Talk:Creationism/Archive 18

message: <H3> 4+ archives are excesive 10+ archives are worse </H3>
I merged the archives, I think material discussed loses relevancy when  broken. I simply cut pasted material together. Page will load faster than user can read even on a 56k machine. This page was 200+kb large. Excesive is an under statement. Archived all entries till april. -- Cat chi? 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: I see all of the pro-evolution liberal/socialist gore nuts are still getting to say anything they want without any fear of ever having their POV squashed. 
Wiki is pathetic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.184.6 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 April 2007
:Please sign your posts using ~~~~ so we can see who we're talking to. Thanks for your concern about the POV of this article. Please do point out specific instances and then we can work together to improve the article.
:Please try not to make personal attacks against other editors. I know it's frustrating but it is possible to make improvements without needing to start a bunfight. A sincere desire to produce a quality NPOV article will be met positively and with cooperation.  SheffieldSteel 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually thought that Wiki was controlled by right-wing nut jobs with a pro-Christrian agenda.  But since this America, and we have free speech, I figured that me, along with a few of my commie friends would stand up to it, and slowly make this encyclopedia as neutral as possible.  The difference between you and me is that I have the guts to stand up for what I believe, but you choose to whine.  Wiki is getting better every day.  Orangemarlin 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there's something that's going to be POV.  Anyways, I'm not sure I understand your reference of "miles to go before I sleep."  I'm probably missing a funny pop reference here.  Orangemarlin 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening by Robert Frost. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libs Still Controlling Wiki I See? 

message: What's this? It has just been added to the article as a whole new section - which reads like a lot of original research without much in the way of verifiable sources. Does it really exist? If so, shouldn't it have its own wikipedia article at Recolonisation theory, and shouldn't the section here primarily point to that article? I'm not going to write such an article, because I've not heard of "recolonisation theory" before I came across it here - and a google search reveals... well, not a lot, in fact! Anyone know anything about it? If it's notable enough for mention here, it's notable enough for its own article. Snalwibma 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out. It's both nonsense and, as far as I can tell, non-notable. Also, the description given was full of unsourced commentary. And the only source given was a primary website.--Stephan Schulz 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't find any reliable sources discussing the matter either. It should also be removed from the table. JoshuaZ 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's actually a Victorian theory. Gould describes it in one of his books. Each geological age with its own fauna, then complete destruction, followed by the Garden of Eden and the current age? Victorian catastrophic seperate creations. It never really caught on, even at the time, and, indeed, Gould's description of it was probably the first modern account of it. It's kind of scary if creationists are reading Gould's description of failed forms of Creationism to mine ideas. Adam Cuerden talk 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it is not a theory. Something that is massively inconsistent with easily observable facts (e.g. radioactive decay, the constancy of which can be  measured through astronomical observations even for ages past) is not a theory, it's nonsense. Of course, we include a lot of nonsense here, but it has to be notable nonsense described in reliable sources. What we have is only an incomplete self-description on a nice, but self-published web site. --Stephan Schulz 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable nonsense.  Oh, that's now one of my favorite statements ever on here.  Stephan, you made my day.  Orangemarlin 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to be useful (or at least entertaining ;-). --Stephan Schulz 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I can appreciate the joke, if not the sentiment [:]P   Seriously, though, radioactive dating is not a good argument for long ages, since it must assume initial isotope concentrations to be almost 100% parent matter - an assumption which is only reasonable if naturalism is presumed to be true in the first place. BTW, I agree that we don't need to include Recolonisation 'theory' in the article, but perhaps we could start a small article and link to it from here, and then wait to see if it grows? I must admit it's a slightly obscure subject, though -- WolfieInu 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read (and try to understand) Radiometric dating, Uranium-lead dating, and in particular Isochron dating. An extended technical discussion is here. In short, you are wrong about the initial isotope concentrations. Now, if we allow for supernatural intervention, Last Tuesdayism is as plausible as anything else. But the almighty IPU faking a world with an apparent age (or variants of this speculation) is philosophically rather unsatisifable, and certainly not science. --Stephan Schulz 19:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right about my general understanding of radiometric dating: I was talking rubbish, and need to do some more research. Sorry about that, I stand corrected. -- WolfieInu 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Who is this woman Gould mentions? This Early Modern Geology reference mentions Benoît de Maillet in 1748 proposing a series of epochs, later catastrophism proper beginning with Georges Cuvier, then adapted by William Buckland to support the Biblical flood, and the debate with Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism continuing to the 1850s with modified catastrophism the more favoured. History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth has more detail and supports the earlier demise of diluvialism. It has Darwin's tutor Adam  Sedgwick recanting it in 1831 but still supporting the truth of the Biblical flood, Buckland also changing his mind, and "Scriptural Geology" proponents running into difficulties by 1837. Then resurfacing,.... dave souza, talk 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really, but surely if we create a small article about it, it will attract activity if there still is some activity. Even if only for the historical interest. -- WolfieInu 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recolonisation theory 

