended to think of you two as being very similar. However, Filll has certainly had a lot more to say than you, and perhaps my frustration is more with him than you, although that is not to exclude you from my comments.

Now to go and start responding to Filll's massive missive on my talk page...

Philip J. Rayment 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Philip, You’re doing a great job at being impartial and have made many important points that should have been addressed or agreed, but were simply ignored. I understand that OM and Fill see views that are in contradiction to their worldview to be a threat, and they seem to think it is not POV to exclude them, and that it is even appropriate and necessary to protect “the collective us” by excluding any POV that is threatening. (at least clearly in Filll’s view).

As you understand, the exclusion of well resourced, verifiable views is by its very nature POV pushing. Having discussions with OM and Filll have really become nonexistent. They build strawmen faster than organic material travels a goose and selectively defend their positions or address others.

Katherin's version of the Searches section

(Note: Katherin's post actually begins at the end of the preceding section - I've given it a sub-section heading as it begins a new topic)

If you want to talk specifics about possible POV pushing that is actually occurring in the article then you can look at my edits that PiCo reverted in the Search for Noah’s Ark section. He appeared to indicate he was reverting back to one sentence that Codex had amended but actually reverted out five additional citations that I included in several distinct edits. Everything in my edit was explicitly verifiable and cited. I did it in several distinct edits so they could be individually debated. Yet PiCo chose to revert all of them at once without demonstrating a reasonable position of why they did not belong or comply with Wiki policy.

The edits were relevant to the section of “Search for Noah’s Ark and it was actually introducing what “mainstream” historians and scientists, and scientific organizations have been quoted to say in their own publications. Can't be more reasonable than that.

While there appear to be intelligent folk who would be capable of improving the article, some of them seem incorrigible, and prefer to spend their energy on anything except what is relevant. Katherin 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Katherine, my reversion from your version to Codex's wasn't anything to do with pov or with the verifiability of your citations. It was because you had changed the focus of the section away from ark-searchers and towards archaeologists. I simply feel that it's more appropriate, in a section about the search for the ark, to talk about the former rather than the latter. I'm quite happy to discuss this with you. For the record, your version of the section is as follows:

*Some archaeologist who accept the historicity of the Genesis account believe that finding the Ark would also validate their views on a whole rage of additional matters, from geology to evolution. But “Some archaeologists charge that Noah's-ark expeditions are nothing but wild-goose chases.”[34] Apologists maintain, "If the flood of Noah indeed wiped out the entire human race and its civilization, as the Bible teaches, then the Ark constitutes the one remaining major link to the pre-flood World. No significant artifact could ever be of greater antiquity or importance.... [with] tremendous potential impact on the creation-evolution (including theistic evolution) controversy." [35]

*Searches have concentrated on Mount Ararat itself, although Genesis actually refers only to the "mountains of Ararat". The Durupinar site, near but not on Ararat, and much more accessible, attracted attention in the 1980s and 1990s; In early 2004 an entrepreneur who "owns a Honolulu-based marketing firm"[36] traveled to Washington DC to “announce with great fanfare”[37] [38] a planned expedition to investigate a site he called the Ararat anomaly but National Geographic later questioned that it may have been an ineffective “stunt” to “persuade the Turkish government into granting him a permit” that “few expeditions have actually obtained.”[39]; and in 2006 there was brief flurry of interest when an expedition reported a potential site in Iran.

*Despite millennia of efforts, nothing concrete has been conclusively found. In contemporary times, a small percentage of archeologists remain hopeful and seek research permits from Turkey[40], while other historians and archeologists are “happy to stay out of such an area of debatable research," finding "[t]hese expeditions a waste of time, energy, and money—all of which could be put to much better use.[41]

I'll list here some specific problems I have with this version:

• It says that "some archaeologists" feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on geology, evolution, etc, and that "some archaeologists" charge the search is a wild goose chase. In your last paragraph you refer again to "archaeologists," saying that some remain hopeful while others don't get involved. I really don't feel such a concentration on archaeologists is justified. For a start, I'm not aware of a single professional archaeologist having been involved in an expedition over the last half-century - a professional archaeologist being someone with a degree from a proper university, holding a professional position, who publishes in professional journals and presents papers at professional conferences. That rules out Ron Wyatt, David Fasold, and Bob Cornuke. But more than this, the section is about the people who do search for the Ark, whatever their profession, adventurers, businessmen, or astronauts. They're the ones doing the searching, and they're the ones we have to write about.
• I find your tone in the sentence on McGivern unduly hostile, although the hostility is not made explicit, and the space given to him far too great. He's only important because his expedition (or non-expedition) was recent, and because it involved the Ararat anomaly, which is one of the most important areas for ark-believers. Incidentally, it wasn't McGivern who gave the anomoly its name.
• Finally, a minor point, but there haven't been "millenia of efforts" - organised ark-searching dates only from the last half of the 20th century. Faustus of Byzantium, Josephus, Epiphanius, St John Chrysostom et al never actually went there, they just recounted other people's stories, local traditions. Even in the 19th century there were no actual expeditions, just well-off European travellers who included Ararat in their Middle East/Anatolian wanderings. It isn't until you get to Wyatt and Irwin that you get organised expeditions in search of the Ark.

Anyway, as I say, I'm open to debate on the approach we should take. PiCo 09:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

May I first congratulate you on your contribution to a reasoned discussion. (but I remain a little confused; I did’t think Codex wrote most of what you reverted to). At any rate, I agree with much of your comments above. Wyatt, Fosold, and Cornuke, though possibly well intentioned, are unfortunate distractions from what could otherwise be a topic approached in a legitimate manner (but they are verifiable, so we might as well parade them around). The press they have received is like Pat Robertson’s recent predictions about mass casualty terror attacks. It gets press but makes all the apples look bad by even the slightest association. It would be convenient to conclude that there is no legitimate consideration of the subject distinct from these unfortunate spectacles; They may even prejudice us. If I were an editor I would find it difficult to resist such a temptation.

With some effort you can find some of these “proper” archaeologists (you propose are lacking) who are indeed engaged. A couple archaeologists and relevant scientists enjoy wide (some even world-wide) recognition in their fields and are actively involved in this topic.

Though some might see it as POV to “under-label” some of the researchers, I would not object to calling those who accept the historicity as “researchers” so as not to credit all of them with the benefits of the term “archaeologist”. If specific archeologists were included then they should be cited as such. But the majority of them are “researchers” who accept the historicity of the Moses I account.

Next, I find it odd that you view my tone toward McGivern (2004) “unduly hostile”. My entire comment was hardly anything but direct quotes out of “National Geographic News, MSNBC, and the Washington times. Are those publishers unduly hostile, or am I for quoting them? Essentially the only words that were mine were “he called” the Ararat Anomaly. The words “Ararat Anomaly” are used by various “hopefuls” to refer to more than a handful of “anomalies” around the mountain. There is no consensus of which one is “the” anomaly or the exact geographic locations of them, thus my use of “he called” because that is what it amounts to. But at any rate, quote some different less hostile citations of McGivern too if you wish.

