Talk:Creationism/Archive 16

message: sorry for typing through the above contributer's contribution. I was rather over eager to respond and hadnt checked the edit page properly in the dark:}80.192.59.202 18:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits that are poorly researched and unverifiable can and are routinely removed. What's tendentious is your continuing practice of making edits that are poorly researched and unverifiable as if to bait people into reverting them. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a few examples of my "poorly researched and unverifiable" edits. I will research and verify them. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2RR 

message: I am endeavoring to amend the NPOV of the Creation Science introduction, as there has been a general consensus that the original wording is unacceptable. (See discussion page.) 
This is not vandalism! If you don't agree with my changes, please try to amend them further, but reverting is not helpful in this case. Comments are welcome. Tschel 17:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation Science section 

message: With jihadist beliefs and idealogy asides, are there any information or links on creations or intelligent designs in mainstream Islam?
:I know they have stuff of their own, because I googled for it once or something, and there was some Islamic site with Creation science on it :/. The one I found said something about butterflies, their arguments seemed to focus on different things than Creation Science in Christianity normally does. Homestarmy 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Islamic creationism, , , . •Jim62sch• 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also five different links at the bottom of that wiki article, just so you're aware whoever started this section. Homestarmy 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd of thought you could look in the same Torah that christians and Jews look in for the Islamic view. Of course colour me wrong if thats not true Duckmonster 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, Islam seems to of been created based on the idea that the Torah and Bible was/were corrupted. (Don't ask me how, I don't see how it would of been technically possible) Homestarmy 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism in Islam? 

message: Ross and I seem to disagree which phrasing is better. I support "try to incorporate" because that doesn't comment on whether or not the incorporation is successful where as "incorporate" makes them sound like it was successful. Would simly "use" be a reasonable alternative? JoshuaZ 02:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a moot point: SA deleted the sentence (and for good cause, I think). •Jim62sch• 17:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "try to incorporate" as opposed to "incorporate" 

message: This only covers Christian and Jewish creationism, but mainly Christian. What happened to other forms of creationism? Zazaban 02:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARGH 

message: I'd be bold and change it, but i'm not heavily familiar with the editing atmosphere of this article, and i'm very curious as to how exactly "active acceptance" made it's way into the intro, it doesn't appear cited, and I don't understand why creationism would have to be "actively" accepted by someone for them to actually be a creationist. Homestarmy 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Homes.  I'm not sure what passive acceptance would be.  I removed it.  Let's see what happens. •Jim62sch• 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism is the "active" acceptance?

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most obvious reason to me, for the low number of in-line citations, is that this is sort-of a "super article". By that I mean that in is has a wide general "scope"; covering issues raised in many other articles, such as Creation science, various religious views, creation-evolution controversy, and others. I expect the more specific articles will have the majority of the in-line refs. rossnixon 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps its too wide if much of it can't be inline cited.... Homestarmy 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Preposterous. That kind of attitude specifically conflicts with Wikipedia:Summary style. --ScienceApologist 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, the summary style says to make paragraphs shorter and relate to a new article when they get too long, how is that supporting making articles wider and wider in scope? Homestarmy 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, looking at some of the refs inside the list, some of them actually do list the page numbers and seem to cover a topic which would be in a specific spot of this article, I dunno why they aren't already inline :/. Homestarmy 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article is OLD and there were many more styles for referencing before someone came up with the ref tag. Please fix them yourself if you have the time. --ScienceApologist 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I vaguely remember discussing this before, but why is the TOCleft being used? Particularly under the creationism template which is pushing it well into Overview. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia TOC positioning and is a bit confusing. - RoyBoy 800 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reaosn for this either. For this article, the TOC worked perfectly well in its default position. -Silence 08:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOCleft 

message: Someone has tagged the St Augustine quote as a Sermon. Really? The writings of a Saint read like a sermon? You shock me. I don't think this is what the Sermon tag was intended for, and should be removed. If the editor doesn't think the quote should be there, then that is a different matter, and could be discussed. --Michael Johnson 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the section should be removed along with the tag. Wikipedia articles should quote relevant secondary sources to explain the subject, and not finish with a quick sermon by someone's favourite saint. Addhoc 09:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to reintroduce this section, could you include a secondary reference or explain why this section doesn't require a secondary source in terms of WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks, Addhoc 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sermon? 