message: Why is this last paragraph in here? It should be on the discussion page. Check out the evolution page; it doesn't tout the "opposition" and all their opinions and what they do with evidences; nor does it discuss the fraudulent cases associated with evolution. Another intellectually honest article by wikipedia. ;o( 
:I've reverted this statement by User:Keepyouhonest which was obviously placed in the article rather than the talk page by error or misunderstanding. The answer is, the paragraph shows the areas in which strict creationists make claims, WP:NPOV requires that we make clear the majority science position as well as their claims. Check out the evolution page; it does mention these religious controversies in a proportionate way in accordance with policy. ... dave souza, talk 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree, even as a creationist. It just so happens that what the world considers NPOV is not creationism. Don't worry, Keepyouhonest... "therefore be not conformed to this world"... ;)  -- WolfieInu 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement added to article intro by Keepyouhonest

message: ...as I said during a previous discussion, perhaps we should provide a disambiguation page for this article? -- WolfieInu 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The OED has nothing on this term, and we cannot use a Wiki to source a Wiki as Wikis do not meet WP:RS
:"The OED on Creationism:
::A system or theory of creation: spec.    a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism);    b. The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism).
::1847 BUCH tr. Hagenbach's Hist. Doctr. II. 1 The theory designated Creationism..was now more precisely defined. 1872 LIDDON Elem. Relig. iii. 102 The other and more generally received doctrine is known as Creationism. Each soul is an immediate work of the Creator. 1880 GRAY Nat. Sc. & Relig. 89 The true issue as regards design is not between Darwinism and direct Creationism.
Also, this, from Str1977 is nonsense: "(created article for those denying the term)" . •Jim62sch• 10:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reasoned debate, Jim. It appears however that the term exists (see the AFD debate), no matter whether an article on the concept is placed under "Creationism (soul)" or "Creatianism". Str1977 (smile back) 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though as I understand the topic, it has absolutely no relation to creationism in the sense used on this page.  WLU 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creatianism

