Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 1

message: Did Mendel identify himself as a creationist?  Did any of his contemporaries?  This seems anachronistic. Slrubenstein
: that's an excellent question ... i'll research that forya to get a quote or whatever.  he definitely believed that God created the universe and life, however.  by the definition at the top of the page, therefore, that makes him a creationist.  as to being anachronistic ... he may not have CALLED himself a creationist ... but he was one for all intents and purposes.  Ungtss 02:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mendel 

message: I was hoping to break creation theory down by topic, with more than one subsection for the flood -- i.e. flood containing flood and  myth, flood and  geology, flood and lifespan ... then have other BIG sections ... like earth age, etc ... just don't have the other stuff yet.  but for now, i'll group age of the earth together so it makes a little more sense.  Ungtss 22:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen this link (probably not), at the base of the page. Apparantly, Ecclesiastes (Chapter 3) supports evolution. CheeseDreams 23:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: very interesting theory -- never saw it that way before:).  when i read it in the context of the theme of the chapter and book, i read him saying, "life is pointless -- it's all in vain -- we're all animals, and we die like animals, so WTF."  would you like to put an npov discussion of interpretations of this passage up somewhere?  Ungtss 23:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I might, I will have to consider how to do it somewhere. I hadn't seen it before either. CheeseDreams 00:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section structure 

message: P.s. Dear Ungtss, and Rednblu, would you please stop trying to put essays by one writer into articles. Splitting it up with preceding paragraphs hardly disguises the fact. Only one or two sentances should be quoted. Use SOMEONE ELSE as the quotation for further parts if necessary. Better still, distil what they wrote and don't even quote it. This isn't Wikiquote or Wikisource. CheeseDreams 19:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheesedreams, if you will check the history, you will discover that mr fleacircus has overhauled the section and put in another part of the quote to support his pov, and misrepresents huxley's points.  i have attempted to even it out, but i would PREFER that we reverted to the original crop of the quote, which captured his message clearly and concisely.  Ungtss 19:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Fleacircus, science is not "whatever the majority believes."  science is "what the evidence can reasonably support," and can support MULTIPLE tentative conclusions.  dogmatism, on the other hand, asserts that things that are not "subject entirely to intellectually comprehension" are absolutely proven.  without abiogenesis, missing links, or macroevolution, naturalistic evolution is TENTATIVE, not proven -- that was huxley's warning to the scientists.  don't get too big for your britches: creationism may be wrong, but naturalistic evolution could be wrong too.  the fact that some evolutionists cannot admit the OBVIOUS ambiguity and doubt in their theories is evidence to me that evolution has become a religion, and i find dogmatic evolutionism to be just as pathological is dogmatic creationism.  Ungtss 19:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: * Do you think the current summary accurately captures Huxley's remarks?  It might be a good idea if we could think of a less "agnostic" :) writer to present a "Perspective on the debate" as well.  What do you think?  Unfortunately, it takes almost a screen of writing to summarize Huxley's delicate point clearly without tilting it one way or the other. :( ---Rednblu | Talk 20:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  i agree ... maybe quotes by Sagan and some creationist to capture the povs that were there before, without the broad strokes i used before?  Ungtss 20:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You're kidding, right? Anyway, from the article itself, it wasn't Huxley who was debating with Gladstone, but he did step into it. -Fleacircus 20:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer not to lie. CheeseDreams 21:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  very funny, sir:).  i wish there were such a man ... because he articulates the truth quite clearly:).  Ungtss 21:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you get the subtler point about adding that text? That although I wrote the quotes myself from my mind, they are not both my opinion. Likewise it is also possible for this to be true of Huxley. Although he articulates one thing, it is not necessarily his actual POV. CheeseDreams 22:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You should have clicked the link at his name. It would have taken you to a (now no longer existing) page stating that I made him up. CheeseDreams 22:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was red so I didn't bother. Did it go here? -Fleacircus 22:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, cheese, i can definitely see your point.  i thought it was good as it was, but apparently it put a bee in people's bonnets.  is it possible that this whole section is just more trouble than it's worth, and should be cut out entirely?  it doesn't really add any information, after all ... people will come to their own conclusion, regardless.  whatcha think?  Ungtss 22:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aldus 

