Talk:Modern Science in the Bible

Looks good!
Glad to see more SBS articles. 18:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've been kinda busy expanding this lately (although perhaps I should also start learning Calculus 1 and Linear Algebra 1, 'cuz university 'n stuffz).JorisEnter (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Silver?
Does anyone think this is worth of silver? I've been having a look at the silver criteria:
 * Article topic is directly relevant to and worthy of RW's mission (i.e., potential upgrading to cover story would be uncontroversial).
 * Creationism, biblical scientific foreknowledge and pseudoscience in general are subjects relevant to the mission.


 * Article should not contain repetitive content.
 * Apart from the "Overview" section (which is, essentially, a shorter version of "Dissecting the book"), I don't see much overlap.


 * Article is almost fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
 * Look at them references. I installed multiple new templates for this. Links and categories are also taken care of.


 * Article is illustrated appropriately.
 * Side-by-side articles are hard to illustrate, but I've included the book's cover (at the top) and that of Scientific Creationism (because we had a picture of it anyway).


 * Article is free of blatant spelling and grammar errors.
 * There's undoubtedly a few errors here and there, but I don't think there are any blatant errors in the article.

JorisEnter (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Rating for Modern Science in the Bible
I've posted this on the article's talk page but I doubt anyone has read it, so I though't I'd post it here as well.

Does anyone think this is worth of silver? I've been having a look at the silver criteria:
 * Article topic is directly relevant to and worthy of RW's mission (i.e., potential upgrading to cover story would be uncontroversial).
 * Creationism, biblical scientific foreknowledge and pseudoscience in general are subjects relevant to the mission.


 * Article should not contain repetitive content.
 * Apart from the "Overview" section (which is, essentially, a shorter version of "Dissecting the book"), I don't see much overlap.


 * Article is almost fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
 * Look at them references. I installed multiple new templates for this. Links and categories are also taken care of.


 * Article is illustrated appropriately.
 * Side-by-side articles are hard to illustrate, but I've included the book's cover (at the top) and that of Scientific Creationism (because we had a picture of it anyway).


 * Article is free of blatant spelling and grammar errors.
 * There's undoubtedly a few errors here and there, but I don't think there are any blatant errors in the article.

--JorisEnter (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've done a kick-ass job with the MSitB article. For that, you deserve all our thanks. I think this article is Silver, if not Gold. It's close to frontpage material if you ask me. Always more to do, but... I think it's easily front page worthy and/or of Gold quality overall. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm still busy debunking his claims about evolution so I don't consider it cover story level yet, but I'll add the silver template for now. --JorisEnter (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Very good work JorisEnter!--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And just as a note on the article itself - it appears you place quotes in italics. I'd be great if you could remove the italics on all the quotes and leave them for titles, as is done otherwise on the wiki. One step closer to Gold :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the superfluous italics. There's obviously a lot more to do, but it's a start. --JorisEnter (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wording
he manages to rape biology,

Are there perhaps better words? 20:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably. If you can think of anything better, please add it. --JorisEnter (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)
To make exactly half of the items on this talk page instances of me wondering whether this is worthy of rating X, here's another one. According to ye olde golden criteria, the following is required for coverstory status:


 * The topic is highly relevant to RW's mission.
 * Same as with silver; biblical scientific foreknowledge, creationism, and general bible woo are highly relevant to our mission.


 * Article is essentially a "go to" resource for the topic at hand.
 * Depends on what you mean by "go to". We're certainly not Google's number one article (but that's mostly because of all the online bookshops that sell this), but on RW it's one of the best articles on biblical scientific foreknowledge we have, as well as an in-depth debunking of some creationist arguments.


 * Article covers all aspects of the topic at hand in-depth.
 * Still busy. Could use some help when geology comes along, since I don't know shit about that. The main problem is of course that this is basically my pet article, leading to a somewhat unbalanced treatment (lots of debunking and references when physics and astronomy are mentioned, somewhat in-depth treatment of biology, while I carefully avoid any geology). Several more chapters also need work, but the bits that are currently in place (preface, chapters 1, 2, 5 and a large portion of chapter 6) are quite well done, IMO.


 * It is fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
 * References: just have look in the relevant section.
 * Internal links: in place, both in the article text and under "see also".
 * External links: there's only three of them (in Dutch) but they're the only links I think are actually relevant.
 * Categories: Also there.


 * Where necessary and possible, the article is supported by others that are of a good quality.
 * Not sure. It of course mentions evidence against a recent creation and evolution, but there are no really good articles on biblical scientific foreknowledge or related subjects (Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge is a good page, but that does not really apply here).