But even so that is all beside the point. Your complaint that there are no archeologists involved in the search (and to suggest therefore that archeologists should be excluded from this section) is to introduce a false argument. Firstly, because there are some involved. But even if there weren’t archeologists actually involved in climbing icy mountains, if there are reputable scientific publications (and historians and archeologists that have commented on the topic) then they of all people (being reputably published and leaders at well known “proper” universities) are the exact experts that ought to be included to add credibility to the article--—just because “verifiable yet false” sources are allowed and not excluded by “accurate” sources, we should not therefore go out of our way to exclude those who are mainstream and most “credible” to showcase only the “verifiable yet probably false”. We should instead include archeologists and historians and well know scientific publications that have commented on “The Search for Noah’s Ark.” I would think it irresponsible at best, and POV at worst, to exclude well cited and published comments of credible and relevant experts (of which I presented 4 or 5) in preference to showcasing only the “researchers” (especially of similar quality to Wyatt). What do others think?Katherin 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(To make room for my reply to Katherin I've made a new subsection for those who wish to discuss the Vikings.) Kartherin, if you feel the Search section is missing some important aspects of the search (i.e., involvement by serious people), by all means put something in. My own intention when I wrote this section was to describe, objectively and briefly, the people who are doing the searching, including their motivation and background (the first paragraph), and the areas being searched togetehr with a few of the better-known and most recent efforts (second para). My aim was to be informative and brief - the more detailed treatments can be put in the separate article. PiCo 08:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(And no, Codex didn't write the version I reverted to - he simply made the edit that I reverted to).

Stuff about the Vikings

I will point out that the search for Noah's Ark is not the only topic in the fields of "pseudoarchaeology" or "pseudohistory". I do not know if there is a good term for the area. But I might include in it things like:

• the claim that the egyptians had ships that regularly sailed across the Atlantic to the New World (so their mummies could contain cocaine and tobacco and they could teach the Mayans to make Pyramids and the people of northern Chile to make mummies)
• the claim that a plaque in the middle of Minnesota is the record of a lost Viking expedition to the area before Columbus
• the claim that the Chinese regularly visited the West coast of the Americas before Columbus
• the now discredited claim that the Ainu were from from the same group of people as the Finnish and the Hungarians (genetic studies put that one to rest)
• the claim that there is a fountain of youth in florida
• Claims that there were cities of gold in the new world like Quivira and Cíbola and El Dorado
• Claims that the body of St. James really rests in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (particularly the story about how he was transported there)
• Before L'Anse aux Meadows was found, Norse stories of Vinland were assumed to be made up
• Thor Heyerdal was a fan of unpopular historic theories, and would also try to prove they were possible
• claims that the cave drawings and stories in the bible etc are records of alien visitation by Erich von Däniken
• Velikovsky's astronomical theories associated with earth and bible history
• Stories of Atlantis or other supposedly mythical places

A little investigation will turn up literally thousands upon thousands of these sorts of topics. They are interesting. Some turn out to have some grain of truth in them. Some go against other evidence. Some were current mainstream beliefs or theories or hypotheses and then are discarded as new evidence turns up. And so on.--Filll 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Before L'Anse aux Meadows was found, Norse stories of Vinland were assumed to be made up". Correct. So I guess your point is that before it was found, this hypothesis was "pseudoarcheology"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't pseudoarcheology; there was some support for the idea, and it certainly was plausible; the issue was that no one knew if they actually made it from Greenland -> North America prior to that, even though it was documented that they had actually gone to Vinland (AKA Canada). Pseudoarcheology is stuff like searches for the Ark, most of the searches for Atlantis, claims the Chinese went to the Americas in 1421, ect. Stuff that was made up and obviously so. Some Atlantis seekers are at least reasonable, and actually focus on real possibilities - the Minoan civilization, for instance. However, no Ark seekers can focus on real possibilities, because all the "real possibilities" have the Ark not existing and the Great Deluge being, at best, a large local flood. Titanium Dragon 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was pseudoarcheology, because finding of L'Anse aux Meadows was a complete shock to scientists at the time. Just to head off the mythologists on here, there were a group of people who were searching for evidence of Viking culture in North America relying upon what appear to be fake plaques, stone engravings (one found in Missouri, oops, Oklahoma Heavener Runestone), etc. However, the archeologists, Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad had read and translated an early Norse saga, and from that information, ascertained the location of a possible site in North America. So prior to the Ingstads, it was pseudoarcheology. They weren't. There is no documentable historical, geological, archeological or paleontological evidence of a flood. Thus, the search for Noah's ark is nothing more than POV pseudoscience myth. Orangemarlin 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what to call it, but it was not very respected before it was found. However, there was no scientific reasons against it either. However, to be fair here, at the time it was not thought that the climate could be that much warmer than it was to permit grapes to grow in Newfoundland. This now looks much more possible.--Filll 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK katherin

Stop complaining and write something. Pick a sentence or section you dislike and write a new "balanced" version and present the two for comparison and comment. Put up or...--Filll 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Interesting you would defend yourself with accusations of whining. Yawn. Already improved a couple paragraphs with five citations that supported your view. They were reverted. Yawn. Katherin 04:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw them and I cut and pasted them to the search article. I did not revert them. I do not want to LOSE any of this material. I am not sure why they were reverted but I think that the goal was to make this section very short, so it might have been for brevity rather than anything else. In a contentious article, it is always better to put the changes here first or on a scratch page and then have people comment and so on first. Believe me, I have been down this road many times before and it gets pretty nasty. Even when you all have the same POV. --Filll 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Ok. Now the article IS contentious and doesn't have the same POV being presented by all sides. You acknowledge that, now that it suits your argument. Careful. You are contradicting what you have been saying all along. But who cares. Comment on the edits that were well cited, relevant, and according to Wiki policy (and mostly in favor of what seems to be your position.) instead of just being dismissive.Katherin 05:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not dismissive. I also do not mean to contradict myself. I am a visitor to this page, and I have made minimal edits to the article. I do not feel it is as unbalanced as Orangemarlin thinks it is, but I can understand his sensitivities about the issue. I am here to learn a little and to try to advocate a scientific and historical view like what I would expect to read in the World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. When I read about the Great Flood on WP, it appears to be not too bad, at least at first glance.--Filll 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I only think one section is unbalanced, because it talks about the Search for Noah's Ark, which is pseudoscience, since you can't search for something that didn't happen. As for the Great Flood article, it is very good. It presents all of the myths, then sets out some of the scientific evidence for the existence of these myths. I wish this article would do the same. Noah's Ark is a myth. Here's the evidence of why it never happened. Then I can go on to critiquing the Historicity of Jesus article. Orangemarlin 06:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merges?

Shouldn't some of this very long article be moved into or merged with Noah or Deluge (mythology)? At least one of these should be the main article and the others should be smaller separate articles, instead of restating the same things. Mr. Toad 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Science of Noah's Ark