message: :Evangelism does seem viral. The question is, does it benefit the host? -Fleacircus 21:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, the question is, does it care if it doesn't? CheeseDreams 21:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: sadly ... in most cases ... the answer to both is "No."  Ungtss 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A vaccine doesn't care either. -Fleacircus 21:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: a vaccine is just an impotent form of the virus it seeks to counteract.  useful for fighting viral infection, but no substitute for the Bread of Life.  Ungtss 02:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Try soya bread. CheeseDreams 21:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever works for you:).  Ungtss 22:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Virus

message: why are you afraid of what he said, fleacircus?  do you find yourself wishing he said something else?  Ungtss 02:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  sir, you're misparaphrasing him:).  he said that scientists were to blame insofar as they made claims beyond their "clear intellectual comprehension" -- implying that some were doing so.  he never EVER said he believed naturalistic evolution to be undisputable fact, as your "paraphrase" implies.  he merely said he thought evolutionism is more reasonable than young earth creationism, based on his knowledge and analysis of the evidence.  Ungtss 18:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Except Huxley also says "The antagonism of science is not to religion, but to the heathen survivals and the bad philosophy under which religion herself is often well-nigh crushed...". Science is antagonistic against something. The reasoning that lets Huxley say "not to religion" is by his definition of "true religion" as the quote from Micah. The rest of stuff that Huxley believes is mistakenly called "religion", we should be glad to see the back of, and not think of it as science being against religion per se.  Using the first quote without acknowledging that Huxley has a specific definition of "religion" in mind is misrepresentation. At least as I read it. -Fleacircus 19:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  shall we add a second sentence that hits both points then?  something like, "True religion, according to Huxley, is embodied by justice, mercy, and a humble walk with God, and benefits from the propensity of True Science to strip it of false philosophy?  At the same time, science is limited to the realm of that which is clearly understood by the intellect, and cannot make claims beyond that realm?"  Ungtss 19:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: paraphrasing huxley

message: ::* In my opinion, the quotes from Butler and Hull are pretty neutral--not caring which rapacious species, creationist or evolutionist, wins the battle on the Serengeti.  But both sound like they are wise enough to keep their hands and feet on this side of the barred windows in the jeep and to keep their elephant guns at the ready.  :)))   ---Rednblu | Talk 18:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol:).  well said, sir:).  Ungtss 18:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ungtss, you clearly haven't worked out that Rednblu is a Creationist. He is just a very very clever one, who twists articles by putting in superficially neutral edits, or apparantly pro-evolution edits, but which subtly are one sided. He was pointed out a long time ago by another user, who recognised him from his behaviour on UseNet. Note how keen he is to keep the existence of the article Evolutionism, a term which is only used by Creationists, and is considered by everyone else as extremely derogatory. CheeseDreams 21:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: RednBlue has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he is a creationist.  he has consistently represented himself as a reasonable and openminded naturalistic atheist, a position with which i respectfully disagree, although i can completely understand and respect his point of view.  like me, however, i believe he recognizes that evolutionists are just as apt to become "viral" as the most empty-headed evangelicals.  the fact that some people cannot recognize an intellectually honest evolutionist when they see one is more evidence to me that evolutionism has become a religion.  Ungtss 22:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * Completely separate from the derogatory uses of the word, evolutionism is used by secular anthropologists as a term-of-art to classify all the related theories of origins from atoms, void, and natural laws.  Here is a quote from the abstract of a sample paper. "Most important, [this paper] shows that his [ Herbert Spencer's ] evolutionism was originally stimulated by his association with the Derby philosophical community, for it was through this group--of which his father, who also appears to have espoused a deistic evolutionary theory, was a member--that he was first exposed to progressive Enlightenment social and educational philosophies and to the evolutionary worldview of Erasmus Darwin, the first president of the Derby Philosophical Society.") (emphasis added) (abstract p. 1) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Name 10 "evolutionists" who use "evolutionism" to describe themselves. Think about how difficult it is to find them. CheeseDreams 23:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority always has the luxury of calling itself "objective" ... until the Next Big Thing comes around and turns them into another Ism:).  Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority consider "evolutionism" to be an extremely POV term. CheeseDreams 01:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: the majority voted on your multiple efforts to delete it ... and determined that it was not.  Ungtss 02:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. The majority determined that the page should be split up. The majority voted to delete it until I suggested supporting splitting it up instead. CheeseDreams 13:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Serengeti

