Talk:Biblical scientific errors/Archive1

Man, is God dumb!--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:19, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * God is an engineer. Only an engineer would round down like that to make the equations work out.

Naval engineer's slogan:
 * Draw by hand
 * Cut by eye
 * Bash to fit

--Kels 20:50, 25 July 2007 (CDT)


 * This seems to be the engineer's rep chiefly in the English speaking world. In Germany the designation 'Engineer' is very highly rated, as I believe is also the case in Benelux & Scandinavia. Keepthe faith 20:59, 25 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, there's also a difference in what they call an engineer on board naval vessels and in the civilian world, from what I gather. --Kels 21:17, 25 July 2007 (CDT)


 * What we have is a guy in an oiled up overall with a hammer and spanner (wrench?). What they have is a (wo)man at a desk with a computer. Dunno about sailors though. Keepthe faith 21:46, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I heared that KY jelly, (personal [personnel?] lubricant) was invented by Navy men for Navy men. Dunno if'n they done Astroglide® too. CЯacke ® 22:00, 25 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, in America particularly, we started euphemising every job into an engineer. You're no longer a trash man, you're a "Sanitation Engineer"... love it or hate it, in America "engineer" means anyone who does anything. --Eira omtg!  The Goat be praised. 02:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)


 * Have you ever read Spellsinger? The paragraph on Clothahump is the bit I'm referring to.  Fun series until it gets taken too far. --Shagie 03:13, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget, the bible predicted how lions hunt their prey, so therefore all this is moot! --Kels 05:38, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Where is the error?
You need to demonstrate that the error is in the original and not a problem with translation. For example, a Hebrew word that was eventually used to describe grasshopers might have once been used to describe a now extinct bug with four legs. (This is just a hypothetical example--I haven't dug into many if any of these.) 17:29, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The bible gives us four examples "locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper" all four are observed to have more than four legs. The chance that the Hebrews had different names for all these insect is hard to believe. Also there has never been an arachnid observed to have four legs. If it was an error in the translation we would expect to find differing versions because the chance of every bible version having translated the Hebrew text the same erroneous way is very unlikely. Read this for a comparison of the this part of the text in 6 different translation's.- Icewedge 10:13, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * As J.P. Holding demonstrates, the 2 hind legs weren't thought of as legs in the same sense, since they had a separate and unique function. So essentially they had 4 legs. No error to be found there. --74.77.80.214 05:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * So... because the front and back legs of, for example, a horse, have a different structure and a different function (and they do, the way they move and the function they serve in each gait is totally different), a horse is two-legged? Even our ancestors, who had not the advantage of our two thousand years of cutting edge research into such areas as leg numbers, could have spotted that they were all legs. I say chop out the rationalisation, leave in a small discussion of the explanation. The apologetics should not be taking up more space than the debunking thereof. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 11:01, 20 May 2008 (EDT)


 * Ok, I did forget part of the quote that explains what I'm saying. But seriously, what do you think? Horses and insects are similar in some way? These types of insects walk on their main four feet as Holding says, and then use the back two for "leaping". That's quite a difference in function! Not only that, these hind legs don't even touch the ground, when they are walking. The hind legs of a horse do touch the ground... Seriously, you guys need to do some real research rather than simply quote skepticspervertedbible. Oh, and yes, this kind of thing still happens in our language, not just the hebrew language! --74.77.80.214 17:33, 20 May 2008 (EDT)


 * Yeah, and you need to do some real research... just do some research. Horses' legs are different in shape, the way they move, the job they do... but they're still both called legs. Hell, Kangaroo's front legs are still called legs. And the thing about the bible is that it's not just another book. It claims to be infallible. And when you make claims like that, you need to make sure there's no room for misunderstandings. AT ALL. Getting stuff rationalised after the fact is not the way you get to be infallible. These explanations always pissed me off in pastoral class, because they always smacked of desperation. People shouldn't be that desperate to convince me that God really meant "Legs you walk with when you're on the ground, and not other kinds of legs, even when they look exactly like legs". The point with this page is: the bible gets this wrong, so maybe genesis isn't 100% accurate either. We're just saying. On the other hand, we can't see anything wrong with "Love your Neighbour", so maybe that's the infallible bit we're always hearing about. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 17:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)


