Hello Orangemarlin! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Orangemarlin 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Archives

/Administrative battles /Amusing Vandalism /Miscellaneous 1 /Miscellaneous 2 /Religion 1 /Religion 2 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 1 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 2

		The Original Barnstar
		For being bold and because I can't believe you haven't got one yet! Sophia 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		You might not know me, but I know you. I've seen you editing articles about evolution, and I just wanted to say thank you so much for contributing so much to Evolution articles and reverting vandalism and original research, among other things. I love you! Keep up the good fight! Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Undeniable Mechanism Award
		For arguing the undeniable mechanism, upholding intellectual rigour, and expanding evolution topics, it is my pleasure to pin this badge upon your most evolved chest. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that things seem to be stabilizing at the Evolution article, would you consider looking at and working on the evo-devo article? As you mentioned, at one point, this is an important growing area. I did some work on it a while ago an exhausted my relevant knowledge, but it still seems like the length and quality of the article do not match its importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gulp. What am I going to get myself into? LOL. I'll check it out! Orangemarlin 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want you to over-commit!! I just know this article deserves to be better than it is. You can start by looking at one editor;s suggestions here and also I have a comment in the section of talk that follows (on, concerning the tendency to microevolution). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Creationism is a subset of intelligent design theory, don't you think it's misleading to say that the poll listed 10% support for ID, when in fact it indicated 74% support? JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. ID is a subset of Creationism, polls are evil, and I prefer to get rid of the whole thing. Orangemarlin 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID is absolutely not a subset of Creationism, as other theories that fall under the ID umbrella are, say, seeding of the planet by aliens, which ain't Creationism. Creationism is a specific explanation as to how man came to be involving a conscious, intervening force, but there are a potentially large number of such theories. If you object to the poll, why didn't you simply remove it altogether? JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all BS, so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. This should be on the ID talk page. However, you are reading the Discovery Institute propaganda, not facts. ID is Creationism by a Judeo-Christian G_d plain and simple. All they're trying to do is make it out to be something it isn't, science. At any rate, take a look at Creationism which makes ID out to be a subset. If you're going to argue what you are above (and I could be convinced, except ID really was never intended to include little green men from space), then a lot of articles need revision. That might not be worth your time. Orangemarlin 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very worthy goal. Once I've got Evolution through to FA I will certainly try to help! TimVickers 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a worthy goal. I've actually quit editing that article after you showed up. You've really improved it and ought to be commended. I figured I'd manipulate you over to Biology, get you started, then I'd go find another article. LOL. Orangemarlin 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You fiend! I'm on to your evil scheme now! TimVickers 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for kicking me while I'm down. And you call me evil? Doc Tropics 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you're the expert on dinosaurs around here. If you have a second for a pathetic Apple user, I've been unable to find any information on something that's been driving me crazy for many years. I cannot for a moment believe that the K-T event executed 100% of the dinosaur species in existence at that time. It seem unconceivable, because at every extinction event, some percentage of species (and even genera) survived. Mammals survived K-T, which must have been an adequate food source for at least smaller dinosaurs. Is there any evidence that dinosaurs survived the K-T even for a few million years. Please exclude birds, because they evolved prior to the K-T event. Or maybe the Flood is right?  :) Orangemarlin 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemarlin!