message: ... I'm not sure this article has one. While I don't agree with Creationism one iota, surely NPoV requires that both eventualities be accepted as equally likely, at least in this article? In reality, the view expressed is decidedly Evolutonist (especially in the intro), and so for the sake of article quality I'd argue that this be remedied. Disclaimer - I am definitely an evolutionist, I just think that this isn't NPoV. The fact that it's my PoV expressed is neither here nor there. --poorsodtalk 11:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, it doesn't have to present them as equally valid, because they're not. That's the NPoV, see undue weight, equal validity and Pseudoscience. Oh and "...I don't agree with creationism..but..", sounds alot like, "...well I'm not racist, but..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfuciusOrnis (talk • contribs) 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with ConfuciousOrnis here.  There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that are controversial.  If you present both sides as being essentially equal, then there is a disservice done to the reader.  I believe that verifiability from well-written, peer-reviewed, and published sources far outweighs a few pieces of speculation.  However, this article is about a religious doctrine--to be NPOV, this article should thoroughly describe the doctrine, but place a few pieces of SPOV (that would be the scientific POV) to state what the "other side" thinks.  Go to the Evolution article for a thorough and NPOV explanation of the science.  Orangemarlin 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Give me a break. It is hard to put much credence in poorly written tirade from an anon. What exactly are you protesting? That ConfuciusOrnis drew a particularly apt comparison and made a great analogy? I have been on these pages long enough to be able to smell a creationist, and that turn of phrase definitely is a red flag, particularly when dealing with such a feeble excuse for an alternative scientific theory as creationism. If these articles were not diligently policed, they would soon degenerate into religious polemics and creationist tracts full of the most outrageous statements, completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Given the visibility of Wikipedia, this would be a very undesirable situation. We do not have enough editors interested in real science working on these articles to even keep up with the creationist nonsense that has accumulated here on WP (for example, see evolutionism which is an embarassment for an encyclopedia). Another dead giveaway that "poorsod" and probably this anon as well are biblical literalists who are anti-science is the use of the term "evolutionist". ONLY creationists and Christian fundamentalists use that kind of language. You are quite welcome to contribute to some creationist wiki, if this is your inclination. We have quite enough of such things here already, but thanks anyway for your efforts. --Filll 10:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll, if you can smell creationists, that probably means you've been online for so long, nanobots have travelled through your internet tubes and set up a wireless connection between your olfactory nerves and nanobots hiding in or near other people's computers, and that's generally a strong sign you might be suffering from Wikipediholicism, not a sign of faithfully policing articles from our vast right-wing conspiracy against all you evilutionists. Just a thought. Homestarmy 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Responded on your talk page, I think my big old rant of a reply sort of tipped this off the deep end of off-topic. Homestarmy 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: DNFTT. A quick survey of this anon demonstrates that it is a high school student who is probably just having a juvenile tantrum. Maybe a nice block is in order.--Filll 16:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you block everyone who criticizes you? Do you really think you are that unassailable? --Fradulent Ideas 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I criticized him humorously, and i'm not blocked :/. Homestarmy 16:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fradulent Ideas, I think you missed the point.  The post by the anon was clearly an ad hom, has the appearance of trolling, and offers nothing to the discussion.  And Homestarmy is correct: while I very rarely agree with his positions on many subjects, I also know that he's an editor who can make his point without rancor and is really just seeking to share information.  Even when he is critical, he's nice about it and attacks the point (ad rem rather than the person (ad hom).  I hope this clears it up. •Jim62sch• 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: Since the scientific critique section was so short, I included a Dawkins quote to expand the section a bit. --Fradulent Ideas 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it said in the summary, because of WP:NPOV. –Fatalis 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aren't you forgetting WP:BITE?  Shouldn't you try to route this obviously well-intentioned editor's efforts to some place (perhaps another article) where the contributions would be appreciated? Just a thought. Silly rabbit 14:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't it neutral to mention Dakwins' opinion on the matter? --Fradulent Ideas 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this is clearly a section about scientific critique of creationism, I think that Richard Dawkins belongs in this section. He's the most vocal scientific opponent of creationist pseudoscience, after all. --Fradulent Ideas 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it okay for me to reinclude this statement? --Fradulent Ideas 11:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. That particular bit is about YECs, not creationism in general (which could include theistic evolution, for example), and the whole article is more editorial than scientific. –Fatalis 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is editorial because it is a critique. The section in question is about critique. --Fradulent Ideas 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't for us to decide what is a "scientific critique" and what isn't. Dawkins is a scientist and when he criticizes creationism he is providing a critique. There seems to be no reason to exclude his criticism. --Fradulent Ideas 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends -- was he writing as a scientist or as an atheist?  Admittedly, either way Dawkins had a point, however what he writes for popular consumption is not necessarily a scientific critique. •Jim62sch• 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe it doesn't fit in that section. Surely we can find a place for it in the article though since he is talking about creationism and he's probably the most famous living critic of the subject. --Fradulent Ideas 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific critique

