The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube


From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

Add new post


  1. January 2010 - Present
  2. October 2008 - December 2010
  3. March 2008 - September 2008
  4. October 2007 - February 2008
  5. March 2007 - September 2007
  6. October 2006 - February 2007
  7. March 2006 - September 2006

Have something you want to discuss with other CreationWiki users? This page is the place for general discussion about the CreationWiki, its content, setup, systemic settings, formatting, etc. For discussion on particular topics browse the article talk pages.
Before beginning:

  • Please read the discussion policy regarding using the CreationWiki talk features, and the talk help page for assistance.
  • Please sign your posts using the toolbar signature button Signature icon.png, and for creation discussion unrelated to the CreationWiki or its content, join our email list.

Posted Discussion

Essay Vs. Nested

I have something of a question.

In an attempt to create a kind of order out of the chaos on the topic of Evil/Stupid Creationism, I wrote (with very many rewrites) a... booklet, I guess. Inside M$-Word it comes in at about 35 pages. It was not written via referencing of 'creation' sources, and ended up in an area that is somewhat different from what I have since seen elsewhere.


A) I do not accept that Evolutionists are in 'error' via conflation (or other logical fallacies.)

  1. 'Conflating' Argument: (something like) Effect of natural selection (alleles) Vs. generation of new alleles.
  2. 'They Are Liars' Argument: The very DEFINITION of Evolution as being 'descent with modification via natural means' LOGICALLY includes:
    1. Effect of natural selection (logically ALSO includes the allele-shuffling process involved in having a single offspring)
    2. Generation of (non-trivial) new alleles (i.e. the 'stupid', unscientific, conceptualization of practical modern-day Evolution),
    3. Viruses & bacteria acquiring whole genes from their environment,
    4. ANY genetic damage.
This is NOT a conflation fallacy: it is simply, directly, intellectual corruption... BY DESIGN. I.e. they are lying.
As also holds true with Muslims/Islam (e.g.: classically Taqyia and Kitman applied to Abrogation applied to the Verse of the Sword), it is directly irrational to attempt to 'reason' with a liar: swine have no regard for pearls. This is, incidentally, classically biblical, and I find it disturbing that this is not more generally pointed out, and specifically implemented. Christians are NOT called to 'debate' with liars: dust, feet, and all that. The commonly held idea that we are somehow supposed to 'dialogue', endlessly, with such people is, as a matter of hard fact, UN-biblical.
At some point, the assumption of honesty on the part of the Evolutionists/ Liberals becomes massively unsupportable.

B) I would contest that Liberals (defined as EVERYONE who is Lawless/Hedonistic) are inherently incapable of apprehending one of the Crux requirements of making the Scientific Method practically workable: namely NOT working from pre-conceptions. For a Liberal the 'possibility' that something 'might' be true/correct, in practice, directly equates with truth. This is, second only to their habitual lying, so corrosive to the practice of science, that their efforts at basic real-world reasoning are demonstrably ridiculous.

The body of the booklet relates to examples of this; specifically in regards to the small army of serious/ critical problems with Darwins Kindergarten Algorithm.

My question is this: can I convert (with a lot of re-editing to be 'nicer') my booklet/ essay into wiki format, and post the WHOLE (i.e. not in 50-parts) long thing as an essay here? The alternative would be writing more than a dozen sub-articles, to in that manner provide the 'body' of what I've (roughly) described here (i.e. something along the line of a root-article on: The Art & Practice of Anti-Science). I am not quite arrogant enough for that: unless someone is willing to read my booklet/ essay, and sign off on me doing something that intrusive to the site in general.