I'm not an expert, but I write a ton of dinosaur articles around here. There is some very limited evidence for dinosaurs in the Cenozoic, aside from birds. However, you have to consider the Enantiornithes: many birds also did not survive the K-T extinction event, either. So it wasn't an all-or-nothing situation: many early birds also went the way of the dinosaurs, as did many other groups of sauropsids: the mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, and pterosaurs. There is (I caution: very limited) evidence for non-avian Cenozoic dinosaurs, discussed at Dinosaur#Evidence_for_Cenozoic_dinosaurs: Zielinski and Budahn (2002) found a fossil bone of a hadrosaur leg bone in Cenozoic strata 64.5 million years ago, but this could have been a fluke caused by weathering. Other rumors have been misrepresentations of theories that aren't supported by fossil evidence. I'm not aware of any newer findings which support evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs beyond the K-T Boundary: right up to the boundary, yes. but not beyond it. Does this help you? Probably not. If it helps, you could also think of it like this: some paleontologists think the number of dinosaur genera was already slightly declining in the Maastrichtian (though others dispute this). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and expert is a relative thing. You know more than I, so that makes you one! For some reason, 64.5 million years ago sounds like it could be within rounding error of the K-T event, unless you're going to tell me that dating of fossils from that period of time can be made accurate. Anyways, this sounds fascinating to me. I would think that a few species survived somewhere on the planet. Of course, now this begs the question: if they all died, was the extinction event selective for reptiles and not mammals and birds? Orangemarlin 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The K-T event was around 65.5 million years ago, so the hadrosaurid bone is about a million years past expiration date, if it's not a case of weathering. The formation the fossils were in had previously been thought to have been Cretaceous, but pollen samples indicates it is actually Paleocene. You can read the PDF here. As for the extinction event, it didn't just affect reptiles: the Enantiornithes are also not found after the Cretaceous. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize some species of birds and mammals also were wiped out at K-T. What I meant was why did it completely wipe out the dinosaurs, and not completely wipe out everything else? In other words, I guess I'm still skeptical that at least one species of dinosaur lasted say another few million years. This bone does sound intriguing though, if what you're saying is that we can actually accurately date to that level of sensitivity. Orangemarlin 06:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, Orangemarlin; it's hard to believe everything got wiped out so quickly (though only "quickly" on a massive timescale). Personally, (and this is my own theory) I think it had to do with size: all the largest animals were killed off, leaving just the smallest animals. The smallest dinosaurs roughly around the K-T boundary were, like Troodon (6 feet long); only the very smallest animals would have been able to survive a cataclismic event... But the hadrosaurid fossil is intriguing... Hey, nice work on Hanauma Bay! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory. I guess I pictured dinosaurs that were small, maybe the size of a dog or cat, which could be efficient predators. Of course, an event such as the K-T extinction, might have made predation very difficult. Thanks on the Hanauma Bay article. I just cleaned up the mess, it still needs a few references. I enjoy the various volcano articles, so I've tried to improve a few. You should see what a few of us did over a couple of weeks with Minoan eruption. I don't edit medical articles, because I'd write it like a medical reference article, and that's not good. I actually referred to one because I needed some quick information, hated the article so much that I rewrote a bunch of it. Then I stopped because it wasn't fun. Evolution, volcanos, hockey, a few biographies, and that's my quirky interests. I'll have to tell you that the Extinction event articles need a lot of cleanup--a couple of them lack references. I might tackle one or two, because I usually end up learning a lot by doing it. Orangemarlin 07:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you spend your hobby doing the same thing you do for a living, it can get to be not much fun. I'm stretched pretty thin with Dinosauria, or I'd probably pitch in to help clean up some other articles, such as extinction. But I figure there are probably around 500 dinosaur articles which need better (or any) references, and are in need of serious expansion. Hanauma Bay looks like a lovely place; I'm eager to return to Hawai'i someday. I've only been able to visit Maui, but it was a great vacation. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been reading a few articles of post K-T dinosaurs, including the solitary hadrosaur bone. Compelling evidence, but one freaking bone doesn't exactly convince me! Well, the article living dinosaurs must be pseudoscience at the best. Orangemarlin 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. That's a terrible article. How embarrassing. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cough cough. Uhhhh, you could help me edit it to be a lot more NPOV. Remember, you don't have to accept living dinosaurs to be NPOV, you just need to make sure myth and pseudoscience is balanced with actual science. I've been slowly adding in science when I have a chance, but I'm not a paleontologist, nor do I play one on TV. There are a lot of articles that drive me nuts. Try Flood geology if you want to be truly annoyed. Orangemarlin 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemarlin,

I was a little surprised by your reversion of my edits to the "inheritance mechanism" paragraph. I'll gladly confess to being a worse writer than Tim, but my edits were pretty innocuous, no? I'm not interesting in reverting them or arguing — there's enough heat over there ;) — but I'd just like to take the opportunity to learn better. I'd be grateful if you could explain what was awry.

