Talk:Were you there? (Talk.Origins)

I have removed the following paragraph, because I feel it is clear from context of the reply that the Talkorigin author understands we're all talking about a time, not a place: "The author may have misunderstood what the question actually means, limiting the word "there" to only a locality, a place. When a person asks that question "were you there?", they are not simply asking "were you ever at that place?", but rather "were you at that place at that time to observe what really happened?"  When people normally talk to each other about events in general and ask "where you there when this happened?", for example, when a sports game was won or lost, or when something monumental happened where you had to be there to experience it, do you really think it would be sensible to answer "yes, because "there" is here" if you were not that there at that time?"

I have removed this point to improve the flow of the argument, and I feel that it does not contribute to the point being discussed: "Creationism or at least biblical creationism is not just limited to Christianity, but to anyone who accepts the Genesis record as true history." -- Pete

I was correct in recalling that this page existed before and what a difference was the answer to Talk origins! Wonder what happened... Gil

I've replace the paragraphs
I replaced the paragraphs because I feel it important to emphasize both points and they do contribute to the point in general.

There was little need to change the article as it was as the points made can give evidence for christianity, although it does need to be mentioned that to limit creation science or creationism to christianity is unwarranted.

Amenyahu (April 24 2006)


 * One risk that wikis have is that of "edit wars", in which one person makes a change, another changes it back, the first reinstates his change, the second again changes it back, and so on. This has not happened with this article, but it is heading in that direction.  Editor Paylett made some changes to the article, including removal of the paragraph about the T.O. author misunderstanding the claim, and explained why.  Unless his edit was pure vandalism (which I don't think you would even suggest), then it is not good form to simply reinstate the paragraph without a new reason for it being there or the consensus of other editors, as this is the first step of an edit war.  Alternatively, you may be able to replace it with a modified version that may be acceptable to other editors.  (Your other reinstatement, being only a portion of the original text that was removed, perhaps fits this criterion.)
 * My opinion is that the "misunderstanding" paragraph is not warranted. Although a quick read of the T.O. response could lead one to believe that they have not understood the point, a careful reading leads me to believe otherwise.
 * Regarding the other change/reinstatement you made, I'm not convinced that that change was warranted either. I understand where you are coming from regarding Christianity, but the T.O. rebuttal did make specific reference to Christianity.
 * I will not make any changes at the moment. I would like you to see for yourself that the "misunderstanding" paragraph is not warranted and voluntarily remove it, and I don't want to be part of an edit war anyway.  As for the second change, I may alter that, but only after I've given it some more thought as to how a compromise response could be formulated.  In the meantime, other editors may offer their opinions here also, or make their own changes.
 * Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 25 April 2006 (GMT)

I see where you are coming from
I looked again at the article and I can see some of where you are coming from, although not all. I've changed the article in an attempt to be more accommodating to the points I can understand and agree with.

I would disagree that I need to give a new reason, which I understand to mean "novel, different, totally new". If you meant I needed to restate my position, then what I say next should help with that. I've deleted the part that said that the author of Talk Origins may have misunderstood, but it is a principle of mine in all the articles I write to clarify the creationist position as far as I understand it. The rest of the paragraph wasn't irrelevant or wrong, and does help clarify that position. In clarifying a position, it does contribute to the point in that it helps to show how the opponents' position is inadequate. Now the person who changed the article before made a great contribution with his paragraph, which I thought was very informative, but I believe that the paragraph I originally posted, with a few modifications helped the point.

The reasons why I saw it necessary to simply restore the original paragraph without modification is because the reason for deleting it was not clear enough to me. At best, after reading your pertinent review, all I can see is reason for deleting a sentence, not the whole thing.

With regards to the christianity part, I do see your point about the specific reference to it. I hope the changes made can accommodate all of our viewpoints, including the person who changed the article. I think it is broad enough to incorporate all pentateuchal forms of creationism and yet to the point.

Again, apologies for any disrespect. Amenyahu (4 May 2006)


 * I meant that you shouldn't simply repeat the original reason or give no further reason. There should be, at the very least, something new about your reason, but it doesn't have to be "totally new".
 * The way I saw it, you were ascribing to the T.O. author a view that he didn't appear to have, then rebutting that. As such, removing the claim that he had the view but retaining the rebuttal made little sense.  However, now that I've seen it changed, the paragraph no longer appears to be a rebuttal but a clarification, and as such, it appears to be appropriate, even if not strictly necessary.
 * The other change seems okay to me. I've made some minor wording changes, but nothing substantial.
 * Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 4 May 2006 (GMT)
 * The other change seems okay to me. I've made some minor wording changes, but nothing substantial.
 * Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 4 May 2006 (GMT)