There is no science of Noah's Ark. I don't think that significant space should be given on this page to debating its existance or nonexistance, under the principle of undue weight - few people think of it as literally true, and the vast majority do not, but mostly it doesn't even come up save when the few (very vocal) advocates make Creationist claims. Titanium Dragon 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this recent addition does not belong here. A brief mention that this "event" completely conflicts with the scientific understanding of earth's history, should be sufficient. Will delete it. ^rossnixon 09:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, based on one opinion, you should remove something that is in there. I agree with TD, most wholeheartedly. But, the way this article read, especially all of the searches for the Ark, is that this is some sort of true story that science endorses. But if everyone agrees, you can revert my revert. Orangemarlin 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is that it might be too long for this article. One might need a separate article to list these and other concerns. I do agree that Noah's Ark should not be presented as something which is a real object that is realistically expected to be found and expeditions to find it are scientific expeditions, based on scientific knowledge and understanding.--Filll 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting this new section again. Please do not make large controversial changes without consensus. ^rossnixon 06:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that this be put to a vote. You are forcing your POV to remove it, and that's really not appropriate. I'm going to revert back. But I won't engage in a revert war with you. Orangemarlin 07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with rossnixon on this one. "Noah's Ark" is a featured article and a recent article of the day. As such, large-scale revisions should only be done after discussion. The question isn't whether there's consensus to remove the recent addition on the science of the Ark, but whether there's consensus to add it. I'd removing it on that basis - and also because most, if not all, the points raised are either in the proposed "Science" section are already in the "Literalism" section, or are off-topic insofar as they deal with the Deluge rather than the Ark. PiCo 08:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I surrender. Chalk one up for the Creationists. I find it amazing that those of us who see all of this as religious myth go overboard to include their biases and POV, put up with their rantings (just go over to the ID article, which I think you've seen), and attempt to find balance. When we step onto their sacred turf, we're kicked in the groin. Maybe it's for the best. Allow the religious people to have their articles that those of us think are depictions of myth, and we have our articles that based on verifiable and scientific information (while still allowing their pseudoscience to creep in). It doesn't make for a good encyclopedia, because as I read certain articles I know that it was a bone thrown to the religious people so that they can have their little piece of the world. Unfortunately, I don't think it makes for good reading. I seriously give up.Orangemarlin 08:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. It would be "chalk one up for the Creationists" if this section were added. Why devote a large section to the views of a small minority of people, with no basis in fact, simply in order to refute the speciousness of it all? Pico is right, this is covered adequately in the "literalism" section. And Titanium Dragon is right, there is no "science" so the title is misleading. Back in the dark ages, one of the first things I did to this article was to remove a specious "Biology" section[2] for similar reasons. You are attempting to give undue weight to Biblical literalists with this proposed addition. While I sympathise with the work you have put into this, there is no consensus to add this and grant misplaced validity to the "science" of the Ark. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Creationists win because of a simple fact. Most scientists work in fields of grey, we don't believe in black and white. We aren't used to saying "impossible." Every staunch Evolutionary Scientist (or whatever they or we want to be called) holds out the possibility, however infinitesimally tiny it might be, that maybe some Little Green Men from Andromeda created life on this planet. The Creationists, of course, only believe their POV, which they believe in black and white. They accuse me of being an Atheist, mainly because I think their myths make no sense whatsoever. So, we let them have space in every verified article to state their case, no matter how silly or unverifiable it might be, all to give equal weight to something that does not exist. I read this article, and it frankly reads like Noah's Ark is a fact, and there are scientific expeditions about actually proving this myth. It's sad that Wikipedia has been twisted so that the mythology of religion is included, just so we don't insult them, gets to have a POV, despite its being plain and simple a bunch of hooey. In case you're wondering, hooey is right next to Alchemy and Astrology. But I'll concede. I don't understand, and I don't get it, because I guess I faked my way through 10 years of college and graduate school, six years of training and a fellowship, and proceeded to get a degree from the Evolutionist Diploma Mill. I think you're on my side of the fence, but you're letting them win. I can't countenance that fact, because bigotry and and thought control rarely comes all at once--it shows up one step at a time. They win. They get to foist this myth on an innocent public who comes here and thinks, "wow all of these bright minds think that Noah's Ark exists, and they've even written about some really smart people trying to find that Ark. Wait until I tell Sally and Fred. I've got proof." I seriously don't get it. Orangemarlin 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please give at least one example of what you are talking about when you say the article reads like Noah's Ark is a fact. If you don't want to do this, you can also mark statements that you don't feel are npov with a tag such as [[Template:POV-statement]] which produces {{POV-statement}} inline. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the removed section to Talk:Noah's Ark/Science--Filll 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted your paste of the content in question. If Orangemarlin wants it userfied, he can ask for that. To create a subpage to an article talk page for content is not generally helpful; the discussion is here, in this section of the talk page. Only rarely are subpages created to article talk pages, and that is for discussion which takes up a great deal of space. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked several times, but it never happened. I probably didn't ask in the exact perfect Wiki-way, so I'm sure it was ignored. Orangemarlin 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where or who you asked, but I will be happy to userfy it for you, or you can do it yourself, but I don't see anywhere that it came from which has a history, so it would be a paste not a move - let me know. Would User:Orangemarlin/Science of the Ark be acceptable? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Orangemarlin's comments reveal that he does not have the faintest inkling of how the NPOV concept is supposed to work on Wikipedia. I hav explained it and explained it and don't know how much more simply I can put it. Wikipedia does not endorse his point of view and declare that to be "neutral" and everything else "non-neutral". The definition of "neutral" is that if there is more than one significant opinion out there (Yes, I know its hard for you to imagine that there are other opinions beside your own) it does not declare one of these opinions "wrong" and your opinion "right", nor vice versa. It steers a course that is "neutral" between these opinions, and any opinions given should be cited as to whose opinions they are, not presented as "the truth" or "the only legitimate opinion". Wikipedia must never be used by the likes of you as an apparatus to attack established religion -- any more than it should be used to promote any one religion over another -- so you seem to represent exactly what we must all be on vigilant guard against. Wikipedia simply reports what is actually believed today, not what you would like people to believe, or what you would "teach" them to believe. You can have articles describing what Hindus believe, what Buddhists believe, what Muslims believe, and yes, what atheists believe, but Wikipedia itself must be neutral and is not to be written with the assumption that any of these standpoints is the real truth. I'm sorry to have to keep explaining over and over again what WP:NPOV means, but you still don't seem to get it, so I'm here to patiently explain it as many times as necessary what this is all about. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am so sick of your lecturing and attitude. Thank you for mentioning how stupid I am because I am apparently incapable of seeing the world as you do. I'm done. You have it your way, make it a religious article that covers your point of view and that's all. Your view of neutrality to promote a Christian view, but thanks, I guess I'm a complete idiot with an IQ that barely reaches double digits. That's all right, I'm not like most people on here, I deal with the insults by ignoring them. But you win. I will not involve myself with this article again. Oh by the way, it's hysterical how you are insulted if I lump you into a category, but your calling me an Atheist is of course completely acceptable. Enjoy. Orangemarlin 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So I am confused. Could you please explain Codex S., what this phrase means:

Wikipedia simply reports what is actually believed today, not what you would like people to believe, or what you would "teach" them to believe.--Filll 16:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple. I'm sure there are Muslim authorities out there who would love for Wikipedia to be used to "teach" readers "what to believe" as if it were the absolute underlying truth. Also same with Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, atheist, and every other subset and kind of "authorities" out there. In fact, each of these groups with today's technology can do exactly that by making their own wikies and putting whatever they want in it with whatever system of control they want. But if this particular wiki is truly neutral ground and shared by all parties, the best it can hope for is to "report" neutrally on what significant beliefs and philosophies exist today in the world, since no one party can claim the right to have the ultimate "truth" to judge all the others by, without those other parties objecting. That's basically what my statement meant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So I gather you believe that most people believe:

• there was a real Noah's ark
• there was a real worldwide flood
• the story in Genesis is literally true in detail, or approximately
• that the scientific evidence supports it
• that most scientists believe this is a worthy scientific endeavor
• that scientists have no objection to treating Noah's Ark as fact?