 * I agree. This isn't a page for apologetics, this is a page for pointing out things that God damn well should have known better. Like the mustard seed being the smallest seed... come on, Jesus with all his omniscience didn't know there was a seed smaller than the mustard seed?  Now, to point, the Bible doesn't itself claim to be infallible, that's the Biblical literalists that believe such.  Sure, it's a pedantic point, but a valid point nonetheless.  Either way, taking things after-the-fact to make them valid is apologetics and it's just as worthless as apologetics in Science Fiction.  In Star Wars the Millennium Falcon is said to have made the Kessel run in under 4 parsecs... even though parsecs are a unit of distance not of time... so naturally, Star Wars apologists come along and create a Kessel run such that since it passes so near to black holes, the distance traveled of the ship is what should really be counted (ignoring that Black Holes bend space-time and that by getting closer to a blackhole you actually start traveling further than traveling in a straight line)  That's the problem with apologetics of anything... there's always a counter argument, and a counter-counter argument, and a counter-counter-counter argument.  Get over it... this is suppose to be the foremost authority on life and Christianity available... why does it require three doctorates just to understand what it really means, when it's being pushed upon the masses as "read this, and you will understand." --Eira omtg!  The Goat be praised. 19:08, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Okay, the idea of apologetics as a bunch of Bible fanboys making up theories about how something written off-the-cuff could be made to work made me laugh. Sad part is, that's pretty much what's happening.  Is it any wonder why academics who seriously study the bible are so likely to lose their faith in the end? --Kels 19:16, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * How likely? -- AKjeldsen Cum dissensie 19:30, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I can't give you chapter and verse, I'm just going by some articles I've read on high level biblical scholars, and that most have significant changes in faith as they study more. Some turn atheist, many turn away from the harder line sorts of Christianity, some turn Jewish or whatever.  There's an excellent interview I remember with a group of them, and only one had retained faith at all, and he'd turned Jewish. --Kels 19:41, 20 May 2008 (EDT)


 * I've typically heard that when you tackle the bible, you end up getting exactly what you weren't before. Skeptics tackle the bible, and come out believers, and believers tackle the bible and come out skeptics.  It kind of makes sense.  The skeptics are looking for any reason to believe, and the original apologetics starts them going, and their mind naturally fills in the rest, ending up a believer.  Meanwhile the believer already has faith and beliefs, then reads the bible and finds inconsistencies and other such stuff, and the apologetics get to them like it's backhanded explanations of stuff that doesn't fit... basically, the bible says "you will fit a square peg into a round hole" and the apologists note that if you have a round hole large enough (where if the square peg has width X, then a round hole with a radius of at least 2*sqrt(2)*X) that a square peg would fit into it... the answer is correct, and logical, but it still doesn't fit. --Eira omtg!  The Goat be praised. 19:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * There might also be an element of representativeness there; we read about the people who change, because the people who don't change aren't news. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 21:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I can see the headlines already: "Renowned Theologian Reads Bible, Does NOT Lose Faith! Full story on pg. 2 " -- AKjeldsen Cum dissensie 05:16, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Atheist reads bible; calls it "d-grade waffle ending in a mushroom dream"Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 09:44, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Smallest seed
Come on, isn't that just a little petty? He's making a parable, not holding a lecture on scientific botany. -- AKjeldsen Cum dissensie 09:21, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm with you Anders! Dei atheists, dei! 10:18, 20 May 2008 (EDT)


 * "God atheists, God"? --Kels 10:24, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * A vaguely pointless pun for everyone to enjoy. Cherish it. 10:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

String Theory
String theory is not science because it has no testable (falsifiable) hypothesis. At best, it is a crapload of mental masturbation. RoundRobyn 20:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I was referring to the attempts to use science to further an hypothesis in metaphysics. ListenerXTalkerX 21:27, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Joshua and the Sun standing still
I came across this quote from Martin Luther: "This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

The verses in question are Joshua 10:13-14
 * 12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
 * 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

I don't have access to the original text, but this seems to be a major scientific error, as Martin Luther so stupidly pointed out.
 * Here? The entire quote from Luther is as follows:
 * "There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Thermodynamic
I think that one isn't fair. First off, quantum particles do seem to pop in and out of existence, and secondly, if somehow a god existed it would be possibly they could change the laws of physics to allow such a creation. While we have no reason for thinking this is the case, this certainly isn't a "scientific error in the bible".