message: It is inaccurate to state that creationists "coined" the term macro and microevolution.  see this article.
:Oops my bad. --Yath 01:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Macro and microevolution

message: Is pretty misrepresentative. First of all, they're sort of saying what Popper said. Second of all, it's taken way out of context. What B&E are talking about is whether to guess first from evolution or to do more studies. . It should be taken in light of this later in the article:
::"The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets. In population biology, more work is needed in elucidating the general properties of populations, both those made up of one species of organism, and those made up of two or more species, without reference to dogmas or guesses about how they may have evolved." Birch and Ehrlich then list seven types of studies which should be done, and end with the statement: "Then we can see how the answers fit into the modern synthesis" [of evolutionary theory].
Since this was a POV misquote, it's removed. -Fleacircus 17:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: let's put both of them in there!!!  that second quote is great and very fair!!!  Ungtss 18:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The first quote is misleading; it's a creationist favorite misquote. I'm not going to let it in, sorry. Do you honestly think that Ehrlich and Birch mean what you are trying to get them to say? -Fleacircus 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: you are not in charge here, so don't pull power trips.  this is a team effort and we will come to consensus on decisions.  i am not trying to get them to say anything -- i thank you for adding the context that makes their statement ENTIRELY reasonable and consistent with belief in evolution ... but they said it, it represents a POV that is not otherwise represented by the section, and it belongs there.  just like huxley, which you persisted in misrepresenting by cutting out any criticism of scientific methodology.  further, the section is TOTALLY incomplete without morris -- he defines a LARGE spectrum of the debate: "Genesis at any cost -- even at the cost of reality."  Ungtss 19:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * The Ehrlich and Birch quote seems to me to be fairly made and NPOV.  But I don't see that the quote is relevant.  The quote seems to be directed to improving the falsifiability of some parts of evolutionary theory.  That is, the quote does not seem to be a perspective on the "Creation vs. evolution debate."  For example, what does the quote--or the quoted article for that matter--say about creation?  All the other quotes, including that Morris gem, say something directly about the "creation vs. evolution debate."  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *the way i read it, E+B addresses the falsifiability of evolution -- and falsifiability is an essential component of any meaningful debate.  when evolution is left in the status of being non-falsifiable, it is IMMUNE from debate (just as the evolutionists assert that ID is non-falsifiable, immune from debate, and therefore pseudoscience).  the quote recognizes the potential error of allowing evolution to stand in a non-falsifiable, "pseudoscientific" status, where it is "immune from debate," and the authors intelligently and constructively propose several means for bringing evolution back into the realm of the falsifiable and scientific.  what do you think?  Ungtss 20:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * Maybe.  But I use "falsifiability" in my own work much like I think Ehrlich and Birch used it in their quote.  Improvement to a conventional wisdom comes from stating conventional wisdom in an insightful way that suggests where to falsify the conventional wisdom--that is, find the data that will improve the conventional wisdom.  I don't see stating the conventional wisdom of evolutionary theory in a more falsifiable form would make it more vulnerable in the "creation vs. evolution debate."  Maybe we could work through what falsifiability would mean for something like F=ma to illustrate the point?  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Since B&E suggest some courses of action and lines of research, I don't see how that can jibe with the interpretation that they believe the entire theory of evolution is pseudoscience. They themselves are evolutionists. I think the first part of the quote misrepresents what they actually believe, even if it does express someone (else)'s POV. -Fleacircus 20:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  i appreciate the substantive dialogue:).  as i understand it, falsifiability serves two purposes: it serves to aid improvement, and it serves to aid criticism.  that is why falsifiability is important for BOTH sides of the debate.  Evolutionists want ID to present itself in falsifiable terms so it can be criticized, and ID people want it presented in falsifiable terms so it can be improved.  similarly, evolutionists want evolution framed in falsifiable terms so it can be improved, and creationists want it stated in falsifiable terms so it can be criticized.  what makes this quote so immensely valuable is it serves BOTH points of view ... it states a REALLY necessary component of improving dialogue (and hence debate) between creationists and evolutionists.  What do you think?  Ungtss 20:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: * I would challenge ID to present itself in 1) falsifiable terms that 2) satisfy Occam's razor to show that it really is trying to improve itself--as any decent theory development should.  I would not view a falsifiable form of ID as making itself more vulnerable to criticism.  I don't view falsifiability as "throwing out the baby and the bath water."  :))  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * i agree with you that ID has failed miserably to make falsifiable claims.  but i'd also argue that evolution has failed just as badly.  i believe that's why evolutionists and creationists keep banging each other over the head with mallets -- because NEITHER theory can predict anything, so people on BOTH sides cling to the science that supports their bias, with religious ferver.  if evolutionists ever want to persuade morris and his ilk, they're gonna need to come up with a theory that makes predictions that come true.  If they can't do that, they're pseudoscience.  same thing goes for ID.  falsifiability is the cure to demogoguery:).  Ungtss 21:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't see falsifiability as really about prediction.  In my view, stating a hypothesis in falsifiable form points to where a counter-example to the hypothesis can be found.  May I illustrate with F=ma?  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * please do -- i'm no expert on falsifiability:).  Ungtss 21:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Er, I think what E&B were saying is something like: "We can't just assume we know [specific things in context of article]. That would be like what Popper says! We still have to do the research and see if that matches up with what synthetic evolution says should be there."  Evolution is falsifiable: the fossil record might cough something up tomorrow that would stand evolution on its head. -Fleacircus 22:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think that's falsifiability.  read the discussion below.  Ungtss 22:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Birch and Ehrlich Quote

