Talk:Creationism/Archive 12

message: I strongly suggest that one of the proponents of the pov personal research essay at the end of this article bring it into conformance with wikipedia policy.  it is currently an enormous pile of pov personal research, unbacked with cited scholarly opinion, and much of it is patent nonsense.  Please.  If you want to save the huddled masses of ignorant and vile creationists, follow the rules of npov.  we're not stupid enough to confuse your opinion for reality.  on the contrary, your persistent unwillingness to follow the rules just further convinces us that your views are nonsense.  thoughts?  Ungtss 03:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea.  in order to maximize article quality, please find, reference, and cite published and scholarly criticism.  thanks:).  Ungtss 17:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Ungtss, that I will do. I have made a start on an improved version of this section already, but I'm going to go to the library in my own time now to really tie it all together I think. I will try my best to update this in the next few days if I can. Aaarrrggh 18:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome:).  Ungtss 21:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  !! ---Rednblu | Talk 23:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOVing a section; aka (essay) 

message: I was suprised to find there is a difference between creationism and belief in creation. I think this difference is subtle and the reader would benefit if this article differentiated the two. Bensaccount 17:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea.  And thank you for having the courage to remove the essay.  How would you differentiate the two?  Ungtss 21:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, it's not the 'essay' that I was concerned about - it is having a section of the article dedicated to legitimate criticisms of creationism. I will take this on myself now, cleaning up and changing it until we hopefully have something much better. Aaarrrggh 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The first task is to make that which links to Creationism, creation, creation belief, origins beliefs, creating, and creation (theology) link to that which is most appropriate, and avoid redirects. Bensaccount 16:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I changed the link to Answers in Genesis from "The thousands of articles and media programs on this site answer questions about creation/evolution, dinosaurs, and much more." to a more descriptive note about its support of Young-Earth creationism. I think this is much better way to know which site says what than something that sounds like it came from a press release. --Weyoun6 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AiG link 

message: The article the link takes you to doesn't refer to geocentrism in the sense that the Sun orbits the Earth. Modern geocentrism says that Earth is the center of the universe in that it located at the center. This theory, depending on the theorist's viewpoint, does not say that the whole universe revolves around Earth. User: Mred64
:It actually does since the immobile Earth is also a part of the idea. Joshuaschroeder 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Geocentrism 

message: * Evolution Deceit 
This site was deleted(because of low google serach) but this article doesn't have an Islamic link other than that one.(that I saw) Should it be kept? (I don't neccesarily disagree with the user that deleted the article) Falphin 22:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Link 

message: I just took this out:
:Although many opponents to Creationism have shunned different Holy Texts as being unsupported and even mythical, a growing number of the world's scientists are accepting the likelihood of a greater intelligence responsible for creating the universe. This movement is commonly known as Creation-Science, or Scientific Creationism. Generally, Creation-scientists are found in the field performing studies similar to their Darwinian colleagues'. But unlike their fellow scientists, Creation-scientists tend to reject the theory of abiogenesis in place of Creationism, while at the same time helping to analyze their findings which can be used to support Creationism. So far, evidence is existent in nearly all the major fields of science, including geology and astronomy.
I know it's not good Wikipedia manners and not nice in general to delete entire paragraphs, but I think this is POV and invites problems. Holy texts have been not been "shunned" -- they're simply not suitable sources of information; if Salva knows of "a growing number of scientists" accepting creationism, then show bona fide statistics. Then also, scientists are not divided between "Darwinians" and "Creationists" as implied, and abiogenesis is not a theory, it's an umbrella term for hypotheses that life came from ordinary non-living matter. And finally, the evidence for creationism has been shown to be lacking or flawed, and at times even dishonestly presented as true by people who come with scientific grades obtained at "diploma mills".
This article is rather messy already, Salva -- please don't insert such inflammatory material. There's a policy about conflicting POVs here. Discuss your ideas here, don't dump them into the main article. --Pablo D. Flores 03:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of Scientific Creationism

message: I have taken the most common elements from each definition on [] and combined them to get this definition:
Creationism is the doctrine that the universe, life, and each human soul was created by God as described in Genesis. Bensaccount 03:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining creationism

message: Ive restored the topicbox 'creationism2' which is a vertical version of the creationism template. How were "links" the basis for remoiving it? Its based on the same thing, and likewise editable. Vertical is more accessible (hence useful) in longer articles. -SV|t 18:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cosmetics

message: There is no notice about permission being granted to use the image  xx01.jpg which I found on this website. http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/model/creationmodel_01.html Could Salva who uploaded the image please provide the permissions, or should it be removed as a violation? Thou shalt not steal. Dabbler 22:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being that YOU have the responsibility for putting that copyright statement on the image page. If you don't put it there, how do I or anyone else know that you haven't taken it without permission? There is NO false testimony in MY statements, only facts, a question and a statement of one of the fundamental laws of human morality.  Dabbler 11:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way I tried to find any statement that supports Salva's claim that free use is permitted but I couldn't easily locate it on the site and I don't have the time to search the site completely top to bottom. Dabbler 11:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The site claims that "All material copyright© 1998 by Carl E. Baugh", it doesn't say that anyone can use the images. Joshuaschroeder 15:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If no copyright information is provided, the image will be deleted. -- Ec5618 15:40, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Understood - I may have confused the source for the image.  No matter, I will see if I can get permission. Salva 16:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright status of image?