Stars of Revelation 8:10
According to Rev. 1:1, the book of Revelation is "signified" to John, which means that the writer understood it as symbolic, or consisting of "signs". So I don't think it's accurate to refer to Rev. 8:10 as unscientific, since the writer's intent is symbolism. There are many "stars" mentioned in Revelation. Just a few verses later (in 9:1), a "star" is said to receive a "key". This is obviously not meant to be taken as a literal star in the physical universe. So why does the reference 4 verses earlier have to be taken literally? --Elias (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Further on this:

""

""

So why aren't these verses included as examples of "stars" being out of harmony with science? The star reference needs to be deleted, because no reference to stars in Revelation can possibly be taken literally. If that's the case then we also have to include sections about these other verses that describe a dragon taking the stars out of heaven, and a star being given a key. Don't these go against the science of stars also?

--Elias (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sun Was Not "Created" in Genesis 1:16
Genesis 1:16 says the Sun and Moon were "made". The Hebrew for "make" or "made" is not the same as "create" (used in Genesis 1:1). The entire universe was created in 1:1 (including sun, moon, and stars). All heavenly bodies are included in the word "heavens", as is shown by the statement in Genesis 2:4 which uses the word "heaven" to refer to everything in the physical universe besides the earth. --Elias (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation errors, pendantic horseshit
A so-called scientific error in the Bible, of course, may merely be an interpretation error. Nifty example in the section about pi.

''Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.[3][4][5]

The numbers being given are obviously round approximations. Or was the "cubit" some very precise unit, did they have a Bureau of Standards for the "international cubit," accurate to ... what? If it was actually 9.9 cubits in diameter, would they have said, "ten cubits less a tenth?" Is the purpose of the verse to give precise measurements? Was it to establish the value of pi? Like, isn't that a tad .... preposterous. Isn't this supposed to be rational criticism?

If we take the thirty cubits as accurate for the circumference, perhaps because it predicts encirclement, then the diameter would be 9.55 cubits. Round off to the nearest cubit, it's 10 cubits.

Q.E.D. --Abd (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For non-literlists, yes they would veiw it as an interpretation error. This article is more inline with biblical literalists. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. But then it's not a "scientific error in the Bible," it is an error in mindless over-the-top literal interpretation of the Bible. Or, perhaps, "the Bible" is not an ancient book, it is a creation in the mind of fundamentalists. They are worshipping themselves, their own handiwork.


 * On the other hand, is it fair to rational Christians that we give these idiots the "Bible," as if it was their property? --Abd (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When the Bible is consonant with science: "Look, the Bible predicted this scientific advance!" When it isn't: "Oh, well, you know that passage isn't supposed to be read literally." Heads I win, tails you lose. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the world is just unfair. However, N, it's not generally the same people making those different claims. I've been over and over this with the Qur'an and Muslims. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then, i guess you're stuck. This is what the wiki says. Clearly, again, you know more then the people here, you should go make your own wiki. We do not have your eduction level, your experience, your mind, or your insight.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is what the wiki says, WfG? I do know that some here have a "higher" educational level than I. Stuck? On what? I've made a suggestion about the section in question. I might make an edit, I might not. I find the idea of that section as showing an "error" in the Bible quite interesting. And I explained why.
 * It's a bit like someone saying that pi is 3.14, or, a bit better, 22/7, and then someone says "BRAACK! ERROR!" But, of course, any numerical value for pi is going to be "wrong." Right?
 * Next case .... --Abd (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add this interesting source, I may also add this to the section to give a balanced view on the matter.