message: ::Mammary glands - skin cells which release secretions (e.g. sweat glands, scent glands (particularly scent glands)) that the young started to take an interest in as they were otherwise malnourished, becoming more specialised, and more isolated to fulful this purpose.
:::you have nothing to show how it developed all the intricate and interdependent parts to make it work at all.  Ungtss 20:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Intricate? Its not intricate at all. Its just a mass of cells producing milk, in a fat like body, which has a particularly sensitive and hardened area of skin at the tip, which has more cross glands than elsewhere on the skin - allowing it to seep the milk. CheeseDreams 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: is that really all you see in it?  Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is really all as it is. CheeseDreams 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Tits 

message: * It makes sense to me. :) I apologize for all the ways that the anti-creationists have thrown this word falsifiable at you--much like they throw NPOV at you with little understanding of what the word means. :) Know what I mean?  At the present time, in my opinion, it is impossible to perform an experiment that would "verify" in one grand demonstration the descent of humans from the ancestors of the chimpanzees.  But it is possible to state falsifiable hypotheses that would "verify" mechanisms by which "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees."  We discussed earlier the similarity of the human gene pool to the chimpanzee gene pool.  In my opinion, all of those genetic comparisons of the migrations of 1) human gene pools and the migrations of 2) chimpanzee gene pools proceeded by what I would call falsifiable hypotheses--but none of those experiments would "verify" in one grand demonstration, in my opinion, the descent of humans from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree that it is a somewhat distorted use of the word "fact" to say that "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees" is a fact.  There are a lot of facts, like the similarities in the human and chimpanzee gene pools, that have been observed and can be repeatedly observed as facts.  The real question it seems to me is this:  Where would you place your bets?  And I would say that humans had better wake up and deal with that there is no "intelligent designer."  Hence, humans had better take responsibility for their situation in a world in which there is no God to trust.  In particular, all the empirical evidence indicates that human instinct, conscience, and desire for an intelligent designer--the great alpha-- are destructive in modern settings--because human instinct, conscience, and desire for an intelligent designer were constructed by evolutionary forces to be appropriate to Africa as it was 100,000 years ago when there was a scarcity of nuclear weapons and little benefit from win-win solutions.  :))  Do you think the "intelligent designer" will help us out in our day of trial? 8(( ---Rednblu | Talk 22:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * i agree with you about the problem -- it is deadly when man turns to God instead of solving his own problems -- that is one of the many abuses of religion which i believe has crept in over time (much to God's dismay in the old testament, in fact).  obviously we need to take care of ourselves.  however, that does not necessarily mean we should NEVER ask God for aid.  By analogy, a child and his father.  it would be terrible for the child to neglect himself and wait for his father to do it.  but it would be equally terrible for the child to reject his father's aid in learning to do new things, or doing things he cannot yet do -- either denying himself the opportunity to grow, or putting himself in real danger.  i believe it is error to depend on God alone -- but i ALSO believe it is error to depend on Man alone.  Man WITH God, however ... i find to be very agreeable:).  Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of a creationist (who won't admit he is one) 

