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
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Superior Arguments

If you have not yet browsed Evowiki, please do so.

They address a single line from a Jack Chick tract[1] They have a list of fallacies [2] including oddballs such as the Professor of Nothing fallacy [3]:


You commit this fallacy if you quote an alleged expert with a title like "Dr." or "professor", omitting to mention that the discipline in which he earned the title is irrelevant to the subject. This is pretty common in pseudosciences such as creationism. Phillip Johnson, e.g., is quoted as "Dr." by the publishers of Cremo and Thompson's Forbidden Archeology, praising that book. That he is a doctor of law is not mentioned.

This is one of the most dishonest tricks in the bag.

Their is also a page on "suboptimal design" [4] which claims In many organisms examples of suboptimal design or jury-rigged design can be seen. These features can be explained easily by evolution, the "blind watchmaker", which can only act of what it's given to act upon, but not by creationism, or intelligent design (except by the Theory of "God created it that way to test our faith") which states that a designer God created all organisms with a clean slate. PrometheusX303 22:02, 28 December 2005 (GMT)

Very nice, Ungtss. Do you have a resonse to this? It would probably be sufficient to simply note that the source is over 100 years old. Not worth the space or time on Creationwiki, in my opinion.

I couldnt find the EvoWiki logo, so I could upload to this page. If you stumble across it some place other then the margin, grab it...--Chris Ashcraft 01:13, 29 December 2005 (GMT)

Pssst... We're being watched

Evowiki has now included Creationwiki's responses on its "suboptimal design" and "Flowers of asexually-reproducing plants" pages.

Actually i stuck those up there:). Ungtss 15:45, 29 December 2005 (GMT)
So I see. Nice of them to keep it around, though. PrometheusX303 22:48, 29 December 2005 (GMT)
It is nice, isn't it:)? Ungtss 00:00, 30 December 2005 (GMT)
That wasn't very smart. Now they're going to write a response to it! We can't let them know that we're writing responses to them or we'll start a big long "response war"! Scorpionman 18:35, 8 December 2006 (EST)


Do they expect to be taken seriously? There really needs to be some concensus on responses. This is a typical page. [5]


Thousands of clay and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico include figurines of dinosaurs. They are apparently from the pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 BC to 200 AD). Radiocarbon and thermoluminescent dating gives them even older ages. These figurines show that the ancient people were familiar with dinosaurs.


  1. The figurines are probably a fraud. See Mark Isaak's page.
  2. Even if they were real it would prove nothing for the case of creation, and would in fact validate the reality

of dinosaurs. The possibility of some dinosaur breeds surviving extinction does not invalidate evolutionary theory at all. Nor does the existance of unknown creatures.

Even if they were real... Is that a good rebuttal? They are probably fake, but even if they are real...

it would prove nothing for the case of creation, and would in fact validate the reality of dinosaurs. No creationist disputes the reality of dinosaurs. But how would it validate it? By proving that people saw dinosaurs? That would certainly prove a lot for creationists indeed!

The possibility of some dinosaur breeds surviving extinction does not invalidate evolutionary theory at all. This was never part of the claim anyway.

Nor does the existance of unknown creatures. This was not part of the claim either. PrometheusX303 14:30, 13 January 2006 (GMT)

Oops! Here's another: Claim

Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins.

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is an obvious third model. PrometheusX303 00:41, 23 January 2006 (GMT)

It seems that, Evowiki is not at It was, briefly, but is now back at PrometheusX303 23:08, 8 April 2006 (GMT)

Quoting Evowiki

What color box should we use? I've been using the template {{to quote |}} . It works fine, but if anybody thinks we should use a different color, let's hear it. And perhaps we could make a template for it.PrometheusX303 12:47, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

I don't see any reason to have a different colour. The purpose is identical (i.e. to quote a sceptic ahead of debunking it). It's slightly unfortunate that the template has the "to" for Talk.Origins (who named it? Oh yes, it was me!), but that doesn't really matter (whew!). Philip J. Rayment 15:23, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Responses to EvoWiki

Next question: How should we title responses to EvoWiki? I've been using (EvoWiki)claim after the T.O style. PrometheusX303 12:47, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

I don't like the look of that style, but I gather that there was a good reason for doing it that way, so I guess that's the way it should be. Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
Well, since the Talk.Origns claims and EvoWiki claims come from the same place, they will usually have the same name. Something needs to be done to tell them apart. As of now, this is the only way. PrometheusX303 21:30, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
On that point, the thing that bothers me is the duplication that results from trying to answer the same thing from two different sources. I would prefer a way to combine the responses, but the evo-criticisms are often not identical, so a combined response may be a bit difficult. Philip J. Rayment 02:19, 12 April 2006 (GMT)
Right. Evowiki has taken the T.O list of claims, removed Isaacs' responses and inserted their own. It would take a while, but we could combine the two. Then again, the list originated with T.O, and so has our response list. It may be bad form to combine them. Remember, though, that if the creationist claim is being defended, we are addressing the specific arguments. In cases where the claim is not defended, such as those that cite the Watchtower as a source, we could redirect the EvoWiki response to the T.O response page.PrometheusX303 12:41, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