message: This otherwise quite good article fails to contain a section on "Creationism" (immediate divine creation). This is the "creationism" that contrasts with Traducianism. Please see point #3 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm for more info on "creationism" (immediate divine creation). I may have time to add this section but would be pleased if someone beat me to it. :-)  CyberAnth 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Creationism" (immediate divine creation) v. Traducianism

message: It seems like about half this article is from an obviously american point of view. This isn't a bad thing, but considering the amount of Americans who support creationism compared to the world average of Creationism believers, I have a feeling that this article favours the Creationism point of view, especially when considering the scientific and consensus evidence against it. Almost any creationism or Intelligent design theory disobeys or ignores around 50 scientific facts (not including evolution)agreed to by all current evidence . This huge amount of overwhelming evidence isn't made clear enough. Also, too much of the article just gives percentages of creationism support from various groups Tosayit 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that's about correct. The problem we have in writing this article is that the consensus against creationism is so heavily slanted that most scientists simply ignore the issue in terms of verifiable sources on the subject. There are only a few resources that actively combat creationism from the scientific perspective. The best we can hope for is to include these sources and explanations of the scientific consensus that directly contradicts. Please do add to the article as you see fit. --ScienceApologist 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also concur, the article is sympathetic towards creationism and is slightly US centric. There isn't sufficient emphasis that virtually all scientists, covering a wide spectrum of disciplines, overwhelmingly reject this doctrine. Addhoc 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While the American centric issue might be serious I'm not inclined to agree with the issue of it being too sympathetic to creationism. In particular, regarding Addhoc's comment that "here isn't sufficient emphasis that virtually all scientists, covering a wide spectrum of disciplines, overwhelmingly reject this doctrine" while that is clearly true of Young Earth Creationism it is less so of other types especially theistic evolution. JoshuaZ 13:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi JoshuaZ, I think to some extent our disagreement relates to the difference between the formal and popular usage of the term "creationism", which is covered in the theistic evolution section, "in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis". Reading this article, I personally consider the overall tone to be different from articles such as Fossil or Evolution. Obviously the intent of Wikipedia is to have articles that are compatible with each other instead of sympathetic towards their subject. Addhoc 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Point of View 

message: Where is this Category found in the article source?  I believe that it should be removed. Dan Watts 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information. Dan Watts 19:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *It is due to the tag asking for a citation for the following statement: "It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the U.S.) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution continues." -Silence 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories: Articles with unsourced statements 

message: *I took out the site on True Origins because the site was extremely biased in its support of creationism & intelligent design. It was essentially a creationist site masquerading as a non-biased site. 
-intranetusa
::That is not a good reason to remove it. The idea is that it gives people somewhere to discuss their own POV, and hopefully leave this page alone. I have reinstated it. --Michael Johnson 04:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing True origins link 

message: I probably shouldn't be complaining because it's not my domain (I'm a firm believer of evolution), but I want to know the creationist side of the story, and right now, it doesn't look too good.
I don't know about anyone else, but looking at that section myself, every statement about the creationist point of view is a criticism, meaning there's no rebuttal. Take a look at evolution's misunderstandings page to get an idea of what's missing here.--Dlevenstein 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Scientific critique of creationism" section takes a sober turn 

message: It appears that whoever did it intended to somehow separate them so that they could use caps in reference to one definention and no caps in another, which seems a bit odd to me since the article ought to be written well enough that a reader can understand which is which in context anyway, but my main problem with this is this sentence: "Where the distinction is important in this article we'll use a capital C or Creationism(2) for the 2nd, more specific sense." Self-references = very bad. Homestarmy 17:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how is the first word of the article not the beginning of a sentence, with the semicolon separating the first part from the numbers, its like the beginning of two sentences. Homestarmy 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Addhoc 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When did the intro get changed with the numbers?

message: Whether or not the details of Schroder's approach are correct it is clearly true that time from 'outside' an expanding universe would look very different from time inside it (as per many multiverse theories). Schroder is a serious published author and an important ref for those who are trying to maximise the consonance between the Bible and science.  He is involved at least somewhat in Anthony Flew's conversion to theism. I appreciate that some people find anything to do with creationism, in any sense, "ridiculous" and that is their right.  But it is not right to supress references to this approach. In the entry I don't think I take a POV on whether it is valid - if I do please improve the text don't just revert.  Thanks. NBeale 15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I improved the text by removing it.  See the link at top of the section you're editing, there's a whole article dedicated to the topic, going into detail here is unwarranted.   Put it there. *Spark* 15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day/age and Relativisitc creationism 