message: indeed we are:)!  i'd also like a falsifiable claim for the "theory of macroevolution" -- if we can find one for naturalistic evolution but not one for ID, i'll convert:).  Ungtss 13:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsify macroevolution 

message: ** this is good logic:).  makes me feel all tingly inside:).  
**alright ... first my critique of the macroevolutionary falsifiers.  
"find a set of humans whose gene pool more closely resembles some species other than chimpanzees" only falsifies the more NARROW theory that "Humans and chimpanzees have very similar gene pools" -- a theory which is consistent with creationism ... but does not reach the generalized nature of the "grand theory" in dispute, because it fails to falsify the theory that "humans and chimps have a common ancestor."  Ungtss 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * why thank you, sir:).  that means a lot, coming from you:).  Ungtss 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I find that, when the question "How did life begin" is asked, that the answer "I don't know, but I'm trying to figure it out" is far simpler (and more honest) than "An undetectable, ultra-powerful being with an unknowable plan did it." --Yath 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: well said.  i would add that your way (which i share with you) is also simpler (and more honest) than, "i know it happened purely naturalistically and without God, even though i don't know how it happened."  Ungtss 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of macroevolutionary falsifiers 

message: Rednblue ... when will the voice of reason return?  Ungtss 22:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever china lets him back into Tibet without the threat of arrest. CheeseDreams 22:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: some atheists do have a tendency to torment the religious for no reason ... fortunately others are willing to see reason.  Ungtss 22:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dalai Lama, like most buddhists, is an atheist. CheeseDreams 19:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two branches of buddhism, the mahayana and the theravaada.  the theravaada is NONtheistic, neither claiming nor denying the existence of God, and the mahayana contains strong strains of pantheism.  Neither strain is atheistic.  That is why the chinese modernist, atheist, materialistic communists hate him -- he does not suit their POV any more than the thousands of christians they have slaughtered.  Ungtss 19:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They believe in spirits, not God. Indeed Buddhism itself is strictly NON-theistic, and one branch is NON-anything-divine-issues. However, it remains a fact that most buddhists are Atheists. CheeseDreams 19:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Religious atheists, much to the dismay of their secular atheist oppressors.  Ungtss 20:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more accurate to say "irreligious oppressors" CheeseDreams 01:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: and why is that?  Ungtss 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Try a dictionary CheeseDreams 14:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: so it is more accurate to describe things in the negative?  you are a "non-monkey?"  the sun is a "non-tree?"  i am an "antievolutionist?" Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "It hangs in the air in exactly the same way as bricks don't" - significantly more accurate than you could ever describe in a positive manner. P.s. "irreligious" does not mean "anti-religious", so I would advise you to get a better dictionary. CheeseDreams 21:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps the more accurate description would be, "it flies."  Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That doesn't explain the quality of flight. A bee flies (badly), a bird flies, a jet flies, a flying squirrel flies, Da Vinci's flying machine flies. Picture a brick not hanging in the air, and imagine the opposite - its a much better description than simply stating "it flies". CheeseDreams 23:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet 

message: I suggest that the "cleanup" tag is completely nonsense on this page.  This page is under active development and hence the "cleanup" tag is nonsense.  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. It is for "see wikipedia manual of style". It even has the link in it. CheeseDreams 22:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * You are ignoring reality.  Look at the Wikipedia:Cleanup page.  None of those pages are pages under development, are they.  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring the text of Template:Cleanup. It CLEARLY states that This article needs to be edited to conform to a higher standard of article quality. After the article has been cleaned up, you may remove this message. For help, see How to Edit a Page and the style and How-to Directory CheeseDreams 23:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * If you are correct in your interpretation, then you should be able to find another page on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page where there are already four editors working on it. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Pages for cleanup are listed at Category:Cleanup. SOME are listed on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page as well. CheeseDreams 23:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * From my observation, the Wikipedia:Cleanup page is what people use.  The "cleanup" category is not useful--because there are several frivolous editors that put the "cleanup" tag on pages as a POV statement :((  or as a Holiday decoration :)) instead of for what the "cleanup" tag actually means.  Have you seen that happen?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "cleanup" tag should be removed 