Was it perhaps using "hypothesis" for the Watson-Crick model of B-DNA? To me, it seems a stretch to say that they "demonstrated" the mechanism of inheritance, since they didn't take any experimental data. In that era, many scientists proposed various structures for proteins and DNA; some were wrong and but others were later confirmed by experiment data. That's why "hypothesis" seemed better to me. Just a suggestion, Willow 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I make so many different edits in a day, that I cannot remember each one. Can you tell me which article? It sounds like the Evolution article, so I'll give a look and post an answer here. Orangemarlin 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can report this to WP:AIV or get an someone to block this IP and you didn't place the warning tags in order,take careArnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already reported it. And I'm not sure what you mean by not placing the warning tags in order? BTW, I leave this stuff on my talk page, because a number of us are humored by it. I eventually archive it, so I can search out who might have done these things in the past. Orangemarlin 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had to dig through the page history here to find the latest insult...which was indeed unimaginative. Perhaps we should offer a tutorial for under-educated editors? "The Fine Art of Insults". Doc Tropics 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you remember the Steve Martin movie, Roxanne, which was loosely based on Cyrano, he let out a long rant of insults that a big oaf could make about his nose. It was funny, creative, and very intelligent. Calling me an "asshole" is pretty light. Being the only Jewish kid in my high school in Utah required a high level of tolerance, and I would force kids to up their level of insulting if they wanted to take me on. Of course, being 6'2", 200lbs and fairly strong in high school tended to keep the insults to a very light level. Orangemarlin 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, a Jew in Utah? You poor bastard! That's actually worse than growing up as an intellectual in a Wisconsin farm town. It's ironic that you should mention Roxanne and Cyrano...I was going to mention what a striking resembelance I bear to the masterful Cyrano. Really, my nose is a thing of wonder...people wonder if it's real or if I'm wearing a mask : ) Doc Tropics 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was sad. I actually was born and raised in Southern California, where I thought that everyone was either a Survivor, child of a Survivor, Jewish-California native, or, rarely, a Gentile. My father, who decided that he needed open air, mountains, etc., moved us there. There was one Synagogue. Approximately 1500 members of the Tribe. It was really a traumatic experience. There were no bagels. No hamantash. Friends from California had to ship us matzah for Passover. And then there were the citizens of Utah. Blonde blue-eyed aryans everywhere. A Jew's nightmare. LOL. Orangemarlin 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one needs close watching. Doc Tropics 22:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No longer an issue. I reported this to WP:AIV and the culprit was promptly blocked - indefinitely. I feel bad now that my first Edit Summary made light of the situation. Once I tracked the editor's contribs and realized what we were dealing with, I just kinda went ballistic. I deleted-without-saving about a dozen posts to her(?) talkpage...I found myself resorting to the kind of language that we were so recently mocking as unimaginative. Fortunately, I realized that her behaviour represented a blockable offense, whereas I hadn't crossed that line yet myself. With luck she is gone for good; I might suggest though, that we keep an eye out for similar editing under a new name...this kind of scum rarely gives up so easily. Doc Tropics 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this person went ballistic over a reversion of a spam link? I watch Nazi-based articles for, well, you can imagine. I missed a lot of fun today while I was in meetings apparently. Thanks for watching my 6 Doc. Orangemarlin 01:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure OM. I've now watchlisted the article that touched this off; I'll add others as I notice them (or any that you think need extra eyes). I'm mostly focused on science articles (and certain religous articles that I actually protect from vandalism) but I hadn't really considered the presence of Nazi articles and the kind of activity they might generate. Sometimes I wonder how the hell we made it out of the Dark Ages, or even if we have. (sigh) Doc Tropics 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me started. You have no clue how sick it makes me when I look at that SS-Waffen article. Go read the discussion page, where these individuals whine about how their fathers were treated after WWII. Much of my family died in places like Dachau, Sobibor, and Auswitcz, so my sympathy is in extreme abeyance. On the other hand, I'm enjoying the row over at the Dinosaur article on the religion section. It is a lot more sane and civil than the ones at Intelligent design. Orangemarlin 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly imagine what it's like for you at the personal level, and you have my deepest sympathies. While I'm thoroughly non-religious, the existence of Nazis seems to be a strong argument for the existence of the devil. But yes, the Dino/Religion debate is rather amusing, though somewhat lopsided. While the "opposing" editor is both civil and rational, I'm afraid he's totally outclassed : ) Doc Tropics 01:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty funny to read about a couple of Gestapo talking badly about Nazi's. Does it ever dawn on you that you are the reason some people hate Jews? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.92.189 (talk • contribs).

Looks like it's back. I knew the block wouldn't work for long, but I'll track it's edits and start working on the next block. Doc Tropics 02:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People hate Jews? I'm thoroughly shocked. Orangemarlin 06:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, people hate you. They think they hate Jews, but they actually hate you. I don't hate you. I pity you and the Jews who are the victim of your intolerant arrogant overbearing attitude. Your actions elicit a reaction in others who wrongly think you are representative of Jews. That's sad.