Christopher Wordsworth quotes a certain Rennie as making this interesting observation: “Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi-diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or ‘brim,’ would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.” (Notes on the King James Version, London, 1887) Thus, it appears that the ratio of three to one (that is, the circumference being three times the diameter) was a customary way of stating matters, intended to be understood as only approximate. RoryWatt (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Bats and this article is a mess.
The bats section basically reads: here's a list of birds that includes bats, and now here's an explanation of why it was reasonable for those people at that time to think of bats as birds. I buy that. No problem. But if the article is supposed to be about errors in the Bible, why is it even being discussed as a scientific error? Also read this: One issue with this excuse is the way in which that the Bible first discusses insects which have four legs and wings that walk on the earth before then going on to discuss those with four legs and listing the locust, cricket & grasshopper amongst these. Ergo the previous mention of four legs is not covered by the case from "hopping hindlimbs" which are then discussed separately. It makes no basic sense as a sentence. Can someone with reliable knowledge of the Bible and natural science give it a going-over? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did a bit of digging and the Hebrew word is "עוֹף" (oph). While I'm not sure of the reliability of this site, if its listing of its usage within the text is accurate it implies that "oph" does (or at least can) mean "winged" or "winged creatures". The same word is used as a prefix to "insects" in Leviticus 11:23. So I'm inclined to think this is not a scientific issue in any meaningful sense. Also, my JPS translation notes of the general passage on birds that, "a number of these [animals] cannot be identified with certainty".--SpecialFFrog (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to a section at the bottom and pointed out the nonspecificity of this word. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI... the bible also categorizes bats under the word tsippowr which is used almost exclusively to refer to birds. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deuteronomy 14:11-18 when the bible lists the unclean tsippowr again. Everything on that list is a bird, except for our little squeaking friend. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If, as seems to be the consensus, the bat thing has to go, I strongly suggest that the "Anatomy of insects" section get the chop too, since it's essentially no different (it also concerns a differing classification system, this one about what is considered "legs" - even thinks it's a spurious objection to the bible). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the Bible support astrology?
Does Genesis 1:14 imply that astrology works?

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years". Reg321 (tLk) 15:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit late, but probably not:
 * https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13532/does-genesis-114-talk-about-astrology/13546
 * http://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/1-14.htm
 * http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/AboutCANA_FAQs1.html
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_astrology
 * 15:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Reform.
I'm thinking about transforming this page into External biblical errors, so we can also include other external errors.
 * I'm skeptical. What do you mean, exactly?
 * Also: Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally, anything that's "external" can be classified as a scientific error. Go ahead and add any additional errors to the current article. 15:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Distinctions
A distinction has to be made between 'what was considered scientific knowledge (or equivalent) then and in that area' and 'current scientific knowledge' which may be quite different. Some of the statements might well be fairly logical/based on observation and described in language then considered appropriate. (God has observed that pig meat may contain parasites and shellfish may poison you, so tells you not to eat them.) 86.191.125.150 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Though, the point of the article is not to celebrate the hindsight bias by making fun of the Bible writers for not knowing the things we know today (doing so would amount to nothing but a massive condescension of posterity).


 * The point of the article is to make fun of (and refute) the now living people who insist the Bible is way more than the original Bible authors ever meant for it to be, back during the centuries when it was originally written.


 * There are Americans, now-living (in the age of smartphones, antibiotics and airplanes), who claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God — and furthermore, adding insult to injury, that the Bible has scientific foreknowledge at that.


 * Not only is modern science a satanic lie, but measured even by the standards of science, the Bible is more scientific than science itself is (because the Bible had, and still has, foreknowledge — aside from having the quality of inerrancy).


 * As such, the best science could ever hope for is to one day catch up to the already-revealed truth of the Bible (and even then, by the grace of God alone).


 * It will be apparent that no leniency is warranted on our part in refuting this modern nonsense view (which already Augustine had ruled out as idiotic).


 * Thus, the simple point being made in this article is "Boy, does the Bible have a single scientific error in it OR WHAT?!".


 * And, I know — any non-loon would roll their eyes and exclaim "...well, DUUH!" at that. But again, this article is directed at the loons who actually believe the Bible to be without scientific error. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there could be a section - 'science as understood and referenced in the Bible' - the pig and shellfish example; nomads observing the development of oases ('land and water, then plants, then 'birds and flitting things' then other animals, and finally humans), and as far as they were concerned the sky might well be a bowl over the Earth. 86.191.125.150 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, I'm not "in charge" of anything but when to feed the cat; but...