message: * There are two broad possibilities for the origin of the universe:
:a) Naturalism, that is, that everything came into being entirely by natural causes
:b) Deism (in its broadest sense, incorporating theism, pantheism, and everything else that asserts some sort of an AGENCY in bringing the universe into existence), that is, that everything came into being through the act of some agency.
::No, you forgot (c) The universe has only existed for the last second.
::and (d) You are imagining the universe, and reality is completely different (e.g. The Matrix).
::both of your "theories" flagrantly violate occam's razor.  Ungtss 20:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. (d) is the simplest of all. "Its my imagination". It is just the least satisfactory. P.s. they are not my theories. (d) in particular is the subject of a very famous mathematics paper called Ancestor simulation. CheeseDreams 20:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a misuse of occam's razor, and the basis of the nonsense that has become western philosophy.  occam's razor does NOT require the simplest theory -- it requires the simplest theory to explain the FACTS -- and your "imagination" hypothesis leaves me with the entire universe still in existence, with all its complexities and assumptions, still in my mind, plus the assumption that it is not real, but only imaginary.  Ungtss 20:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is MINUS the assumption that it is real. Are you going to try to deny that your initial position is to assume it is real? CheeseDreams 00:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: so your stated opinion is that occam's razor leads necessarily to the conclusion that "life is but a dream?"  Ungtss 01:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. However, that is not a very useful thing to take as the answer as it implies that nothing is predictable. Therefore it is better to consider "what if, on this issue, Ockham's Razor was wrong".CheeseDreams 01:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  so occam's razor is inviolable insofar as it rules out theism, but is "allowed to be wrong" when it comes to believing we're not in the matrix?  Ungtss 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. It is UNvAlUable in the issue of the matrix. It leads to an unhelpful starting point as predictability gets thrown away, whether or not it is the correct starting point. Therefore it is better to ignore its conclusions and start from an assumption that on this issue it is wrong. CheeseDreams 14:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: is it not then equally possible to determine that it is wrong on the issue that there is no God, because i do not find that conclusion to be particularly helpful in explaining an inordinate number of phenomena?  Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible to consider it wrong on the issue of God, but that is cowardice. CheeseDreams 21:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: and isn't it cowardice to deny the most reasonable belief in your pov -- that we're all in the matrix?  Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, assuming that belief is cowardice. See Escapism. CheeseDreams 23:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who 

message: Let's see if we can, in the words of Mr. Dreams, "tidy up" Lucretius's English.  Here is the original
that Lucretius wrote.
:Only because, seeing in land and sky
:So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
:Men think Divinities are working there.
:Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
:Nothing can be create, we shall divine
:More clearly what we seek: those elements
:From which alone all things created are,
:And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.
:--Lucretius, " De rerum natura," written about 60 BC
And here, let us "tidy it up."
Lucretius wrote On the nature of things around 60 BC: "Only because the people see so much in land and sky for which they do not know the cause, they think Divinities are working there. But if they could see that nothing can be created from nothing, then they would advance one more step toward the answer that they seek: Those eternal elements became everything that is, without interference from Gods."
Feel free to edit the above to "tidy up" Lucretius's English which was about as good as our Latin. :))  ---Rednblu | Talk 11:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up Lucretius's English 

message: I have attempted to refactor the macroevolution section to be to-the-point and more accurate than it was -- I don't think that it portrayed the science of macroevolution very clearly, and it was sort of long and meandering. For example, Schmalhausen got way too much attention for a theory that is essentially just a refinement of natural selection along the lines of punctuated equilibrium (once you read the PDF). I have taken pains to include all of the relevant points of contention and both sides' accounts of this. If I've made any technical mistakes or just unclear writing then let's fix that.
BUT
I would like to keep this section concise. I would especially not like for people to turn accurate two-sentence portrayals of an opinion into two-paragraph long bloatings that say essentially the same thing. And also let's avoid turning
:::"A says X, B says Y"
into
:::"A says X, B says Y despite the fact that A says X. In contrast, B says Y. Meanwhile, X is true, according to A. However A-ist scholar Q said something that sounded like 'Y', note B, thus boosting their claim that, in fact, Y."
-Fleacircus 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macroevolution Refactoring