 * The cover status has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. This last criterion is the most important.
 * There's a reason I'm posting this.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I also recall Rev Black Percy posting something in the bar (now barchived) about this article being "easily front page worthy and/or of Gold quality overall." Not entirely sure why this is relevant but you've gotta show some endorsements, eh?--JorisEnter (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

A quick Google search reveals that we're third for "modern science in the bible" (the Amazon page for the same book being 1st, an ICR article 2nd). A search for its Dutch name puts us at the bottom of the second page, but that's not particularly surprising as this page's title is in English.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

MSitB cover story nom
The nomination for Modern Science in the Bible has been out there for more than a month, with a grand total of two replies (one by FCP about a minor wording fix, one by RBP saying that he couldn't find any problems). Anyone else got comments? (see the talk page).--JorisEnter (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As it's a single-author piece on an obscure topic, I don't think it would make a particularly good showcase or entry point to be featured on the site homepage. Those quotes at the top of page are also an awful way to start an article on an obscure topic. Start by explaining what it is; not with what people we've never heard of say about.  13:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At any rate, surely we ought to consider upgrading it from Silver to Gold? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I must say that two quotes by theologians at the start of an article does not impress me. Two quotes by theologians I have never heard of impresses me even less. Two quotes by theologians I have never heard of giving me their opinions about a book I have never heard of doesn't really motivate me to read the article.
 * I guess that some people might think that theologians opinions on this subject might carry weight - but it's rather like homeopaths criticizing chiropractors for me.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of either of them until I started writing this article (and in doing some Google searches happened to stumble upon Smedes's blog post in which he points out Hobrink's plagiarism), but Smedes appears to be kind of well known in Dutch theology circles (though I suppose none of us are really into that). I thought these were some nice quotes about the book, but if anyone can find a better one than please replace it. As regards the single-author bit: that's why I would like other people to work on this article as well (though that's kind of hard given that it's about a book most of us probably don't have, but there's a link to a Google Books version at the bottom).--JorisEnter (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't replace the topqotes; take them out or incorporate them somewhere more appropriate in the text. "Modern Science in the Bible is a book by Dutch Young Earth creationist Ben Hobrink" should be the first thing readers see on this page, as most will be unfamiliar with the topic & reading a load of quotecruft first without knowing what it's talking about is just confusing.  15:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Still support covering. 14:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too; the article text is actually pretty great, for those of you who manage to get past the two quotes and actually read on at length before giving your verdict (not pointing any fingers). Weaseloid is right about the placement of the quotes, for the record - they belong baked into the article text or indeed as part of one of the final segments of the article, not in the intro. My two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The quotes could be moved to the bottom, under "Accusations of plagiarism" or "Other criticism", but I rather like the idea of having some sort of introductory quote describing the book or its subject (the problem is that I can't find too much that fits).--JorisEnter (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT: The longer of the two quotes has been moved to the relevant section, the shorter one can probably stay at the top.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would still consider moving the shorter quote to another section of the article (especially if it will give your article frontpage status), e.g. just a small step down to the "General overview" segment or the "Dissecting the book" segment. The quote would also fit there, perhaps even better than at the top in my opinion. Just my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that two quotes may have been a bit much (especially since the one that got moved was pretty long) but quite some other cover story articles have quotes at the top as well, including Atheism, Ray Comfort, Evolution, Genetically modified food and a bunch of others.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course - and a good article is often topped off with a great opening quote. I've easily added more than 50 opening quotes since I first joined last spring. However, Weaseloid literally said ""Modern Science in the Bible is a book by Dutch Young Earth creationist Ben Hobrink" should be the first thing readers see on this page", and BoB M seems to share that view. That's all. I'm just coming at this from the angle that getting the article rated Gold is in line with my own views of it. *shrugs* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've relocated the other quote as well. It's currently under "Accusations of plagiarism", but it might be better in another location. Noch jemand was zu meckern?--JorisEnter (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering the quotes have now been moved by JorisEnter, will Weaseloid et al further consider Gold status? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid and Bob M mainly objected to the quotes, as far as I can see; FCP "supports covering".--JorisEnter (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll have to await updated comments from them before we can count them as either pro or con (considering the changes made in the article); however, I am to be counted among the pro votes since this discussion began. Thus, so far, we've got FCP, you and me supporting Gold status (that is, front page). Great job on the article buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--JorisEnter (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have also started some sort of cover abstract thingy at User:JorisEnter/Modern Science in the Bible. At the moment it's not much more than the first paragraph of the article, so if anyone's got something to add to it, feel free to do so.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So
Any other comments? The voting appears to be 3 ayes (FCP, RBP and me), one nay-at-least-until-you-remove-those-quotes (Weaseloid; quotes have been relocated), and one voter whose position is not entirely clear (Bob M).--JorisEnter (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just do it. If nobody got their knickers twisted enough to oppose, it's fine. 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ze cover abstract is done. As far as I can see, everything is ready for this page to be elevated to Cover Story level.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You're putting words in people's mouths. My comment about the quotes was pointing out a problem with the article I noticed at first glance. My comment about the cover nomination was "As it's a single-author piece on an obscure topic, I don't think it would make a particularly good showcase or entry point to be featured on the site homepage". 18:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's three ayes, one nay, and one unclear one.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All I can add here is a renewal of my "yes" vote. Also, since the quotes were moved, I think we ought to be extra lenient towards the addition from Joris. It's not like this article is being voted to be the exclusive frontpage; it'll simply be added to the batch of front page articles that exist already and a select portion of new visitors will have it shown as such. We need not discard work as diligent as this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that the article is not exclusively about this book: Hobrink uses many arguments that are regularly used by creationists (evolution can't add new information, micro but not macroevolution, etc) and in debunking his points, the article simultaneously takes on many standard creationist points as well. Our current articles on creationism and young Earth creationism are also kinda crap, so having an article on the front page that takes down a healthy amount of creationist crap won't hurt.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else? It's currently still 3:1 in favour of golding.--JorisEnter (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Modern Science and the Bible
'Modern science' is of the present (and by definition always will be).

