Template talk:Creationism

message: no, schroeder.  geocentrism is not a mode of creationism -- geocentrism was proposed by Ptolemy, a greek and a pagan.  it had its day when the christians accepted greek philosophy as truth (similar to recent attempts to incorporate evolution) but is NOT a creationist idea, because the position of the earth in the universe has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was created or not.  it is accepted by absolutely NONE of the creationist organizations referenced in the creationism articles.  it has no place here except in your continued efforts to force your ignorance on others by ascribing everything stupid to creationists.  by the way, why aren't you editing the creation biology page you were so concerned about protecting?  do you really think we don't see through your games?  Ungtss 05:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: This is fine by me. If you want to make another category in here calling it "controversial creationism" or something like that, I'd find that reasonable as well. I just think we have to be fair. If someone says that their idea is creationist, even if both you and I disagree with them, we should include their idea under creationism, shouldn't we? Joshuaschroeder 06:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds fine with me.  Ungtss 16:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: demoting extreme minority view geocentrism.)

message: I can understand why the vertical format was somewhat inconvenient, and why the graphic doesn't work as well in a horizontal format (it's based on having a fixed width and lining up with what's below, but horizontally you can't have a fixed height to the text so nothing lines up), but I do have to say that the new box is exceeding less attractive and much less useful in it's location on the page. Is the partial page layout inconvenience of a vertical box (used on many, many other pages to great effect) really enough of a problem to necessitate changing to this big hulking bland box? DreamGuy 14:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
:the vertical template was way to big and distracting. Most of the vertical templates are very thin and plains as to minimise the distraction. Beside the vertical design works better for chronological event lists. As for the template being to plain I agree and I think I have found a solution for the pic in the following,
	Topics related to Creationism
	Creationism: Creationist theology - Theistic realism
	Creation beliefs: Creation according to Genesis - Young Earth Creationism - Old Earth creationism - Day-Age Creationism - Intelligent design - Evolutionary creationism - Modern geocentrism
	Noah's ark: Flood geology - Vapor canopy - Genealogies of Genesis
	Creation science: Creation biology - Creation anthropology - Dating Creation - Creationist cosmologies
	
Creation-evolution controversy: History of creationism - Creation and evolution in public education - Quotes about creation and evolution
so I am updating.--LexCorp 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New design: Don't get the point

message: This template appears to be (i) underutilised (only used on a handful of articles) & out of date (many of the articles listed have been renamed or merged). Is it still needed, or does  suffice? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this template still needed?