(Booklet located at:

--LoonyBunny 04 September 2010

This is an encyclopedia. Furthermore, it is a wiki. I would guess that posting your entire booklet here (either on a single page or in multiple parts) would not be appropriate. I would certainly support having you post a greatly-abridged version (less than 32KiB) in the Essay namespace, with a link back to your full version at its existing (or some other) site. And if you would like to use your research to help improve existing articles, that would be wonderful. Anyway, that's my $0.02, for what it's worth. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2010 (PDT)
Ya I agree, create the article (as long as its within length requirements) as an Essay. I would love to read it.--Tony 10:55, 4 September 2010 (PDT)
Okey dokey then. I've got work to do tomorrow, and a busy two weeks ahead of me; with all that behind me, I'll take a whack at it.
@ Otley: Yes is it an encyclopaedia, and I get your point, which is why I thought that an Essay was the better way to go. But the length restriction is particularly hard in this case: a list of examples where Evolutionists use garbage-logic over and over and over again. I.e. the consistency of their 'mistakes' drives one to the conclusion that they are, in fact, lying. Their devils ARE in the details – and that requires space. (It is very hard to showcase their intent in some other manner.)
Methinks I'll have to write something like a Contents-with-short-descriptions for the DearSir HTML itself. I have no problem with doing that, but that strikes me as something of an abuse of this wiki: somewhat like misusing it for 'advertising'? Frankly, I would much prefer a size exemption to an Essay; but that is not likely I gather.
Where does one draw the 'encyclopaedia'-line? Consider an article based on the rampant dishonesty of the Evolutionists: are you 'allowed' to use logic/ reason, or are you only allowed quotes from somehow-holy 'references'? Science is dead: the Liberals have created a globally-accepted interdiction layer of 'Authorised source-materials' to lock-out all that is 'evil/ wrong/ stupid'. The articles I've read here sofar, seem to be well aware of this reality – i.e. non-referenced logic is used. If that is the case however, then it becomes a matter of degree: classically, one can write almost anything, and go hunt for references later. Shrug. Form vs. Substance. Hairy. Which is why I would not go that way without approval; which is not likely either, I guess.
Unless someone comes up with a better idea, then I'll be going with the Contents+descriptions approach. --LoonyBunny 16:58, 4 September 2010 (PDT)
You can always make a multi page essay as well :).--Tony 18:57, 4 September 2010 (PDT)
Another option would be to write an article about it in the (Main) namespace -- as if you were reviewing your booklet or writing a book report. It may be difficult to take an objective, "neutral" tone towards your own work, however.
CreationWiki is to be written from an explicitly creationist point of view, not the Wikipedia "Neutral" one, so some reasoning is certainly allowed. However, I think all here would agree that being able to reference anything questionable or controversial remains the "gold standard". So, if you are writing about a contradiction in evolutionary materials, you should feel free to point it out "yourself", but if you can find a reputable source who points it out, that's even better. Citing secular and/or evolutionist sources for such things is the ideal because they are "hostile witnesses" -- there's no potential for bias in our favor.
FYI, the 32k is a technical limitation; older browsers sometimes have difficulty with pages longer than that. It's also a practical limit -- reading screenfuls of text can get pretty tedious. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (PDT)

Hiya. I started writing a summary... but ended up having to re-work so that the two sets matched. I'll try and upload the new version of that during the coming week.

Anyway, I've written 4 shortish wiki pages. But how do I make an essay? The "Starting a new page" seems to create articles, not essays. Is this perhaps explained somewhere?

I hope I'm asking these questions in the right place. Am I?

How does the approval system work?--LoonyBunny 15:50, 3 October 2010 (PDT)

You basically insert the namespace "Essay:" before the title. It identifies the work as an "opinion piece" rather than a review of the generally accepted creationist perspective. Personally I think we should be using the name space "Opinion" for this reason, and that may change eventually, but thats how it works....
Its also important to include internal links throughout the work, or the article is a navigational dead-end.--Ashcraft - (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2010 (PDT)

Well, I hope that did it. --LoonyBunny 04:29, 4 October 2010 (PDT)


I've noticed that the category system here seems to be a bit haphazard. It looks as if some categories were created quite deliberately and carefully, while many others simply appeared when somebody guessed about the correct category. Then these were grafted in where it seemed they could be made to fit, without considering duplicates and the overall Category structure. This leaves us with some categories bloated, some nearly empty, some with infinite regressions, and some with either duplicate definitions or duplicate content (or both). For example, Category:Animal and Category:Animalia both exist, and are subcategories of each other. Also, Category:Group, Category:Creationist group, Category:Creationist organization, and Category:Creationist ministry all either share a description or have mostly overlapping membership with one or more of the other categories -- some of them are subcategories of each other, as well.