message: I don't intend for this to be controversial, or anything of the sort. I'm just looking for an article, and wondering if I am looking in the wrong places. Given as there is an article on evidence of evolution, is there a similar article demonstrating evidence of Creation? I don't know if I am perhaps looking in the wrong areas. If there is not an entire article, does anyone know of the whereabouts of a section in an article that discusses evidence of Creation/Intelligent Design (outside of the Bible)? If so, could someone please provide a link for me? Thanks in advance. :) --Dreaded Walrus 03:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect such an article would quickly be AFDed out of existance for not having enough "scientific" support, or it would just be force-fed with extensive rebuttles for any evidence contained therein :/. Homestarmy 06:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah Homestarmy is probably right...since it would be hard to have the scientific support.__Seadog ♪ 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However I can't seem to find anything in the deletion log.__Seadog ♪ 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my thought. Is there any article that either of you know of that even has a section that discusses any evidence that Creation/Intelligent Design "happened"? Or is it all based upon the Bible? I myself "believe" in evolution, however a friend of mine told me there was much evidence for Creation, "perhaps moreso than for evolution". So I figured I'd ask around here. :) Thanks anyway. --Dreaded Walrus 17:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that if you do find a page on Wikipedia listing "evidence for Creation" anywhere, chances are some other editors have long ago listed it in the Pseudoscience category and found oodles of references from people refuting it, and most likely denying many opportunities for rebuttles with Undue Weight, since sadly, most of the rebuttles aren't on high reliability websites while the evolution side references often takes the form of university statements, famous reaserchers, etc. etc.. Depending on the question you want answered though, if you're just looking for evidence that Creationists use to justify God's existance through the existance of the universe, that'd be the Teleological argument most strongly, but unfortunently, Wikipedia's articles on that argument and those like it are rather low quality. (The teleological one has no references it seems for one thing). And I don't mean low quality as in "I'm a Creationist who's fed up with those articles not supporting Creationism", I mean low quality as in their poorly organized, don't have many editors looking at them, have large tracts of unreferenced statements and whatnot, are often filled with weasel wording so that they can have at least some content, or other legitimate encyclopedic problems like that. Your friend sounds like he might know a better place for evidence heh. Homestarmy 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Creation is self-evident. Every morning, I wake up and see evidence for creation! Creationism has the same evidence as evolutionism. It's the interpretation of the evidence which varies somewhat, depending on the worldview and accompanying presumptions of the enquirer. rossnixon 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ...Er, no. Creationism has The Bible. Evolution has the world. Adam Cuerden talk 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ross, I don't want to turn this into a creation v evolution discussion so I'm going to try to keep it brief. That claim is a common creationist one and it has zero basis in fact. Evolution explains many things like the phylogenetic tree and cladistics which are only reasonably explained through evolutin. There is no a prior reason a creator who was poofing things would create the nested hierarchy of life but it is wonderfully consistent with what one would expect from evolution. In 1840 almost no scientists accepted some form of evolution and by 1900 almost all bioligists did. Why? Because the evidence didn't allow for other reasonable interpretations. JoshuaZ 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ross is right - there's no way to distinguish a world that was created to look like it had come about through natural processes from one what had come about through natural processes.  But that doesn't mean that there's any evidence for creation.  Guettarda 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While that statement is true in the strict sense, we can distinguish between a world that came about through largely natural processes and a world created without regard to natural processes who wasn't acting in a deceptive fashion. In that regard, the evidence makes far more sense to interpret as supporting evolution unless one posits a deceptive deity. JoshuaZ 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, but that's a different issue.  Guettarda 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Or, more correctly, evidence for creation that meets Reliable Source and Undue Weight guidelines :(. Homestarmy 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To JoshuaZ. Your examples of hierarchy are pseudoscientific (not observational); except for cases of sideways "evolution" (no increase in complexity or new traits). And as for "no other reasonable explanations", by that of course you actually mean "no other reasonable explanations that I am comfortable with". The Bible is actually a Reliable Source, whereas scientific consensus changes every day. rossnixon 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err....no it's not. Read WP:RS. We can only use the Bible to talk about itself or Christianity. yandman 09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, I think what he's refering to is the old apologetic argument that the Bible is constant and therefore somehow better. Among other problems no one is critiquing the bible just certain failible humans interpretation of the text. Also, this is equivalent to saying that if two people are arguing and one of them is willing to change his mind and the other is not we should assume the one who is not is automatically correct. Finally, regarding the pseudoscientific claim, Ross I'm not sure what you mean- the hierarchies are observed that's the whole point. In fact, Linaeus noticed them well before Darwin and based his entire classification system around them. If the hierarchy didn't exist the modern classification system would be useless. JoshuaZ 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here are 29 evidences described in great detail. Adam Cuerden talk 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: DW, your friend who told you that there was much evidence for Creation, "perhaps moreso than for evolution", may have been thinking of the statements commonly made by evangelical creationists such as Answers in Genesis or of course of the intelligent design claims: both have been explored by the US courts, and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case concluded with an exhaustive exploration of whether ID is science which exposes the basic premise: the argument from ignorance. William Paley had a good go at it with natural theology. However there's nothing to stop there from being evidence outside science, though of course the supernatural has this annoying habit of being too intangible to be called evidence. Existence of God looks like covering a lot of the ground. If you still feel there's a need for an evidence of Creation article, then feel free to start one: the above points and links would all have to be included in it. However it would be likely to boil down to "people who find something that science has yet to explain, or disbelieve the scientific explanation, take that as conclusive evidence of supernatural Creation". The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repeatedly approached "Creationists" and religious types here and not one has taken me up on the offer to help them write an article, a REAL article with real evidence or at least the hope of real evidence of a creator, supernatural events etc. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as cutting and pasting mined quotes taken out of context and arguments that were decisvely dismissed 100 years ago from a creationist web site. They are not as brainless as "the dinosaurs all died in the great flood, and all those fossils are the bones of creatures that died in the great flood". To do this properly you probably cannot attack the favorite targets of the ranting bible thumpers, like evolution and the big bang. You cannot do this without VERY hard thought and effort, at least as hard as what scientists are doing. What is interesting to me is that not one creationist has ever taken me up on my offer. It strikes me that they are not really interested in thinking or compiling evidence for God scientifically etc. They are more interested in being annoying and using the same worn out arguments that failed 10 years ago, 50 years ago or 100 years ago. Interesting isnt it?--Filll 14:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "evidence of Creation" article 