I do not mean to be obnoxious. I am just trying to determine what you think is the "neutral" POV.--Filll 14:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. If Codex also objects, then we have one of the primary editors who brought this article to FA status (PiCo), Codex (who I believe is something of a literalist - please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks) and a puppy who is completely agnostic while on Wikipedia objecting, and one trolling post by Filll, who should know better. Filll, don't ask questions about someone's personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. This page is for discussion of the article - please post in this thread whether you support the addition (en toto or in part) or not. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

His point is well-taken though; CS has consistently pushed for misrepresenting the Ark and putting it forth as a real object; anything which could even remotely imply that it wasn't real (such as "mythological" or "mythology") is fought by him tooth and nail, even though those terms are not used to designate something's factuality but rather what sort of thing it is (Hercules is a mythological hero as the Ark is a mythological object as Excalibur is a mythological object). Titanium Dragon 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations like "CS has consistently pushed for misrepresenting the Ark and putting it forth as a real object". Talk is cheap, but that's a false accusation. Provide even one diff that shows I have ever done any such thing. It gets tiresome to explain my position over and over again, but you still either don't get it, or feel obliged to misrepresent it with some kind of bizarre strawman argument. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. So you have no objections then to presenting Noah's Ark as a fictional, mythological object.--Filll 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you truly this uncomprehending? One more time. (Read it slowly if it helps) I object to representing Noah's Ark as a fictional object. This does not mean I have pushed for putting forth the Ark as a real object - I would also object to that. I insist that the article be NEUTRAL. That means the article does not have to do either, indeed, it must not do either. WHAT PART DO YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTAND??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I am just stupid and need help understanding. My apologies. --Filll 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any attempt to determine what "most people" believe. However, I know that the official positions of large Christian denominations with combined adherents numbering in the billions, probably passes the muster for a "significant" POV, on questions of scripture interpretation. Because it is significant, we describe it, without either endorsing it or declaring it wrong. The Muslim and Jewish position is also significant, because these are world religions and this topic is in their scriptures. So again, we describe the Muslim and Jewish positions, without either endorsing them or declaring them wrong. I have no problem with accepting that the secular view of Noah's Ark is another "significant POV". So just like the other significant views, we describe it, without either endorsing it or declaring it wrong. That's neutral - what is so hard to understand? The scientific view is actually a Johnny-come-lately on the stage with these competing views. But it smacks of arrogance for it to say "I am I, and who else is there?" which just happens to be exactly what the Bible prophesies "Babylon" as saying in the last days. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Billions? The Catholic Church makes up on the order of half of all Christians, and it does not take the Bible literally. They've admitted evolution occurs and they don't fight that the Earth revolves around the Sun, they don't fight for the firmament, and they don't take the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Deluge literally. Name a major Christian demonination which officially supports taking the story of Noah's Ark literally. I'm not aware of any. I'm aware of subgroups in the United States which make claims of biblical literalism.Titanium Dragon 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

TD is correct here. The number of significant Christian denominations that subscribe to biblical literalism is tiny. Even in the US, the most extreme example, only about 10% of all declared Christians belong to a denomination that does not support the scientific description of evolution. So I am just trying to understand the reasoning here.--Filll 21:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also interesting to me that believers in biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, and the like, are always glad to count the Roman Catholics with over 1 billion followers and all the mainline Protestant sects when they want to argue what a dominant force Christianity is, and how many Christians there, and how important they are. Then I notice that in the next breath they deny that Catholics are Christians, and deny that Anglicans are Christians and Presbyterians and Methodists and Congregationalists etc. In fact, they often call them idolators, blasphemers, infidels, heretics or atheists or satanists or worse. It is funny how the definition of a "Christian" changes from minute to minute depending on the point they are trying to make. Ever notice that?--Filll 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All appearances to the contrary, I am just trying to understand NPOV, which is something of a mystery to me, I admit. I also am trying to decide what exactly is evidence here of neutrality or non-neutrality, as the case may be. I mean no disrespect and I do not want to be in a flame war etc. I am considering how this might be approached in this or another article, since I think it might be hard to change this article since it has FA status. I do not unilaterally claim scientists or the dominant scientific view is "correct", since science really is silent on what is "true" or "correct" or "reality" or "provable", at its deepest. All that science can do is produce parsimonious natural explanations making predictions that fit the extant data. Certainly, as I have mentioned before, a worldwide flood could have happened leaving no trace. Science would be completely blind in that instance, which of course COULD have happened.--Filll 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Science of Noah's Ark? What? There is no bloody science of Noah's Ark. Tell ya what, when we have sections on the Science of the Iliad in the Iliad article, Science of the Odyssey in the Odyssey article, Science of the Aeneid in the Aeneid article, Science of Gilgamesh in the Epic of Gilgamesh article, and Science of the Inferno in the Inferno article, I'll consider a section on science of Noah's bloody Ark. •Jim62sch• 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah Wikipedia, omnipedious as ever, has been there before we even thought of it...see Science and the Bible. If Filll and OrangeMarmalade want to do something useful about this topic, that's the place to start! PiCo 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And I might work on that article at some point. However, just because that exists, does not mean that one needs to describe Noah's Ark as a real object and the flood as a real event.--Filll 21:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the above comment that Catholics do not accept the historicity of the Flood of Noah, this is incorrect. Catholic doctrine, as per the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org, maintains that Catholic teaching asserts the WWF™ is an historical event. JPotter 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. I just read the www.newadvent.org, and it says that to think of the Ark as a poetic interpretation of a real event is allowable.  ::Also, I had a lot of Catholic Religious Instruction when I was a kid, and Noahs Ark was presented as a story that told of a real flood, but from a limited perspective. We were not encouraged to take it literally. This is in Australia, and it's kind of obvious that the story does not include kangaroos.

Can you imagine Noah seeing animals that he had never seen before coming to the ark, moving in a way that no other animals do, and not mentioning them in the story? No Catholic kid, instructor, nun or priest that I knew ever imagined that the story just omitted to mention kangaroos - they were obviously (to us) just not there. That doesn't necessarily reflect on the truth of the story. It just changes the definition of the world: it works if you define world to mean everything that they knew. Noahs Ark talks about a flood that flooded the world, as they knew it, not necessarily as we know it. I don't believe that we, as Catholics, were ever asked to suspend critical thinking to support a literal interpretation. We were asked to assume the story told truth, but not necessarily literal, and not even necessarily historical, but most likely with some real event behind it somewhere. This is consistent with what newadvent.org says.

By the way, I am also confused by the idea that NPOV means that you can neither present the Ark as mythological or as real. If it's real, you can talk about what we would expect to see in the real world, narrowing of genetic pools, all sorts of things that would support the view or not. If mythological, then we can talk about similar myths in other cultures, and where these myths might have originated. But if it is neither myth nor real, all you can say is "The story is real, but don't think any further." Trishm 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is where it is getting confusing for some people. Of course we can present all of those things, both from those who say it is real, and from those who say it is "myth", er "fictional"... As long as we cite exactly who said what -- basic policy. What we can't do is write in a tone that appears to endorse any of these POV's... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PoV?

I just read the article for the first time. There is one part I am concerned about becasue it seems to either implyies PoV or original reserach (or somewhere in between).

Section ==The documentary hypothesis and the Ark==

The Ark narrative leaves an impression of occasional confusion: why does the story state twice over that mankind had grown corrupt but that Noah was to be saved (Gen 6:5–8; 6:11–13)? Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days (Gen 7:24)? What happened to the raven that was sent out from the Ark at the same time as the dove and "went to and fro until the waters had subsided from the face of the earth" some two to three weeks later (Gen 8:7)? Why does the narrative appear to have two logical end-points (Gen 8:20–22 and 9:1–17)?[5] Questions such as these are not unique to the Ark narrative, or to Genesis, and the attempt to find a solution has led to the emergence of what is currently the dominant school of thought on the textual analysis of the first five books of the Bible, the documentary hypothesis.