message: The Merriam-Webster's dictionary  does not define creationism as we do. The article uses, supposedly, a definition provided by Hayward. I am not at liberty to get Hayward's book at this time so can someone tell me why Hayward's definition is more verifiable than the typical definition provided by Merriam-Webster? --Fradulent Ideas 12:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of verifiability, it's a matter of completeness and currency.  The dicdef you mention is virtually identical to the version in the 1935 Webster's unabridged diction, in other words, it's just a tad out of date. •Jim62sch• 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While creationists have tried to reinvent themselves, they have been famously unsuccessful. Intelligent design was supposed to remove the stigma, but the latest court decision and elections have reintroduced it in the public eye. I do not see many people who support evolution calling themselves "creationists" even though this article seems to indicate that this is what they do. I think the article is promoting a fringe conception of what creationism is: the popular conception is that it is the ideas that opposed evolution. --Fradulent Ideas 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The popular conception is not always the right one, and certainly isn't the only one that a respectable encyclopedia should cover. Homestarmy 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit difficult to determine how a pseudo-subject such as "creationism" can have a "right" conception. There is no reliable authority that determines what is and isn't creationism. I think we have to go with public judgement on this count. --Fradulent Ideas 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are a great many reliable authorities that qualify under WP:RS that have an opinion on what Creationism is, especially various dictionaries or other encyclopedias, and so far, it doesn't look like there's so many widely varying definitions that some would need to be excluded for notabilities sake. I don't see many evolution supporters calling themselves creationist myself, but i'm sure if I found a theistic evolutionist, they would probably agree more or less that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe [was] created in [its] entirety by a deity or deities". Why does there need to be one single reliable authority which is the only body authorized to make a singular, non-inclusive definition on what Creationism is? So far, it looks like there's plenty of room in the lead to include any more notable definitions on what Creationism is, removal of the U.S. centric material if necessary could provide plenty of space. Homestarmy 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So you want to provide multiple definitions?  Or a really long one?  What do you have in mind? •Jim62sch• 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me? Oh no, I think the given definitions are fine, several months ago I found some references that more or less (mostly less) said what's already there, though the wording, detail, and references have changed since then. I was just saying to Fraudulent that there doesn't have to be a single reliable authority on the subject in order to write the article. The lead is, as I think people have already pointed out, oddly U.S. centric, but I don't know how to fix that any more than other people do probably. Homestarmy 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you share those references with us? --Fradulent Ideas 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones I got were just from googling, I assume somebody must of considered the books that are being used now as more reliable than what I put there. Homestarmy 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Numbers' resource is great, but I'm not sure about Hayward's. --Fradulent Ideas 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of creationism

message: :Creation science was ruled unacceptable for teaching in public school science classes in the ruling for the court case Edwards versus Aguillard, after which creationists invented the concept of intelligent design that was recently ruled unacceptable for teaching in public school science classes in the Dover Panda Trial ruling. That's some pretty substandard english right there. Again, I suggest you discuss these edits you want to make first. ornis 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, I reverted you for making contentious and poorly written edits without discussing them. That sentence above for instance, can you really not see how ugly it is? and what exactly does it add over the original version: After legal judgements that teaching this in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, it was stripped of biblical references and called creation science, then when this was ruled unacceptable, presented as intelligent design.? If anything your version obfuscates the relationship of creationism, creation science and intelligent design. ornis 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  David Souza has recently cleaned up the new addition.  Though longer, it does seem to have advantages over the earlier version, at least on a cursory examination.  Silly rabbit 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is better. ornis 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It should really be Daniel v. Waters that stopped creationism being taught, McLean v. Arkansas ruled creation science unconstitutional in the relevant district but was ignored nationwide. The court cases are central to the renaming of creationism, it's complex but this very simplified account is focussed on the name changes. I was trying to minimise the detail in the lead to focus on the naming, but as is evident a bit more information makes the statement a much clearer summary of the article.  ... dave souza, talk 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the correction, Dave. I do think that the court cases are central, but is it possible to summarize this excellent prose and then put it in lower section? --Fradulent Ideas 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to see how. What do you have in mind? -- WolfieInu 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary statement that creationism has been ruled inappropriate for teaching in public schools. --Fradulent Ideas 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence about rulings

