Talk:Creation

message: why is this article separate from Creation belief?  Ungtss 19:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge? 

message: "Some believe God organized worlds from existing matter"
I have NEVER heard such a thing. What religion or what sect proposes this ? Franc28 01:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
If no one can answer this question, then I'll have to edit it back for being a completely spurious claim. Franc28 09:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
As a devout Christian and Creationist, I can find no Biblical text that says anything except "God created the Earth". He made the Earth from nothing.Twobytwo 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from existing matter ? 

message: The article says: Creation (theology), the act by a God or gods of bringing the universe into existence from unlimited energy, e.g (Isaiah 40:26) rather than from "nothing".
Isaiah 40:26 is a spurious reference here - that verse is simply showing how God calls out the starry host, i.e. makes them appear at night as far as people living on the earth are concerned. I assume that what is meant by "unlimited energy" must be energy separate and distinct from God - the Bible only says that God created from his strength, not from existing energy separate from himself!
Purple Banana 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation (theology) reference? 

message: I propose a merger with create since "create" is the root word of "creation". -Eep² 09:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with create 

message: Per the article on intelligent design, I do not think that ID should be listed under the "science" heading.  That article indicates that intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis, and that it arises primarily from religious antecedents.  I have thus moved it up into the philosophy section.  I leave it to other editors to decide whether it belongs here at all.  Silly rabbit 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial reaction was that ID doesn't belong here at all, since this is a disambiguation page .  When this edit was reverted, I then moved intelligent design into the correct category (creationism).  First of all, it is not a scientific theory, as the new editor is keen on suggesting: the Dover trial establishes that, as do all references over at the main article intelligent design.  Secondly, on more pragmatic grounds, the only way ID could conceivably be disambiguated from "creation" is as a subset of creationism.  Then the creationist editor inexplicably put intelligent design in two categories.  (Remember, this is supposed to be a disambiguation page for creation, not an advertisement for intelligent design.)  I've finally had enough.  I'm removing it completely based on WP:DAB.  If anyone wants to argue for its inclusion, bring it here and talk about it. Silly rabbit 12:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent design 

message: All Wrong, All Lost:
To break the restriction of a linear time sequence, The Lost need empirical data - uncorrupted, honest data. However, the Lost have filtered all their data with a scientific-religious presumption: a finite universe with a finite number of dimensions.
The Lost do not understand, nor do they perceive their conflict with the infinite Universe and the infinite number of dimensions...
"...nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it..."  (Ecclesiastes 3:14)--FinalNotice (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of the Lost: Atheist & Theist, Agnostic & Gnostic 

message: I recently placed a double star against the entry for Genesis creation narrative so that it appeared as a sub-set of Creation myth, both being stories of supernatural beginnings. This has been reverted under the guise of NPOV which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what has just happened. Other views would be welcomed. Abtract (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: conflict Nikolaifruzhev1993 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian and Russian wars 2021 

message: As a test of the organizational theory of harmony, might we reconsider naming "disambiguation" to "concept"? Dyxtan (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for renaming disambiguation