 * I'm sorry. Considering what my above given explanation entails, I fail to see much utility in including what you suggest — atleast not in this particular article.


 * And, for one — is what you allege about specific beliefs being held by the Bible's authors even true? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Right. If the Bible is God's word why it does not mention those parasites and other stuff?. Most importantly, why Genesis does not mention at all the Big Bang or at the very least the sheer size of (just the observable) Universe. Everything is very suspiciously Bronze Age knowledge.
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And consider - the 're-tellers of the Bible' (before it was written down) and the scribes thereafter summarised everything and backformation-ised some of the earlier collected texts (including what are now known as Apocrypha and other texts) in the light of later events and information - and it is #much easier# to say 'God says don't eat these foods' than 'our food scientist-equivalents have worked out that old shellfish aren't that good for you.' (And God says 'clunk-click every trip' rather than 'fasten your seat-belts as this is proven to save many lives each year.')
 * Those of us who accept that the 'Biblical and related texts' creators and recorders) were people of their time and will get some things right (and other things will have made more sense at the time) #don't# need so persuading - and 21st-century literalists #won't# be persuaded - and never the twain will meet. 86.134.53.55 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides, changing the interpretation to "this is health and safety issues rather than arbitrary religious rules" would be considered going against dogma and I don't think religion likes different interpretations like this. And I say arbitrary because the Bible has a ton of other arbitrary rules like concerning menstruating women. 21:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Westminster Theological Seminary: gauging its bias
Their sales pitch aside, the journal in question was (and I quote):

As such — maybe someone like has an idea of just how fundamentalist the WTS really is, and/or to which extent this may affect their supposed scholarship?

I bring this up for the reason of this tentative reversion. See also: the 20-year old paper in question (by one Paul H. Seely).

I mean, surely scholarship has progressed somewhat in those past decades? Even in a field as admittedly mossy stable as 'Bible studies'? (Nothing to see here, move along)    Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Fun
Looks like I can have fun here.-- 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies
Didn't rationalwiki have a page dedicated to all the historical inaccuracies of the bible? GreatPerson (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Biblical Value of Pi
Thank you for clarifying that the Bible is not Saxon Math and Algebra. I think the person who thought to add it might have 1) had nothing better to do. 2) read the cover wrong. 3) forgot that pi wasn't discovered until around 282 BC.--Anonymous4thelolz (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe that was when it was calculated to x decimal places but the idea that circumference of a circle is ~3 times it’s diamter is probably a lot older. Christopher (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Canaanites
I have to say a lot of these points made don't make a lot of sense, but I'll refrain on commenting them. I do want to remark one inaccuracy in quoting the scripture here that indicates a lack of research. The passage quoted in Deuteronomy is a commandment from God to eliminate the Canaanites and doesn't claim that they were actually eliminated. While Joshua 11:15 does seem to indicate that Joshua killed all the Canaanites, a couple of chapters later (Joshua 13:1-6 mentions Sidonians, whose descendants was found later to be still alive in Lebanon by scientists by the DNA analysis mentioned in the citations) actually notes that many of the Canaanites were not destroyed. In fact, other portions (Judges 2, Judges 3, Psalm 106)t reveal that God punished the Israelites for never eliminating these enemies. Thus, the DNA analysis is actually evidence for, rather than against, the historical accuracy of the Bible. I think this is also claimed in other articles here (Canaanites article). &mdash; Unsigned, by: 129.59.122.25 / talk 17:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Ants have supervisors?
The closest thing I can think of to an ant supervisor is those so-called "slave making" ants, but they don't direct the "enslaved" ants, they just have the ability to produce chemical signals that ants of a different species follow. Do we really need to directly refute every single word when it stretches the science so much to do so? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It reads like overreach. Also parts of the article are over-argued. For example, I'm not sure we need the long quote and response to barely-significant "J. P. Holding" at the beginning, I doubt many people are going to work through that math later on and so on.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Mustard as tree
The form of mustard grown in the Middle East (white mustard) only grows to about 2' (70cm) in height. This is a great tree? Why is the article accepting that this useful cruciferous vegetable is tree-sized? Vivisectionist (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)