message: Could we remove or archive the "References" section? It's no logner relevant. -- WolfieInu 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference entries are auto-generated by some references in the preceding text. They will automatically vanish once that text is archived. I would remove the section only when it is empty, otherwise we have dangling references. --Stephan Schulz 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger, roger. -- WolfieInu 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTW 

message: I did a few things:
*I enacted the change regarding "most often" to "general". This was discussed above.
*I summarized the history of creationist legal battles for the lead and moved the detailed discussion to the appropriate section.
*I created a new subsection regarding early theology and creationist connections.
Please discuss whatever problems you have with these edits in this section.
Fradulent Ideas 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new sections and moving the legal outline to the intro to the history seemed to me to work pretty well, minor glitch being that the early theology should be a subsection of history and not a new section. The intro seemed rather confused about the 1920s, so I've briefly clarified that. .. dave souza, talk 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help. I changed the wording slightly as I felt the discussion was too halting. There is still some issue as to how to describe the turnaround that happened from the 1920s to the 1960s, but we are at a much better place now, I think. --Fradulent Ideas 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So there should be no tag at all indicating it is proposed for deletion? - Tεxτurε 16:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So there should be a tag for deletion on a template that was once but is no longer on TFD? - Hm. SV|t 20:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I'm only asking the question because the tag still existed but Joe D's comment said the vote was over.  Glad to see it's resolved. - Tεxτurε 20:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes

message: You don't need to include every word that can be associated with creationism, never mind the suptopics for these. The nav bar is not supposed to be longer than the articles. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
:Bensaccount explained his edits Ungtss; they weren't "destructive", its called editing... and in this case culling. - RoyBoy 800 8 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
::that's not an explanation, it's a bald and erroneous assertion by a repeatedly proven vandal  that no one has the courage to rfc.  the template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access creationism articles.  it is not longer than the article, as bensaccount claimed.  on the contrary, it is shorter than every single article there is.  deleting the bulk of the links serves absolutely no purpose except allowing bensaccount to giggle to himself.  it plainly and simply a destructive edit.  culling?  no.  poaching.  Ungtss 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
:::Yes, culling; because the template is long Ungtss. One of the longest I've seen; and there is no expectation or need for it be comprehensive on the subject. - RoyBoy 800 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
My explanation, which Ungtss must have missed, is that subtopics of distantly related associations don't belong in a nav bar. Ungtss has posted the above link about a dozen times so far, while omitting the following: . This is an attempt to mislead, no doubt motivated by spite. Ungtss, as usual, offers nothing of value. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)
:The explanation comes to late, firstly. This rather large edit should have been discussed on the Talk page. Its what Talk pages are for. Secondly, I agree with Uggtss' assesment. The template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access articles refering to creationism. There is no reason to change it. -- Ec5618 July 9, 2005 01:33 (UTC)
::Yes there is. - RoyBoy 800 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
:::the stated reasons are "shortness" and "prevent distantly related topics."  both of these fall far short of the arguments for "access," "clarity," and "convenience."  the claim that it is longer than all other templates is false.  have a look at Islam.  your ultimate argument is that "there is no need for it to be comprehensive."  What?  you'd prefer mediocrity?  Isn't "comprehensive" better than "half-ass?"  Ungtss 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't claim its longer than all other templates. And I prefer brevity over comprehensive; I would consider it half-ass if those sub-articles aren't linked from the main articles listed. - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: so which would you like removed, insofar as they aren't linked to the topic?  Perhaps we should start with Flat Earth Society and geocentrism, which have absolutely nothing to do with creationism, and leave things like Creation biology and flood geology, which are, for all intents and purposes, core to contemporary creationism, but which bensaccount removed.  what criterion would you like to apply here for determining which links are in and which are out, as opposed to sheer culling?  Ungtss 20:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've said so far sounds like a good start; Baraminology, Vapor canopy, Created kinds are sub-articles that aren't necessary. While I understand the Vapor canopy is a key creation concept; if its one of the key concepts in Flood geology; then IMO its already been pointed to and the reader won't have trouble finding it. (but upon looking at the articles, the vapor canopy is not a key creation concept, and hence should not be cited in the template) And I'd clarify that although I felt a culling was necessary; Bensaccount did go overboard, but from now on if I need a template assassin I know who to call. - RoyBoy 800 02:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur; although I'd like to see Teach the controversy stay given its recent prominence; and I suspect it will be a strategy that will be front and center for some time to come. - RoyBoy 800 04:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: you're telling me that you don't think it's any use to have a template linking to creation biology and flood geology.  cute.  Ungtss 20:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: I removed it from the template because I'm confident this is not the place for statements; and I'm assuming pseudoscience will remain in the article(s) listed. - RoyBoy 800 01:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: It appears I've deleted the "Creationism2" template. This was not my purpose but it happened due to my clumsy computer skills. What I tried was to remove the box from "Flat Eath Society" article. A message I sent to the Flat Earth discussion is below (with some typos corrected).
::Don't worry about it. It was easily fixed. --Ian Pitchford 12:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for trouble 