My question is why do you pretend to be something you are not on your user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.207.219 (talk) 05:57, May 19, 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the lack of quality insults by anonymous editors is amazing. It's a waste of a Kindergarten education. Orangemarlin 14:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno OM...it used words of more than two syllables, and most were even spelled correctly. This one probably qualifies as an intellectual giant among its kind. Possibly it is even brighter than a Flatworm. I wouldn't actually bet on it though, the comparison might be offensive to worms. Doc Tropics 16:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks are your trademark. Stick to name calling. It's quite amusing because no matter how long you keep up the charade, you can't fool yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.207.219 (talk)

OMG. Anonymous used a Latin word. Let's celebrate. LOL. Orangemarlin 16:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just admit you're an imposter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.207.219 (talk)

OM, I've reported this to the same Admin who blocked the editor yesterday (before she began hiding behind an IP), and I'm hoping that he'll have some solution, possibly blocking the IP address itself. Have I done enough yet to be initiated into the great global Jewish cabal, or is there another test to pass? If it makes a difference, I'm already circumcised, and I'd be willing to keep kosher...Doc Tropics 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, you guys are having all the fun! Darn, I guess I missed some of it, but there probably will be more. This is a little similar to the trouble I ran into at Black people with assorted black supremacists, pan-Africans, white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, falangists, Neo-fascists, Black Muslims, Arab Africans, African American radicals etc. And part of the reason I gave up on Black people.--Filll 17:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for one week; this was the user's third chance, after having been previously blocked from editing. I see no need to coddle people who continue to disturb the encyclopedia with personal attacks. Also, please don't engage this IP or others with exchanges of insults. It just baits them and encourages them to continue. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Firs, your intervention is much appreciated. Also, you're right...I was feeding the troll, and I should know better. This one just really pushed my buttons : ) Doc Tropics 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the expression "Feed a troll, starve a beaver"? ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much to answer. First, thanks Firs for the help. One week just doesn't seem like enough. Don't we have executions at dawn any more? I'm disappointed at the liberal nature of Wikipedia. A good execution just does so much. Doc, again, thanks for watching my 6. However, circumcision and kosher is not enough. You have to attend three Bar mitzvahs in the next month. But none of that Reform stuff, it has to be Orthodox. We might consider your application at that time. Filll. WTF have you been? Fighting Creationists is just not fun without you. In fact Doc Tropics and Fins showed up on my talk page over from Dinosaur, which is sort of under attack by one of those "we must be NPOV and therefore half the article should describe how Dinosaurs were on the Ark" editors.  :) Orangemarlin 21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to grow up to be Firsfron. How many of us wanted to be paleontologists when we were kids. Anyways, I appreciate your answer. I thought that the Alvarez first studied the K-T boundary (and found evidence of a meteor) in Italy? And good point on the birds, except, I was thinking maybe a T. Rex walking down the street. Orangemarlin 00:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man. Now I feel like a total paleontologist poseur. Like you, I wanted to be a paleontologist when I grew up: I remember being 4-5 years old; my cousin had given me all his hundreds of old plastic dinosaur models, and I'd spend hours aligning them in neat, even rows like at the Field Museum in Chicago (actually, my rows were more organized: the Saurischians couldn't be next to the Ornithischians, etc). I had all sorts of dinosaur books, at a time when dinosaurs were still usually depicted in books as having green or gray skin. I was sure I'd become a paleontologist, but it never happened. Finances precluded the idea, and, although I spent years and years in college, my degree is not in Paleontology.

I did visit the excavation sites of several mammoths when they were being dug up, and also the excavation of Sonorasaurus in the late 1990s. In the late 90s/early 2000s, I did some biology-related work on Rana subaquavocalis, the Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog [1] counting frogs and reporting data regularly. Frogs and other amphibians face a very real extinction event today, and may well become the "dinosaurs" of the immediate future.

WikiProject Dinosaurs had very few dinosaur articles, and so I have helped out where I could, expanding or improving several articles. I'm a member of the NCSE, and I believe Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs needs to reflect a scientific point of view, since the articles are about dinosaurs, not mythological dragons, unicorns, and other fanciful creatures. The project does have several professional paleontologists, and working with them, as well as the rest of the team, has been a real pleasure.

Regarding your question: As far as I know, the discovery of the K-T iridium layer was made in Italy.[2] As far as blocking the IP, s/he can be blocked further if s/he continues disruption. I wouldn't have blocked for that long, but this wasn't its first or even second block. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, the K-T boundary in Italy (and most other places) occurs in marine sediments, ruling out any analysis of dinosaur diversity there.  ; ) Sheep81 06:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with a Jewish cabal or anti-semitism. It has to do with Orangemarlin being a jerk, an imposter and a sockpuppet.