message: Most of the sites in Wikipedia on their discussion pages allow debate. Only a few do not and I also note that 99% of the Fundamentalist generated sites do not allow discussion also. Magnum Serpentine 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Debate is supposed to be technically allowed on all talk pages, you shouldn't be banned for it or anything as long as you don't break any policies alot :/. What exactly do you want to talk about concerning this article? Homestarmy 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A small precision: Debating the article is allowed on all talk pages. yandman 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I don't think its right for someone to tell people who want to debate creationism to take it off Wikipedia's website and to some creationist web site. Magnum Serpentine 05:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allow me to explain further here is a direct quote from above. 
[quote]IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.[/quote]
This is what I am talking about. And I have debated other things on other discussion pages. This is just one of a few that will not allow itMagnum Serpentine 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Talk pages are not for debating, proselytizing, or otherwise attempting to convince others of one's own point of view. They are for collaborating on the article. While this may include describing different points of view, pieces of evidence, &c., it should be pretty clear where the difference is. --FOo 07:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should look at the Pluto page. There is productive debate in the discussion pages thereMagnum Serpentine 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: talk.origins, alt.talk.creationism  Gzuckier 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to open up discussion to debate Creationism 

message: Homestarmy suggested that an introduction to creationism article was  was needed. I am not convinced, but I do think your lead could be cleaned up a bit. What do you think? do you want specific comments?--Filll 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to creationism, or a clean up of the Lead 

message: Umm, ok, so what's up with that?
It sounds like they're trying to paint people who believe God created the universe to be ultra-patriotic, red-neck, uneducated people (with no sense of taste, either). Whoever came up with that lie? Honestly that sounds like slander and propaganda. It's also a very uninformed and biased position. Is it that hard to fathom that people who believe in Creation can be educated, articulate, intelligent people with a diversity of political opinions, just like any other group?
I don't get what the creationist car is supposed to say. Is this supposed to be a an accurate description of an average Creationist car? Does my Prius count as a creationist car? Can we put a picture of it on this site and label it "creationist car"?
Obviously there's a message that's trying to be sent with that picture: People who believe in Creation are dumb lunatic extreme-right-wingers without critical thinking skills.
Please.
So stop the slander. If you want to argue against creationism, can't you at least do so honestly without resorting to propaganda? This isn't even supposed to be an argument page, it's supposed to be an accurate, unbiased presentation of creationism. And this picture hardly fits the bill.
I will wait until tomorrow to actually delete the picture in order to allow for some feedback and possible rebuttal.
MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.150.190 (talk • contribs) (07:31, 21 December 2006
:The creationist car is supposed to say what it says on the car. Someone opposed to "evolution" feels that a good way to get their message across is to paint it on their car. It exists. If your car is covered in slogans which you feel illustrate the article better, feel free to upload an image to the Commons, and we can look for consensus as to which image is best for the purpose. But don't go deleting things because you're making assumptions about the car owner. .. dave souza, talk 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the caption slightly to make it clear that it's a pro-creationist car. -- ChrisO 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, missed that last edit. I changed it too, this time to "anti-evolution". Feel free to change back (wouldn't "pro-creationism" be better than "pro-creationist"?). Anyway, regardless of the caption, I have always liked this particular illustration of the type of creationism that fully rejects evolution. AvB ÷ talk 09:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the car on the page provides a nice illustration (IMHO) of the populist and grassroots nature of the creationism movement.  It's something that everyday individuals feel is important enough to paint up their car for.  As such, it's a good example of the straightforward tactics of the movement.  In some respects, this could be contrasted with the scientific community, where more formal articulation is the norm.  But that sounds terribly pretentious, so I'll stop.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find several more pictures of the car on Flickr (search for "creationism car"). Amusingly, the license plate was NOPRIM8... -- ChrisO 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs more pictures, frankly. And this picture is a good start. I would like to have a picture of the "icthus" symbol eating a "darwin" fish with legs on it. Maybe some pictures of prominent creationists like Ham and Hovind. I think that the alligator on the car's hood has a very happy look on his face and is very charming. It is true that it creates a certain image of creationism, but to dispell that, all you need is some evidence of better scholarship and thought. I have offered to many creationists to help them with an intellectually substantial article on evidence for a diety. Not one has taken me up on it. That speaks volumes.--Filll 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationist car?? 