'The Bible' is part of the Ancient World (but 'permanently reconsidered') - some 2000-2500+ years ago - depending upon how long ago the verbally transmitted record was kept).

Therefore there will be limited overlap.

However - 'the Ancients' were just as clever as we are (and had survival skills that have now been lost to Western city dwellers who do not have to worry about local famines and can rely on 'the government etc' to send in other resources in emergencies). They will thus have observed or worked out some of the same things we now rely on. ('Washing your hands prevents the muck you were handling getting into your system and the food tastes better'; 'you get sick from being near sick people - but if you survive, you don't get it again' and 'this is how to make knives of wood, flint, metal...'). This will form part of 'the teachings of the ancients' (from their point of view). There will also be 'odd things somebody reported or saw which we do not presently understand' (travelling round Africa I saw the sun in the north; or oil/gas soaked lands burning).

Therefore the rules and material in the Bible will contain some 'modern scientific knowledge of the time' and some material that only now makes sense.

The rest is woo. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice point. The fails I've found, at least using the resume presented here, are:


 * 1) Some animals, not just cats, bury their feces too as their smell may attract predators.
 * 2) Fail at Ark logistics as usual -feeding of the critters, what about those animals from far away lands...-
 * 3) Flood histories are elsewhere because this is a rainy planet.
 * 4) The Pleiades-Orion thing may be just a poetic speech.
 * 5) Zero-energy Universe ('nuff said). Before writing about something you do not know, research it at least a bit.
 * 6) XVII century astronomers lacked the precision equipment modern astronomers have to measure the speed of light.
 * 7) If any physical constants as c had changed not only we'd (or whatever existed by then) be in deep trouble but also there'd be evidence of that in the early Universe.
 * 8) Gravitational effects can cause funny things to the speeds of galaxies in rich galaxy clusters, as they moving at negative speeds (ie: seeming that are approaching to us), lower or higher ones than the cluster's mean, etc.

All you have to do is look at the cover to know that the book is shit.

En Sabah Nur (YOU CAN FIRE YOUR ARROWS FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL... BUT YOU CAN NEVER... STRIKE... GOD!!!!!) 02:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * …Wait, what? What does that even mean? Who's shooting arrows at God, anyways? --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Too big article!
This page is really big and not handled anymore properly by the Mediawiki instance. Actually I'm not even able to read it because the wiki engine just fail the page rendering. Could someone please split the article? Kelson (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably a technical MediaWiki thing keeling over and not page size. This page is a 151,158 bytes. Several pages from Special:LongPages load properly including the biggest page at the time of this writing, Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups (504,285 bytes). I've successfully loaded bigger pages (this monstrosity on MarioWiki at 387,010 bytes complete with many images or even this grotesque hulking abomination at 1,126,060 bytes). 19:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)