I ought to have gotten back to you sooner, but I didn't have the time at the moment and then it slipped my mind until a recent essay was posted on my talk page. Have a look at this. Astonishing.

First let me say that you responded to a much stronger statement than the one I actually made. By "credible" I meant that the NT places Jesus in a cultural setting we can identify and which we know really existed, which is much more than we can say for the presentation of the ark story in the OT. While I do of course believe he really lived, that isn't what I was saying to CS just then. My point to him was that it's possible to believe in Jesus without abandoning the facts and reason.

Your objections go wrong from the very first, I think. We have a considerable amount of evidence that Jesus lived. While a secular scholar might discard the miracle stories of the Gospels and other NT material, there's no reason to not treat them as we would any other historical documents. The earliest material, the first of the Pauline epistles, was written within a decade or two of the events and thus well within the living memory of those who ought to have known if it was false. The picture we get from all this of Jesus is astonishingly consistent for a fictional character created over a the decades-long period in which the NT was composed, by people not in direct contact with each other. It's less so if Jesus is a real person. It's at least as reliable as other such material where the existence of the people described is not seriously questioned.

For people of that era, we most often have to rely on secondary sources. Consider: of contemporary written material we have practically nothing. Yes, we have some philosophers, poets, and historians; all those whose work medieval scribes thought worth recopying. But what of the vast amount of official records and paperwork which a government as extensive as the Roman Empire would have required? Practically nothing except for an accidental survival here and there. It was written on papyrus, but papyrus needs the aridity of the Egyptian desert to survive for that lohng, but this is exactly the kind of material in which someone like Jesus would have been recorded as he interacted with the authorities. In general, the only way we know of anyone whose name was not preserved in a recopied manuscript is if it was literally carved in stone, or stamped in metal. Even for Emperors we often have to rely on their coinage for information.

If it's "telling" that there is no direct evidence of him, it's even moreso that there was no direct contradiction of him either. For all those who objected to Christianity and sincerely wished it would go away, the one objection never raised to it is that its founding figure never lived. It's seems likely he was well-known, in Jewish circles at least. No one ever claimed he was well-known outside that context until his cult became widespread. Until then he was a Jewish preacher of the type the literati of Rome would have taken no notice whatsoever. How many of the rabbis of the time described in the Talmud can be independently verified? I do not doubt there are a great many people of the time, more important than Jesus to their contemporaries, of whom we now have no record.

It's proven hazardous to rely on the absence of evidence to debunk anything, the NT not excepted. Just one example among several: It was once a current opinion in some circles that the Gospels were fictionalized to the point where Pontius Pilate was made up out of whole cloth. (I suppose they ascribed his appearance in Josephus to later Christian tampering.) Then his name was found carved in a dedicatory inscription at Caesarea Maritima. Events like this, which happen from time to time, are one reason why I'm never too worried about current opinion in archaeology that seems to contradict a Christian historical claim. They're almost always based on an absence than something concrete, and are not infrequently disproved over time.

I think mentioned Socrates. It's really amazing that his existence is never questioned, and yet there is even less evidence for him than for Jesus. Again, there is no direct evidence for him, and he wrote nothing himself. What we do know of him comes from exactly three sources: two of his disciples, Plato and Xenophon, and several playwrights, particularly Aristophanes. The former idealize him out of all recognition and use him as a mouthpiece for their own ideas; the second parodies him. From all of these we get such dramatically divergent accounts that he might as well have been a standard fictional character to whom it was convenient to attach stories, or to attribute dialogue.

The treatment the Jews have received at the hands of the Christians over the years is tragic no matter what the underlying truths. I really think it was always more the irrational fear of the "other" than anything else. No matter where they lived, faithful Jews were always an identifiable group distinct from the general population. In general, I don't see that any religion has been a cause of violence as often as it seems. I think it most often is used to justify violence that people want to carry out regardless, but want to appear morally upright when doing it. This is much easier if you can make people believe that God wants you to. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're fighting a losing battle. This guy is a raging fanatic who oppresses all viewpoints other than his own. No rational persone questions whether Jesus lived or not. Rather, such talk is just an attempt to diminish the spiritual beliefs of others. His motive is simple and obvious. The dude you are fighting is so devoid of any spiritual life and empty inside that he feels the need to attack others to better convince himself of his own righteousness.

Warning. If you deal with Orangemarlin and his aliases, you're dealing with a liar, a jerk and an imposter.