Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft

message: Creationists want to either:
* smear evolution by somehow proving it is not science, but religion, 
or 
*somehow claim that Genesis is supported by science, or is a scientific description of the history of life on earth 
both of which are incorrect and in fact laughable. Unfortunately, creationists have made the situation so unclear that only 12% of the public in the US believes in evolution. I think this is a shameful embarassing situation, and anyone interested in science and reason should do their part to shed light on this horrendous situation. If we do not, medicine will fall, and cosmology, and just about everything else in science eventually. Even heliocentrism or a spherical earth might very well fall, or plate tectonics. It would take very little to push us back into another Dark Age, and creationists are frantic to do it. With themselves in charge of course. Just look at Afghanistan under the Taliban. So if we can organize the information in a digestable form so that users of Wikipedia can access it easily, then we will have done our part. If one looks at creationist topics on Wikipedia, there are litterally dozens of articles. Evolution and science have made a very poor showing so far.--Filll 05:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My view

message: I tried dividing the rows into severeal groups:
*description of processes of evolution and creationism
*description of the explanations of the processes
*description of the testing of the explanations
*conclusion row at end.
Hopefully this is reasonably clear. It needs more references and citations.--Filll 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy for table 

message: Fill, this seems reasonable to me.  I disagree with you lumping speciation in with Evolution, as I have said, as Evolution within a species has a much solid scientific grounding, in my opinion.  In any event, comparing evolution to creationism is not all that interesting to me.  Comparing the theory of evolutionary origin of species to the big bang is probably dead on.  Even physicists criticize other physicists who work in the field of M-theory, sometimes on the same grounds I criticize the theory of the evolutionary origin of species.  But at least M-theory is largely mathematical with regard to its inferences of what happened in the beginning.  I have not yet seen the mathematical rigor present in M-theory in the field of evolutionary origin of species.  But of course I do not have access to biological journals, either.  Likewise, I am not a creationist, and do not speak for them.  65.73.44.65 03:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, the table does not have references or text to support many of the statements in the table. It is meant to organize a lot of the points, much as one can find in talkorigins for example, but in hopefully cleaner and more accessible form. M theory may or may not become part of physics. If no supporting evidence emerges, it will eventually find its way to the ash heap of theories whose time has passed. There are many many many theories on this ash heap of failed theories in physics and other fields of science. It has nothing to do with whether it uses equations or not Speaking as a quantitative scientist, I do not care if a theory has equations involved with it. Just the presence of equations does not mean the theory is harder science or more reliable at all. The only thing that matters is the data. Period. And if you think that M theory is mathematically rigorous. you do not know much about the theory, mathematics or physics. Only time will tell if the theory becomes accepted and supported by evidence.  I also do not see any comparison here with the big bang, but maybe I am missing something.--Filll 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you respond to the troll, especially since he continues to astound me with his lack of knowledge on items such as this.  At any rate, I think this is a great table, and hits the points that you intended to address when you started this draft.  I think it is a good fit to the Creation-evolution_controversy with some sort of link from Evolution.  I like what you've done.  OrangeMarlin 08:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here I am this morning, just barely having my first cup of coffee, and I have to read this post. Thanks a lot.  Warn me next time!!!!  When I used to practice medicine, you do not know how many patients would tell me "god saved my life."  Uh no.  I saved your life with the help of a bunch of nurses, techs, powerful R&D that has given the medical world devices and medications that control and reverse heart disease, and one of the best teaching/training that was given to everyone to make sure this happened.  I actually believe in absolutely not one of those things listed there.  I believe that I once owned a haunted house because it cost me so much money to repair the plumbing, but that was more of sarcasm.  I wish one of those Left Behind novels would come true, except take away all the creepy Fundies and leave us behind to have a nice beautiful world.  OrangeMarlin 14:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My comments 

message: Lemaitre was belgian priest
Darwin was a minister
--Filll 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roots