This section doesn't read well. Shoudn't it start with statements of fact such as, "In the "so-and-so" translation of the Bible the book of Genesis states that (and give the contradictions or different information). Then go into the documentary hypothesis by .. "This apparent difference/contradiction is thought to be due to ..."

Words like "leaves an impression of occassional confusion" and other turns of phrase don't belong in an encylopedia. They seem to be appealing to the reader and I don't think that is appropriate. Candy 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Better would be "The story of the Ark is self-contradictory." Then give the examples and state that these contradictions are the reason for the research. Titanium Dragon 08:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is based on 2 books by Richard Elliot Friedman, as per the footnotes. I could re-write it in a more scholarly style, using the same sources, but major re-writes of anything in this article have to get past a whole host of eagle-eyed editors with very different agendas. So I don't even want to touch it unles there's a clerar sign that it's called for. PiCo 05:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well as it stands, it reads badly, looks totally like original reserach and is unencyclopedic. So, re-writing it looks like it should be done. It is certainly a negative part of this artcile imho. Candy 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If enough people want it re-drafted I'll do it - but given the sensitivity of the subject, and the fact that the section was already as it is now when the article achieved FA status, I'd want to see a pretty strong indication that this is desirable (on acount of not wanting to put a lot of effort into opening a can of worms). PiCo 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The big objection to Noahs ark, Australia and New Zealand

Australians always have to think a little harder about Noah's ark, because it just doesn't make sense that after the ark landed on Mt. Ararat, that the whole rather unique ecosystem (monotremes, marsupials) wandered over to Australia, without the placental mammals. They also didn't seem to make it to much of the rest of the world.

Not to mention the Kiwi, a little flightless bird that can't swim, making it to New Zealand, and nowhere else. Evolution can explain the situation, but not the Ark.

In my experience, very few people consider Noahs ark literally in Australia, and if they do they either keep it fairly quiet, or shout very loudly. I'm serious - Australian fundamentalists who will happily espouse a six-day creation are not at all happy to discuss Noah's ark. It's just in our faces all the time that Australia was not part of the ark story. I looked for a website that might explain it, and the only site to have any serious discussion is

I think this topic deserves a serious mention. Trishm 10:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly common objection to it. There are many small islands which could not have been populated that way, not to mention Australia. The Americas, too, contradict it, as do places like Madagascar. It may merit mention if the Australians/New Zealanders are particularly skeptical according to RSs, though. Titanium Dragon 10:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen "Aussies/NZ's are skeptics about Creationism" formalised, so it wouldn't qualify for an article. I will keep an eye out for sources on the topic.Trishm 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not much of an expert in the area of animal migration, but I don't think Australia, New Zealand, North America, ect. are too problematic for the Flood model. For starters, the oceans may have been considerably lower due to the ice age that came after the deluge, resulting in more landmasses here and there, as well as ice floats (maybe). Another thing that many people might overlook is that the animals did not have to come on their own. Humans like to take things with them, so it's not too unreasonable to suggest that, say, the original Native Americans transported buffalo and the like with them after Babel. There's also evidence, if you believe the Creationists, that animals were more uniformly distributed in the past, and that natural selection, changing climate, as well as human hunting may have caused localized extinction.Zephyr axiom 03:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so where is the biblical mentions of an ice age and lower oceans? Also Australia and New Zealand have NEVER been connected to each other, or to Asia, even when the oceans were lower in ice ages. Lastly, as recent sad events show, Australian mammals are ill-adapted to compete with placental mammals. Why did not placental mammals just not invade Australia like they invaded the rest of the world? Or were Australian animals particually quick? Please... --Michael Johnson 03:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely NZ and Australia were once connected. The shape of NZ compared with the shape of the south-eastern coastline of Australia - coincidence? I don't think so. JackofOz 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith - no NZ is a volcanic island, and literally "grew" out of the sea. --Michael Johnson 04:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption. Indo-Australian Plate says: "New Zealand and New Caledonia are the southern and northern ends of the former land mass of Tasmantis, which separated from Australia 85 million years ago." JackofOz 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So that's why they were left out in 1901!PiCo 11:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how evolutionary dates relate to the topic of a literalist Noah's Flood scenario. The literalist scenario implies a young earth (6000-10000 years), and Noah's Flood itself is said by Creationists to be responsible for the layers used date things. Radiometric dating is also largely unnaccepted by Creationists because it relies on the same uniformitarian assumptions that are the basis for the strata readings. Anyway, with the ice age, it may not be too pertinent to Australia, but it does apply to North America. The reason I brought NA up in the first place was because someone earlier had pulled it into the picture.Zephyr axiom 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Must we speak of Noah's ark only in literalist terms? Most of the non-fundamentalist religions, including my own, hold the idea that Noah's ark reflects a real event, but do not believe a literal account from the original Hebrew, let alone the current English translation.Trishm 11:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was simply responding to the assertion that Australia and NZ have "NEVER" been connected to each other. I'm not otherwise involved in this discussion. JackofOz 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bible does not mention the specific term "ice age," but the book of Job, which certain scholars believe to have been written relatively soon after the flood, mentions four times the word "snow." You'll probably say that this is stretching it, but this link [3] deals with the topic of how an ice age is easily accounted for in conjunction with Noah's Flood. It's from the Answers in Genesis Q&A page [4]. But connections between continents isn't the only variable. There's still the human factor, which you have not addressed. Oh, and sorry about not having a quick reference arrow on the history tab--I'm new to wiki.Zephyr axiom 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep I can see some offspring of Noah carrying a koala (hard enough without worring about it's mate) half way round the world while picking euculypt leaves, which, wait for it, don't exist outside Australia, to feed it. --Michael Johnson 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, they do these days (see eucalypt#Plantation and ecological problems). But they were always native to New Guinea, Indonesia and the Phillipines as well as Australia. JackofOz 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So this is the creationist theory. While whipping over to Australia to pick up his koalas (and dozens of other unique species) Noah picks up some euculypt seads as well (and of course 1500 kilos of fresh pick leaf, for which there must have been some form of miricle refrigeration system on the ark) then after the flood recedes sends off a team to plant a plantation to get enough leaf for the return journey. Of course the plantation would then have to be destroyed. And so the absurd attempt to fit the facts into this fairytale continue. --Michael Johnson 01:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's not the Creationist theory. The actual creationist theory has an antediluvian supercontinent much different from the current setup. There was no Australia, no Europe, no Asia, no America. That world is a lost world, one which we do not know much about. It's ecosystem we can only speculate about. In any case, the world after the Flood was, for all practical purposes, a clean slate for repopulation, a totally different world. The pre-Flood and post-Flood worlds are two completely different things geographically. If you want to further understand the Creationist model, the Answeres in Genesis website is only a click away[5].--Zephyr axiom 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee, you guys really do make it up as you go along. Cheers --Michael Johnson 02:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's called science. As more data is uncovered and as more people get involved trying to piece it together, ideas progress. Evolutionists of all people should realize that, right?--Zephyr axiom 02:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He, he, he, you are making my day. Science? Can't see any... --Michael Johnson 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I love this quote from Harry Rimmer :You could get two of every species of insect on the hides of two good-sized elephants, and they would not, therefore, occupy any additional space in the ark"--Filll 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To Trishm: The way I see it, you're the one who brought literalist terms into it. By bringing up the "problem" of Australia's ecosystem, you imply that we're talking about a global Flood, ie literal reading of the account. This topic is about the percieved problems with a literal global Flood. If you begin giving percieved problems with the global Flood, then you better expect to get people replying with a defence from the perspective of their being a global Flood. Now, about your statement concerning Australian views on the matter, you are very correct. Ken Ham is very outspoken about the Ark.