I thought categories were supposed to be hierarchical: subcategories should be proper subsets of their parent categories. That is, every member of a subcategory would be such that it would go in its parent category (or categories) if the subcategory did not exist. So a visual representation of the Category tree might show branches that merge, but would not show any that loop back on themselves. If that's not the way the community wants the categories to work, I'll just "shut up and color", but if you also see it as a problem, I'd be willing to put in much of the work to get it fixed. I am a member of the four-person Category Team on a 45,000+ page wiki, so I have some experience managing an extensive Category system. I would like to help, but I don't want to step on toes or hurt feelings. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The redundant categorization setup with the organisms is intentional. They are organized hierarchically under both their official primary taxonomic names down to Family (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family), and also their common names - although the decision to also use the common names as categories was made subsequently and is therefore less well implemented.
Although the entire system is indeed hierarchical, there are exceptions wherein some topics are intentionally subcategories of each other. This is done if those categories are considered equivalent or "sister" topics (i.e. animalia / animals). There are also many cases where topics are officially defined as subs of each other. For example, biochemistry is considered a subfield of both biology and chemistry, while at the same time, biology and chemistry are subtopics in Biochemistry. The same holds true for Paleontologies relationship with History and Geology. --Ashcraft - (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... it looks like you've tried to design a Category system easy for beginning editors -- as long as they make a reasonable guess about what Category to use, it's likely to land on a valid choice. More experienced editors, however, find themselves on the horns of a dilemma: do we try to guess which of the related and interlocked categories is correct, taking the risk of being wrong, or do we add the article (or subcategory) to all of them, which expends extra effort and server load?
Having redundant categories also makes things confusing for readers: Should I look for an article in Plant or Plantae? Anatomy or Human biology? Reproductive system or Sexual reproduction? Birds, Aves, or Ornithology? Organism or Taxonomy? Insect or Entomology? Some of these are sufficiently far removed from one another that a reader looking in one might not even realize that the other one exists, and assume that they had seen everything we have to offer in that subject area after perusing just one of them.
As far as your infinite loop subcategorization, I can sort of see having the "sister" categories (animal/animalia) being linked that way (although I consider it a far from optimal solution), but I really don't understand the bio/chem/biochem loop. If I'm looking at the Biochemistry Category page, there are links to Biology and Chemistry at the bottom, since it is a subcategory of them. If I am looking at the Biology or Chemistry page, then there is a link to Biochemistry in the subcategories section of the page. Why add the redundant links created by making the more general categories subcats of the most specific one? I'm sure you've got a reason, I just don't see it. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Those lonely materialists

  • All contributing editors must believe the universe and life on earth were created by God.

Imagine the plight of those lonely materialists who don't believe this. Where did it all come from, then? (If there was a big "bang", what caused that? Sure, infinity and eternity are hard to grasp, but how is it any harder to believe in a universe which never existed but spontaneously came into being without a First Cause?

I don't find it easy to believe in God. I do struggle from time to time, due to my empiricist upbringing. But my heart goes out to those who are "sure there is no God". They have locked themselves out and thrown away the key. Why can't they at least have an open mind? --Ed Poor 21:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Say, Ed, we have an essay system over here, same as on Conservapedia. Better yet, essays have their own namespace, named, appropriately enough, Essay. You should expand on the above and post that as an essay.--TemlakosTalk 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by an essay system? Sorry, I'm fairly new to wikis Heavenbound56 19:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Essays are original compositions. They can be opinion pieces, scientific reviews, or even original research.
On CreationWiki, we have created an Essay namespace. Thus you can write something original and call it "Essay:<whatever>" and it will be stored separately and apart from regular articles.--TemlakosTalk 22:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More On Evolution Just So Stories

I'm new to CreationWiki though I've been studying, as an amateur, creationism/evolution for some years. I'd like to submit my page for adaptation and inclusion in the Wiki, if an editor wants to modify it to be more suitable for this Wiki. I have no copyright on this page, and release it to the Wiki - if it's considered interesting. It has references which I've found most helpful in clarifying the controversy.