message: This template is used by articles outside of the ones mentioned in the template. I'm note sure what common procedure is, but shouldn't the template contain links to all articles? Or shouldn't there be a project page in which all relevant pages are linked? Should we not put a link to  in the template to help people find all creationism related articles? 
I understand the template needn't be comprehensive, but shouldn't something tie the creationism articles together?
Should we perhaps link to Category:creationism?
-- Ec5618 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of a series 

message: While certainly many creationists revel in this idea, it is not part-and-parcel to creationism as a subject. In general, creationism derives from creation (theology) not from any sort of philosophical concern over proofs of the existence of god. Teleological argument may be appropriate for the Intelligent Design template, but creationism as a bigger tent doesn't necessarily ground itself in William Paley or his watchmaker. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teleological argument

message: I've made some appearance changes to match it to Template:Intelligent Design and Template:Evolution3, which it shared some pages with. Notably, I upped the width so it plays nicely with being combined into one box.  Adam Cuerden talk 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also rearranged the links a bit so it is more practically ordered. I was wondering if there was a way to integrate umbrella term distinction into the template. Intelligent design includes all forms of creationism excluding theistic evolution; Old-earth creationism includes gap creationism, day-age creationism, and progressive creationism. This distinction should be noted in the template somehow. Pbarnes 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Regarding the, ahem, argument about what "creationism" means, Antievolutionists and Creationists gives a brief and informative answer. "When the Origin of Species went on sale late in 1859, the term "creationist" commonly designated a person who believed in the special origination of a soul for each human fetus, as opposed to a traducianist, who believed that the souls of children were inherited from their parents. Although Darwin (in private) and his allies occasionally referred to their opponents as "creationists," for about seventy-five years after the publication of his book such adversaries were more typically called "advocates of creation" or, increasingly, "anti-evolutionists.".... It was not until 1929 that... the Seventh-day Adventist biologist Harold W. Clark, explicitly packaged Price’s new catastrophism as "creationism." In a brief self-published book titled Back to Creationism Clark urged readers to quit simply opposing evolution and to adopt the new "science of creationism," by which he meant Price’s flood geology. For decades to come various Christian groups, from flood geologists to theistic evolutionists, squabbled over which camp most deserved to use the creationist label. However, by the 1980s the flood geologists/scientific creationists had clearly co-opted the term for their distinctive interpretation of earth history" Looks like a good source for an update to the article, and other articles by him on that site are also useful....... dave souza, talk 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers by Numbers