To Michael Johnson: You know what, I can see it very clearly as well. Pacific islanders did after all scatter pigs all across the ocean. Also consider that people do very strange things, such as transport beloved pets with them to their new homes and set up specialized zoos. It's also a theoretical possibility that soon after the Flood, before the plants and animals had much chance to reproduce in large numbers, someone grabbed the only herd of a particular animal he liked and took it with him to Australia. Considering the concept of kinds versus species boarding the Ark, if one of the Flood survivors took a kind to another continent soon enough, then it would pretty much exclude that kind from being on the other continents. It's all pretty easy to think through if you want to look at it from a literalist's perspective rather than as a critic seeking every little thing that might be a hangup. People can do all sorts of things. Thanks for the input.Zephyr axiom 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"every little thing" hmmmp just look at the broad picture, don't worry about the detail. You are deluding yourself. It seems to me literallists just paint out the facts that they find inconvenient. And what on earth is a "kind". --Michael Johnson 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how there was no internal link leading to Created kind in the article, I've added one. You are free to look at it.Zephyr axiom 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What a quaint concept. So we are expected to believe that the evolution that created the massive diversity within, for instance, Felidae, can take place over a few thousand years, but evolution on a broader scale could not have taken place over millions of years. --Michael Johnson 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is because the two models are heading in opposite directions. Evolution starts with the simple and progresses through time to the more complex. Creation the Fall begins at high complexity and spirals down to less complexity. Evolution starts with one organism which then branches off to become everything we have now through the process of increasing genetic information. There were no barriers to break between kinds, because everything was the same kind. Creation starts with multiple, distinct kinds, but each kind was packed with all the genetic variability which would eventually manifest into the different subkinds which we have today. For instance, and for the sake of argument, there could have originally been only two dogs. Down through the ages, the preexisting variety contained within these two dogs would have expressed intself in the different offspring. However, this would be going through Punnett square matchups and isolation. So, while the Evolution model has increasing genetic information to explain variability, the Creation and Fall model has decreasing genetic information to explain variability.--Zephyr axiom 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This page explains the concept of “kind” better than I have.[6]--Zephyr axiom 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Quoting In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’. So you start with the Bible and work back. Well as long as the end point is preconcieved I guess you don't need science. You are right about Science and Creationism going in two different directions - Science starts with the facts and looks for an answer, which in this case is most likely Evolution. Creationism starts with the answer (your reading of the Bible - I say that advisably because most Christian leaders don't agree with your interpretation) and then makes up the facts to suit. Sorry but that is how it looks. --Michael Johnson 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and Evolution both have something in common, however. Both start with assumptions, although opposite assumptions. Creationism starts with the assumption of the wisdom and reliability of the God of the Bible, taking his word, his eyewitness account as the most likely to be true. Evolution starts with the assumption of the wisdom and reliability of man, believing that he can explain everything without God. The word "science" itself has many different meanings, which have changed and succeeded each other as time has gone on. It originally meant simply knowledge about the world. As the older order was ousted by Darwinian philosophers, it was changed, quite self-servingly, to automatically exclude anything of Divine nature (there's a very short windows media snippet on the main AiG site right now on this subject, actually). Evolution is based, regardless of what the truth may be, on the a priori resolution that life came about on its own. But this is some of the last you'll likely hear from me. It is not my job to convince, but rather to inform, and I've put my share on here. People don't seem to care too much about it, though. When you come to meet a certain Someone later on, don't be shocked to hear the question, "Why didn't you trust Me?"(Quite appropriate, since were talking about God's past judgement on the earth.) Till then, best of wishes. I now take my leave of this talk page.--Zephyr axiom 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to be involved with this article but in truth I just browse it and flit on by. However, I wonder, has anyone considered how Noah would have taken the mayfly? As larvals perhaps? And the social insects? Queen and Drone? Wouldn't last long I have to say. How did they fit the whales in BTW? Who had to sleep with the skunks? Candy 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, whales? It was a flood. They can swim, just like everything else that lives in the ocean.Zephyr axiom 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And lakes and rivers too, right? Hmmm....--Filll 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Candy, thank you for bringing to my attention that the article does not address insects. I’ve added an extra sentence dealing with it.--Zephyr axiom 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whales live in salt water only. You raise the water level of the planet high enough to cover all of the land with rain water, and you'd end up diluting the ocean enough that lot of organisms would die. Not to mention what it does to fresh water ecosystems. 128.194.8.182 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Objections article

Perhaps we need an article on objections to Noah's ark, with major objections listed and "arkeologist's" responses, for a few of the main objections. I do not know if it is possible to get any objections into this article, since it has FA status.--Filll 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Objections to what? I am unclear on what you mean. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh that was a short-hand way of thinking. I am wondering about an article on the history of analyses of the Noachian flood: Diderot, Newton, scholastics, Rabbinical scholars, Maimonides, Descartes, etc. Just curious.--Filll 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not objections, that's historical and scholarly analysis. Is what you're thinking of not covered in Deluge (mythology)? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We better check first for sure.--Filll 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I looked. As detailed and interesting as Deluge (mythology) is, the part we would expand on is barely touched there, and does not even have any references. This area has been subject to intense scholarship for well over 2000 years. There is an immense amount. And it is fascinating.--Filll 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Theories of origin section on that article needs work and sourcing - perhaps you could start there, and once that section gets too big then create a child article, leaving a summary and link behind. Or if you were planning to specifically address the Noah's Ark myth, and not touch on related myths, you could create a child article based on The documentary hypothesis and the Ark from this article. Although I don't see how you'd get far address the Noah version only, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding what your focus would be. If working from this article, I suggest working on it in userspace then moving to mainspace. The Deluge section I'd work on from where it is as noted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what we are thinking. Orangemarlin and I have collaborated on a few articles so far, and this might be something else to play with. He definitely is interested in this part of it. And I am just doing a bit of literature survey to see what else is out there. And I notice the deluge section in this area is quite lacking. This is not surprising considering the amount of material on various floods that exist in that article; there is hardly room to concentrate on the Noachian flood to any extent.--Filll 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you start by cleaning up and sourcing Deluge (mythology)#Theories of origin, that might make a natural jumping-off place. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What people believe

Thanks to codex, who I am stealing this from:

Wikipedia simply reports what is actually believed today, not what you would like people to believe, or what you would "teach" them to believe.

Given that, what is actually believed? How do we define it? Polls? All POV? Are some POV more important than others in the literature? I do not mean to be difficult. I just do not understand this concept very well. For example, I read at Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial:

Points of view held as having little credibility by experts, but with wide popular appeal (e.g.: the belief in astrology, considered as irrational and incorrect by the vast majority of scientists and astronomers), should be reported, but as such: that is, we should expose the point of view and its popular appeal, but also the opinion held by the vast majority of experts