Let me know if it's clear enough.

--Chrismac 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More On Pascal's Wager - There Is A God & After-Life

I'm new to CreationWiki. I'd like to submit my page for adaptation and inclusion in the Wiki, if an editor wants to modify it to be more suitable for this Wiki. The author has given permission to upload it here, there is no copyright on this page, and I release it to the Wiki - if it's considered interesting.

Let me know if it's clear enough.

--Chrismac 00:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Chrismac, if you're watching this: I've read both the articles that you linked to. My biggest criticism is on their style. I appreciate your zeal, but the articles are not as clear as we would like to see. If you could rewrite them and remove the self-references (I, I, I), then you could submit them and drop me a message on my Talk page, so that I can take a look at them.
To refer to an article on Wikipedia, you can write that as [[Wikipedia:Order of magnitude]], and that will create an automatic link. That will serve until one of us can write our own article for that concept.--TemlakosTalk 12:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

About Accessed dates in References

I am somewhat confused about how to reference web pages. I have found that some people say you should have the date at which the page was accessed presumably in order to be able to document that at such and such a date, this is what site said (even if it should be changed later). Should we always have accessed dates on our footnotes (especially the newer ref, slash ref style) or are they not important?? If we have already entered footnotes without access dates, should we go back and include them now?

--John Baab 13:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommend you include accessed dates in all Web references. Web operators are notorious for changing the pages. I use accessed dates all the time.--TemlakosTalk 16:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers in Web references

I might as well ask about another reference difficulty. Sometimes, you can reference a paper that is fairly long, and the only way I know how to reference it is by its URL. If it were in a journal we could include page numbers, but often, as I see it on my computer, there are no specific pages, but the article is long enough that it would help a lot to have some way to find where the quote comes from without reading the whole thing. Should we count paragraphs? Is there some recognized way to give some idea where the quote comes from on a long web page?

--John Baab 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I know of no universal protocol as you describe. But sometimes you can look for an electronic bookmark, which will have a hashtag (#). If you can possibly include that, then the URL will take you not only to the page but exactly as far down the page as you need to go to see the quote.--TemlakosTalk 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


In looking at short pages, I noticed the misspelling of Antarctica. The title can't be edited, and so perhaps the correct answer is to simply start an new page. Do you administrators have an easy way to edit titles or should we try to create a new page? --John Baab 02:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we can always move a page. But in this case a stub for Antarctica already exists, so I have just deleted the short page entirely. Have a look at Antarctica--it could use some expansion.--TemlakosTalk 12:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Common misspellings should be "redirected" to the correct title. (see Antartica) --Ashcraft - (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

People of the Bible templates

I (user:USMC0811) have begun to add "People of the Bible" templates to different pages, starting with Adam. It is displayed in the upper right corner of the screen. So far I have included basic birth/death/family information. Please leave any comments/suggestions on additional information that may be added. I think this could help deal with quickly finding important information of individual people.

CPCS student projects

Even though I don't belong to the school, can I create some chemistry articles that are in their worklist? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2010 (PST)

I'm assuming yes, but what do you mean in their worklist? The pages that are currently protected from editing have a banner that will be removed when they are finished with the work.--Ashcraft - (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2010 (PST)
There is some stuff that hasn't been created yet (oxidation state was one of them). I think it is in the box below the one assigning the students the job. (Recommended Topics) Could you please add more topics there as I created all of them. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2010 (PST)