message: There are two things that I noticed:  Firstly, why the 10,000 year old limit for young earth creationism?  I thought it was common for YEC to go to 20,000 years or so.  Also I didn't see a mention of each day is a 1,000 year creation period that is held in some Christian creationist circles.  Have these items been previously discussed?  Thank you 66.75.8.138 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "1 day = 1000 years" is rarely (if ever) applied to creation. One major problem is that many plants can't survive 1000 years without birds and insects (e.g. pollination). rossnixon 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of an ICR Acts & Facts article where their guest writer talked about the age of the earth with adding 6,000 years for the creation process.  I'm not sure how prevalent or meaningful this view is, but I thought I'd bring it up since I hadn't seen it discussed.  Also, do you have any knowledge of Creation beliefs for a 20,000 year old earth?  I was first told this many years ago as the general Creationist standard. 66.75.8.138 21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See day-age creationism JPotter 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes 

message: The supernatural can be reasonably well defined as that which is beyond our knowledge and ability to reason about. (As our article Supernatural puts it, the supernatural is "beyond verifiable measurement.") It is not merely unknown, but unknowable by definition: this being why "it's the will of God" would be sufficient (if we believe it) to explain any unexplainable event.
But science depends on verifiable measurement. Both the experimental sciences and the observational sciences depend on it. Even physics cannot be done purely from the armchair; it must be done with reference to experiment and observation. And scientific results are confirmed or falsified by reference to further verifiable measurement.
The inaccessibility to science of the supernatural is not a matter of bias or bigotry. It isn't that scientists don't want to deal with the supernatural. It's that the techniques we call "science" require their study matter to have certain attributes that the supernatural is defined as lacking.
Asking for science to deal with the supernatural isn't like asking who's the richest guy in a commune of monks who have taken vows of poverty -- where there's a well-defined answer ("None of them!") but it's not the one you want. It's like asking how heavy the prime numbers are, or if truth is more green than beauty: asking the question reveals a misunderstanding of what the terms refer to.
This is not to say, of course, that science can't deal with claims that are naturalistic but based on a belief in the supernatural. For instance, if some religionists believe that prayer supernaturally makes a person have fewer colds, then the verifiable part of this claim -- Do people who pray have fewer colds? -- can be studied scientifically, even if the supernatural part cannot.
Likewise, if creationists claim that the Earth was created by God a few thousand years ago, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together ... science cannot test the supernatural part of this claim, but the verifiable part can be (and has been) scientifically studied. --FOo 05:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science requires verifiability 

message: I have reordered the section (without any other change) because I think the criticism of a belief system from within its own ranks takes precedence over any outside criticism.
Also, within that, the Archbishop of Canterbury has precedence over George Murphy (no slight intended to Murphy).
Trishm 06:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism of creationism 

message: There are antievolution people from other faiths. What about the Hindus? The Muslims? Why are we not mentioning them?--Filll 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Hinduism and Creationism? Wolf ODonnell 15:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After that, I went and made Hinduism and Creationism so I know a lot more about it now. There is a creationist movement in Hinduism, but it is of a very different character. There is a much more serious creationist movement in Islam, however. US Creationists wish they could have the success of the Muslim creationists. We have a short description and links, and that is probably reasonable at this time. --Filll 15:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other faiths