Maybe we already do this in this article. I am not sure. But I am just trying to learn.--Filll 18:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That gets into the questions "Who are the experts on religious texts, and are they all in agreement?" I think scientists can certainly share their expertise, but not to exclude the other experts that speak for othesr positions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with hearing from historical experts, religious experts, legal experts, scientific experts, engineering experts, etc on such an issue. And I would include them all, appropriately labeled. I would not write an article on astrology or ESP as though it really were true, although it might be, because of a significant element that strongly disagree, and that element and their opinions are very prevalent in our laws, our major universities, our government spending decisions, etc. So I am not sure they should be dismissed out of hand because some other group claims that ESP or astrology must be true.--Filll 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Another point: what you just said above about your laws, government spending decisions, etc. may well be true for your own corner of the world or jurisdiction wherever you live, but you might be surprised if you took a look at the patchwork of conditions in other places... many beliefs you may well regard as unscientific, are actually enshrined into law or otherwise recognised by various governments in many countries....ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out, from my reading of creationist websites and literature and history, and sampling personally many varieties of religious faith, there is no overwhelming agreement among religious authorities about almost anything. That is why we have several thousand sects of Christianity, and numerous sects of Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. There have been some great debates between creationists about the Flood and other things and what the sacred texts mean. So it is a bit difficult to claim that one interpretation is universally agreed upon, even by religious experts.--Filll 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - that is often the case, so we always try to include as many significant interpretations as we can, without showing undue or disproportionate preference. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is a hugely minority viewpoint that the Ark story has any basis in reality. Sorry, but that's the way of things, and it isn't held among any experts in reality. That some fundamentalist Christians believe it is literally true is relevant, but they aren't nearly as important as the vast majority of humanity who view it as a fictional story and nothing more. Titanium Dragon 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Titanium Dragon. It is a great story. It is very interesting that Flood myths exist in many cultures around the world. It might indicate one or two major flood events, or possibly not. But for something that is close to literally true as described in Genesis? Well that stretches credulity, given our data that we have.--Filll 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any data on what "the vast majority of humanity" believe... What data are you using? I have seen data on religious affiliation, but not belief in Noah's Ark... of course you could use the exact same argument to claim that Muslims' views of the Quran are irrelevant, since the vast majority of humanity does not believe in it. Whether there is any single belief that might encompass the vast majority of humanity is doubtful, but Noah's Ark is probably about as close as any, since it appears in cultures around the world in several religions, and claims to be the origin of all modern humanity in Armenia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent ABC poll that showed 60% of Americans believe in Noah's ark, at least answered that way, given the way the question was phrased. There are certainly lots of Flood myths of various kinds around the world. I will agree with that. Now, does that mean the Noachian account gains some sort of heft from that? Maybe...but...--Filll 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't gain any "heft" from that in terms of logic, only for purposes of establishing it as a "significant" POV, or at least, not dismissing this POV as 'insignificant'. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not dismiss the POV of 60% of the American public as insignificant, whether there were multiple flood accounts or not. However, it is not the only POV, and as my quote above shows, a lare fraction of the American public believes all kinds of things. And now I have to find surveys of the experts in geology and animal husbandry etc.--Filll 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to the poll? Was it a scientific poll? And it also depends on what the question was, precisely. Titanium Dragon 13:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am compiling information about Noah's Ark and Flood polling. The 60% comes from an ABC poll. I have the cite. I suspect, like in the case of ESP, and UFOs, and Big Foot, and lots of other things, you will find a significant fraction of the public believing them, but a tiny fraction of scientists. Because of the kind of work they do, scientists have to be very skeptical of these kinds of claims. They are constantly confronted with screwball hypotheses and they have to weigh the alternatives very carefully.--Filll 13:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce) Please stop your crusade to do some kind of scientific critque of the Ark. That is relevant only as regards current searches, otherwise it is a straw man. See Jim62sch's post above (section "Science of the Ark"): there is no "science of the ark". It is a religious topic: you might as well write a refutation of any mythological story, with the same lack of sense involved in the idea. Its a religious myth. Science has nothing to do with it, nor do other religions, business, mathematics, or any other field. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not on a campaign. Noah's Ark has been the subject of analysis and scholarship for centuries. Descartes. Diderot. Newton. The Scholastics. Maimonides. etc. It has substantial support among the American public as a literal historic event. There are multiple accounts of a flood, and someone building a boat to rescue animals and people. Several great Creationist debates over the years have focused on creationists of different persuasions arguing with each other (no scientists involved) about the nature of Noah's Ark and the flood. It was the focus of a famous New York City court case in the 1930s; the Rimmer-Floyd court battle. However, I am not planning to introduce anything like this material in this article, which has achieved FA status. I am not necessarily going to write anything new about it anywhere. I am considering it at the moment, or at least learning. That is all.--Filll 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to learn in your own time and place. A discussion of what you "think" about what people "think", or who studied the blinkered Ark, or trivia about some inane court case really does not belong here. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see.--Filll 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Supposed narrative discrepancies

The start of the section "The documentary hypothesis and the Ark" states:

"The Ark narrative leaves an impression of occasional confusion: why does the story state twice over that mankind had grown corrupt but that Noah was to be saved (Gen 6:5–8; 6:11–13)? Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days (Gen 7:24)? What happened to the raven that was sent out from the Ark at the same time as the dove and "went to and fro until the waters had subsided from the face of the earth" some two to three weeks later (Gen 8:7)? Why does the narrative appear to have two logical end-points (Gen 8:20–22 and 9:1–17)?"

I think certain segments of this are being illogical, sloppy, or just not well thought through. About the pairs of animals: (Gen 6:19-20 and Gen 7:2-3). Looking at the "old" NIV, there is no mention of "clean" in the earlier pair of verses. Maybe I'm missing something, but the deduction can be made that every kind of animal was to be taken aboard in pairs while exception was made for clean animals, which were to be in sevens. Now Gen 7:17 and Gen 7:24. There is absolutely no problem here. In fact, the numerical difference is necessary if things are to make any scientific sense. Forty days tells how long the rain came down for, but it takes a lot of time for that much water to go away. Specifically, the time it took for the water to recede so that land appeared was 150 days. As for the apparent redundancy, such as with 6:5-8 and 6:11-13, I view it similarly to how I view the first two chapters in Genesis. The first part of the narrative, I believe, gives the broad overview, setting up the overall basis, and the second part goes in and gives greater details. The appearance of the text having two logical end-points doesn't seem to float if you take away the chapter divisions. I feel that chapter 8 flows very smoothly into chapter 9. The chapter divisions were by no means present in the original text. They were added far later by scholars and historians. Also realize that unusual sounding structure may simply be the result of us having a far different culture.

But all of this may have been discussed and found in opposition to my opinion some time ago....Zephyr axiom 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post ZA. Yes, all this has been discussed ad nauseum - you can look it up in the archives. The basic point to remember is that this section aims to explain the DH, not prove it, disprove it, or argue about it. PiCo 05:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks!Zephyr axiom 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

BCE vs BC

As a Jew, BC and AD annoy me beyond all belief. And this article uses those terms. I've read other Creationist articles and they use BCE and CE. Without getting a bunch of flames, is there a Wiki standard on this? Or does whoever writes the article wins? Orangemarlin 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no Wiki standard. Articles use whichever style can be achieved by consensus. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find BCE/CE uniquely offensive.

If you want to count years based on David or Moses or Abraham or Adam, go ahead, I won't object. (I don't have any feelings of bigotry against your culture's historical choice about which person or event should be commemorated, and I don't think you should have such feelings about my culture's historical choice.) But if you want to count years based on Jesus, and use a clever trick to pretend that you aren't really counting years based on Jesus, then I do object. Feel free to choose an existing system, or invent a new one; but please don't be dishonest about the origin of an existing system.

The above is just my personal opinion. The Wikipedia consensus is that anyone who edits an article needs to conform with the system already used in that article(*). I can't change BCE/CE to BC/AD, and you can't change BC/AD to BCE/CE. In other words, you were right: "whoever writes the article wins." See WP:DATE#Eras. I hope some day there will be a technological solution which will allow each of us to choose his or her own preferred format, much like the solution currently in place for month/day vs. day/month.

