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

Talk:Anticreation

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Examples of anticreationist nonsense

This site uses the common claim that viruses evolve, and creationists are stupid to question it. Meant to be humorous to evolutionists, it's misonformation is harmful to those who are seeking the truth. PrometheusX303 00:08, 16 May 2006 (GMT)

It's not even a trashy site from an individual, but the site of a (presumably) prestigious college. So much for academic neutrality. Philip J. Rayment 04:23, 16 May 2006 (GMT)
They're getting desparate:). What a fantastic time to be a creationist. Check out this letter in the latest (Apr 22-28) issue of New Scientist: "Robin Holden wonders how good biology teachers could possibly teach creationism. He should come to south-east London, where I teach science and where there are many biology graduates who are creationists. Many, though not all, are from Christian parts of Africa or Asia. I know of two local biology teachers who are not only creationists, but who believe literally in a seven-day creation a few thousand years ago, and I can think of at least three student teachers who have passed through our own department in recent years who are both biology graduates and creationists. These people cannot teach creationism under the national curriculum (yet) but what they do in the classroom with the miserable little bit of Darwinism left in the syllabus I shudder to think. Many of my most able pupils are creationists, too. It is not just in America that the darkness is gathering." Ungtss 12:34, 16 May 2006 (GMT)
They are getting desperate. It says something about how blinded they are that "Many of [his] most able pupils are creationists", yet he can't see that maybe they are on to something.
Scientists have been complaining about a lack of interest in science, and I've had the thought for some time that atheism actually tends to kill the enthusiasm for science (for reasons such as why science developed in a Christian culture in the first place), and that those most keen to take up science will be the creationists, eager to study God's creation.
Philip J. Rayment 12:47, 16 May 2006 (GMT)
Well said:). Apparently the "darkness is rising" only among his "most able students" -- the obvious explanation to his conundrum seems to elude his grasp:). I only hope we creationists will be responsible and mature in the coming years, to seize this golden opportunity to free science from its darwinian hijackers. Ungtss 13:21, 16 May 2006 (GMT)
At Theologyweb, many of the evolutionists claim that creationists are a threat to science. It seems, though, that using one's own mind helps science.PrometheusX303 18:06, 16 May 2006 (GMT)
It seems that using one's own mind is the definition of science:). Ungtss 18:52, 16 May 2006 (GMT)

Not according to NCSE and others. Then again, evolutionist have been changing definitions for many things, so it's not a surprise. PrometheusX303 19:07, 16 May 2006 (GMT)

Trudat:). Ungtss 20:01, 16 May 2006 (GMT)

"Biography"?

Why is this page marked with the Biography category? Pharos 03:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Dont know, but it shouldn't be.--Mr. Ashcraft 11:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

References are unacceptable

All of the reference links provided at the bottom of the entry for "Anticreation" are unacceptable. Per standard practice, all reference links should be linked to the specific article page, not the homepage of the source.

For example, the very first claim made about Americans' beliefs in the first paragraph is self-defeating in two ways. One, the poll is described as "recent" which is confusing for a non-dated entry such as that of an encyclopedia. This is not a dated article entry in a newspaper. Secondly, not providing the actual primary source is considered misleading. All of the reference links must be changed for fact-checking.unsigned comment by Siboney (talkcontribs)

There is linking to the specific page within the content which was done. The Related References contains external links, not used within the content as well as links that are specific to points within the article. Whether the Related References links do or do not contain the specific page in question doesn't matter because these are already referenced within the content. CreationWiki standard practice was indeed used when creating this article, the facts are now double-checked by me and the original author. --Tony Sommer 17:18, 11 December 2007 (EST)
The reference now forwards to the main page because the original link is no longer any good, which is very unusual for Newsweek. I'll see if I have the original date archived somewhere.--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (EST)
I had already changed it to reflect the article in newsweek. Not sure why you changed it. --Tony Sommer 19:20, 11 December 2007 (EST)

National Academy of Sciences

Regarding the statistics about the The National Academy of Sciences -- could it be that since they are some of the most knowledgable people in their fields they have found better explanations for the origins of life and the cosmos than creationism? Your paragraph makes is sounds like 'since they are atheists they don't support creationism' ... It's likely the other way around: the data doesn't support creationism, hence they are atheists.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html

--Earnric 11:59, 1 March 2008 (PST)

I'm confused, aren't only creationists allowed to edit and post comments? I'm wondering why that one above is here. It seems like a spam attempt to me. Can it be deleted? Edit: oh ok, now I understand, I didn't know that anyone could use the talk pages. And for the record, the data DO support Creation Science, that's what this Wiki is demonstrating again and again. unsigned comment by ChicagoMel (talkcontribs)