message: I updated the Catholic position. The original source was somewhat in conflict with the actual views expressed by the Church. I included a fork to evolution and the catholic church for a better discussion of the issue. (Runwiththewind 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reading of the sources seems to have confused religious teaching and scientific teaching, so I've clarified the summary to reflect what the sources actually say. ... dave souza, talk 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I restructured your edit so that the religious teachings preceed the information about schooling. I also reworded the statement on the Catechism to show that it indirectly implies evolution. (Runwiththewind 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not very informative, so I've shown more exactly what the source says. .. dave souza, talk 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic position 

message: I edited that this main and basic belief which leads into the article, is not something restricted to creationists, but that they belong in a broader group of people with this very ancient traditionalist worldview that life is created. And this is a broad general basic very traditional outlook on life on which the movement in whole is based on. I am not saying the movement in itself is  traditional, indeed they themselves deny this. All i am saying is that the general point of their belief system is based on tradition, which some of their leading figures claim is strict and pure  science--יודל 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be a more coherent argument for the changes you were proposing, which in my opinion  were not an improvement. How can you have non-religious belief in a deity? Perhaps you're confining your definition to the modern US co-option of the term by anti-evolutionists, but this article has to cover the broader view. The reference to "some of their leading figures claim is strict and pure  science" needs to be explained – whose leading figures? If it's the ID crew, their "strict and pure  science" is, by their own definition, different from the science used by the scientific community and defined by law in relation to separation of church and state. ... dave souza, talk 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry please lets keep it to the basic point that this think is not new it is an old and ancient beleave, and the beleife that the world was created is not limited to any group. is that better?--יודל 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:RS, the creationists aren't a reliable source on themselves, and the lead you are editing has been stable for a long time, so please back down and reread what was said. Reinistalk 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  nobody tries to bring here any sources you are twisting words of reasoning. forget those words. fact is this belief is nothing new it may be evolved by some secular scientists but it is an old ancient belief, do u challenge this fact?--יודל 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: all i am asking is, does somebody think that this can be challenged as fact? and please note that on thinks that will never be or could never be challenged there is no need for sources.--יודל 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it has been challenged already the first time it was reverted. Reinistalk 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A revert by simply saying vandalism or bad edit is not a challenge, when u write in that instant that u r not familiar in the subject nor do u understand the edit, and to make it the top of the creaming to declare on your user page that you have some issue with creatinitss, all this makes it not a challenge but rather a prank of wasting time of other users. Again i am asking you do u challenge or do u really believe somebody could ever challenge this premise that believing in a creator is a very  old and traditional belief?--יודל 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am challenging it on the grounds that it is redundant, and that the prose you added was bad, and that you have no sources for the claims that creationism isn't always religious. I also never said that I didn't understand your edits, but that your English was poor and writings barely coherent. Reinistalk 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i Except your challenge that it is redundant thanks for clarifying. i will fix the language.--יודל 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please tell me what have you challenged. i have fixed what an other user has challenged. now what exactly are u challenging. and i will erase. in my mind i have add nothing that can be challenged if yes please tel me what it is? thanks--יודל 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of it. Adding the qualifier "traditional" doesn't substantially aid the readers understanding, and makes the definition far too specific. ornis (t) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok i gather the wording is too probelmatic. i will now brainstorm a definition that wont include all of them as being traditionalists, but still aid to the readers understanding that this view isn't something wacky and lunatic like the anti-religious crusaders try day and night to paintbrush them. I beg somebody to help me in clarify this point. I appreciate your point.--יודל 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, in my opinion the edits you've been making didn't achieve your aim, so the best idea will be to clarify your concerns here, and put suggestions on this talk page. In a broad sense we've to include those who are religiously creationist without having problems with findings of modern science, including evolution. We also have to point to the various positions opposing aspects of science, and note the now common use of the term to refer specifically to anti-evolution ideas. Look forward to seeing your comments here, and will think about it in the morning. .. dave souza, talk 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First and lead-in sentence about the the belief that it is from tradition