(*) Except in rare special cases, when you can be sure that no one will object. For example, if someone used AD in an article about the Rambam, you could probably get away with changing it :-) 68.101.66.222 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking BC and AD aren't "based on Jesus" either in spite of what the abbreviations stand for. They're wrong. Little Dennis, the monk who devised the system, miscounted. Christ cannot have been born any later than 4 BC, 3 at the outside, based on the actual likely death year of Herod the Great. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's based on Jesus, it just isn't exactly accurate. We all know whose birth year Dionysius Exiguus was trying to calculate. He probably wasn't exactly right about Jesus, but Varro wasn't exactly right about Romulus and Remus, and I'm pretty sure that the author of the Seder Olam wasn't exactly right about the beginning of the universe. We all know which person or event each of these systems was based on. -- 68.101.66.222 11:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't mean to imply that BCE/CE wouldn't annoy me in an article about Maimonides. I find BCE/CE offensive in every context. -- 68.101.66.222 11:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Zephyr Axiom's addition to the 'literalism' section

I deleted a recent addition by Zephyr Axiom to the "Literalism" section. The addition was to the effect that only land animals needeed to be taken on the Ark, and discussed briefly the position of insects (I can't recall with what outcome). I'm putting this note here explaining my action because ZA is a new editor on Wiki and a new editor on this article, and I don't want him/her to feel that there's any basic bias against a Creationist viewpoint or against new editors (We are not a club). My reason was simply that the additoin was entirely in the direction of adding additional circumstantial detail to a point already made in the paragraph - that literalists believe there would be no problem fitting all the animals on board. Indeed, that's the sole point of the paragraph. The article as it stands contains several sectoins each setting out different aspects of the Ark story, and we need to keep a balance between them - once a point is made, there's no need to overburden it with additional detail. Also, this is a Featured Article, meaning it's been recognised as one of the best on Wikipedia - changes should therefore only be inrtoduced if they're quite necessary. That's all. ZA, you continuing involvement in the article is welcome. PiCo 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I totally understand. At least I was able to contribute with that "kind" link.--Zephyr axiom 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

40 days

The Bible says it RAINED for 40 days, but that's not how long the flood lasted.68.161.33.193 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)J.Liu

Two Genesis

The concept of two stories for Man versus Adam and two Flood stories is easily explained by two theories. Genesis belongs to Jews, and Jews say Moses wrote it. Moses dropped and broke the tablets he spent 40 days writing. It was the law on these tablets, not just 10 commandments, and who can say it wasnt also Genesis he was writing. If broken, there would be fragments of the first copy he would extract from the same way we try to restore when we crash and lose a file. My own writings have these frequent duplications of thoughts. Secondly, Moses tries to distiguished what is GOD and what is Jehovah. He wants the reader to learn that Jehovah is the cause and effect that God proves himself to be so that we too can see and predict the way Moses did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elijah Michael (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see WP:NOR for Wikipedia's policy on original research. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

historical-grammatical method

I think it is mistaken to say that Orthodox Jews must use the historical-grammatical method to properly interpret the Bible. After reading the page on historical-grammatical method, which seems to suggest that each part of the Bible has one correct way to be interpreted using grammar and history, I think this is at odds with Orthodox and traditional Jewish interpretation, which allows for many "correct" interpretations. I'm going to clean this up a little (see Midrash and Pardes (legend)). Michael.passman 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Be prepared to cite your sources, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jews are probably the least dogmatic of religions. Orangemarlin 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Calendar epochs

I took this sentence out of the lead:

These stories of the largest major cultures do have calendar epochs of specific dates referred to as the Creation of the world by flood.

I had 2 reasons. First, the lead is a summary of the body of the article; if this belongs anywhere, it belongs in the relevant section further down. Second, I don't understand what it's trying to say, and if I don't understand it, neither will most other readers. What's a calendar epoch - the start-date for measuring years? If that's what it is, then the major world calendar-epochs (Jewish, Christian, Islamnic, Hindu, Buddhist) certainly don't start with a flood. (This is interesting, by the way - in Thailand it's currently the year 2000-something, based on the birth or death of Buddha, in the Muslim world it's 1400-something, based on Mohammed's flight from Mecca to Medina, and in Burma it's barely 1200-something, due to a medieval king who decided to re-start the Buddhist count; and China works on cycles of 60 years, and the ancient Greeks dated things from the first Olympic games). Anyway, if this is what's meant by calendar-epoch, it's clearly incorrect to say world's major cultures date their epochs to the creation of the world by flood. PiCo 02:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pope john paul II's view on whether genesis should be taken literally

Here's a telling article on a book put out by Pope john paul II: Book provides pope's views on modern Bible scholarship And a bit of the article: [blockquote] Along the way, "Memory and Identity: Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium" (Rizzoli) offers glimpses of the pope's attitudes toward modern biblical scholarship, leaning left on the Old Testament and leaning right on the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, Chapter 2 of Genesis is "the work of the Jahwist redactor," the pope tells us. ("Redactor" is a fancy word for editor.) He thus approves biblical critics' central theory that the Bible's first five books were compiled long after Moses' time from four strands of material, one known as "Jahwist."

That view rejects the 1906 declaration from the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission, which condemned claims that the five books "are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-Mosaic date." The commission said its view was supported by "many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people... the constant tradition of the church" and internal indications in the texts.

The pope here allies himself with most current Roman Catholic specialists and in opposition to those who hold the older belief that the Pentateuch was mostly the work of Moses himself - Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Protestants, many evangelical Protestants and a few conservative Catholics.

Since 1906, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has moved markedly leftward. The 1993 decree on Bible interpretation it presented to John Paul was less worried about liberal theories than the "fundamentalist approach" to the Bible. It warned that the latter is "dangerous," can "deceive" people, offers "illusory" interpretations, expresses "false certitude" and confuses the "divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations." Fundamentalism "invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide," the papal advisers charged. [/blockquote] In short: literal interpretation of the bible (e.g. all this rubbish about offensive to have it labelled as mythology) is not even backed by the pope. It's funny how it sounds like the pope wouldn't mind the term "mythology" for the stories in the OT, yet we've got editors who are more offended about it than the pope. From the discussions on here it's obvious (as the article says) a "fundamentalist approach" to the bible being "intellectual suicide". NathanLee (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought the current Pope had written books defending the position that the Bible is not mythology; but even if he thinks the Bible is mythology, the last time I checked, the Pope does not speak for all Christians or many other significant viewpoints. For example there are much clearer statements by various Orthodox clergy, that the Bible is not mythological at all, and is historical and what the Orthodox Church teaches as history. So your comment is just more POV and biased rhetoric. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I see why you have trouble with logical arguments: Here I supply a link (and quote from it) to an article that states what I've put up there. You reply with "well I think otherwise and anyhow, the pope's not as important as the viewpoint I think someone said". Fine: it should be easy for you to supply EVIDENCE, particularly if, as you claim, commonly people would find the dictionary definition of mythology inaccurate in this case.

Stop bleating about POV this and POV that when out of the two of us I'm the only one who's been talking about references (this one, the ones in the article, the ones in Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, Islamic mythology etc). Either supply them or take some time out of editing and learn what is expected from wikipedia (which is more than "Til Eulenspiegel thinks"). You're running on pure opinion and trying to battle facts and references (that's why you're doing a piss poor job in case you're wondering). Perhaps I'm wrong but you speak for and to a far smaller number of people than a pope (you know, the head of the catholic religion who speaks on Earth for god to all catholics and sets out final word on how god's word is to be interpreted when a question arises). NathanLee (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)