Has anybody ever heard of this one

[6] ? PrometheusX303 16:02, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

Unfrofessional language

Further proof that the Evowiki site is more of a personal rant site than scientific wiki. [7] [8] [9] [10]

Read the context. PrometheusX303 15:48, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Ha, you didn't even need to list those articles, every single article on EvoWiki is composed of personal rants! Check out the one on Jonathan Sarfati and the one on Ken Ham! You could almost laugh! On Ken Ham's page, for instance, they call creationism "hate propoganda"! And they expect people to listen to them! Scorpionman 18:38, 8 December 2006 (EST)

That's typical for a anti-creationist to say. Their theory can't be wrong because it has "overwhelming evidence" that makes them feel that they were there. There are some non-bashing evolutionists which is very pleasing to see in my opinion. --Gil 01:31, 10 December 2006 (EST)


So on their article on Answers in Genesis [11] they claim there is a contradiction on the AiG website. The problem is that they fail to take into account that these beneficiary mutations are information-reducing, and taking into account that these would take place to "negate" the damaging effect of mutations, so our genes would have had to take some damage BEFORE they could start benefitting us in some ways. You can't get better than perfection.

But anyways, ironically, they're guilty of the very thing they accuse AiG of (except their accusation isn't well-founded). Check out this page: [12] Notice response number two? Now, check out the page on Ken Ham: [13]

First page: The possibility of some dinosaur breeds surviving extinction does not invalidate evolutionary theory at all.

Ken Ham page: ... major falsehoods, including the claim of dinosaurs living with man at one point in time.

Breathtaking. Just breathtaking. --Soga 23:10, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Evowiki gone?

I have been trying to access the evowiki for a couple of days. All I get is some type of hosting site. Does anyone know if the evo-wiki is gone? Or did someone just move it?Ikester7579 Talk 10:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Now it comes up with a sql error. Must be a hack.Ikester7579 Talk 02:40, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Not necessarily. They could have upgraded an extension or the mediawiki software and it didn't turn out so well. Maybe God hacked it ;-). There are a number of extension that modify the database. --Tom Major 18:05, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
YEY! EvoWiki is gone. Ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch of the west is dead, lol :)... I bet it will be back up once they resolve the issue they are having with SQL. --Tony Sommer 18:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Well it's been up and down about ten times in the past month. They will never learn that you can't just attack people personally, and they won't get mad. If they ever trace to who it is that's hacking it, I can almost bet it is someone they have done a real nasty page on, like they did me. I have to wonder how attacking people personally is scientific just because they disagree? Or does that theory they hold so dear drive some people insane?[ Talk] 02:53, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps the flying spaghetti monster oozed tomato sauce on the server, shorting it out. In any case, I don't think that it's cause for celebration. People and websites like Evowiki keep us creationists on our toes and in the game! PrometheusX303 13:37, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

EvoWiki got it wrong

Recently, EvoWiki altered their article on CreationWiki. To copy and paste a post by one user.

"Thomas Kettenring stated above that "When you find errors here, point them out and they will be removed. Or just remove them." Accordingly I removed this:

"...such as citing NO reputable scientific journals, instead relying on creationist sites. Additionally, they...."

It is demonstrably false. See e.g. [2], where they cite the Polish journal Geochronometria."

EvoWiki is NOT familiar with CreationWiki's articles. unsigned comment by Nlawrence (talkcontribs)

EvoWiki has rewritten article on CreationWiki

The new reversion of EvoWiki's article on CreationWiki reads:

CreationWiki is a website using the MediaWiki script, similar to this website or Wikipedia; however, it is -- poorly -- written from a Young Earth Creationist point-of-view, unlike Wikipedia or this site. The site was created and is autocratically administrated by Chris Ashcraft a creationist school teacher from Seattle who works with the North Sound Christian School District.

Ashcraft has students from his science classes write articles for the creation Wiki[1], although he is also prone to plagiarizing content from Wikipedia. In addition to the creationism, the wiki is full of obvious grammatical and scientific errors. The composition of most articles is quite childish, likely do to the assistance of Ashcraft's students.

Since Ashcraft spends most of his time feuding with other creationists and banning them for "defying administrative directives", it is actually quite easy to insert non-creationist information into the wiki, although you must register and wait -- about a day -- to have your account approved by the Ashcraft before you can edit.

--Nlawrence 15:38, 16 January 2008 (EST)

The revision was almost certainly a retaliation for me blocking a new user's account for 3 days. Note the timing of that edit. It was the first contribution of a user who joined less than 30 minutes after an account was suspended here for the same reason stated in the EvoWiki article.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I suspected that, but I didn't say anything. To add to your comments,

1: remember the user's bio (which he deleted later on)? It's either one of the sadest stories I've ever read or a sick joke.

2: I tried doing some back ground checks on the user name, but I got nothing.

3: Notice the user wanted to protect Hovind at all costs. No doubt the user wanted to make CreationWiki look pro-Hovind. It is easy to see how one could use this as propaganda against us.

4: Please take note the new version of EvoWiki's article uses the term "defying administrative directives" to describe the banning of editors. This is the same wording you used when banning Rucas for three days. Obviously the EvoWiki editor can see recent changes in order to do that.

5: He claim he is from South America according to his bio, which he removed. According to the story, he went to massive Nazi party rallies. Does this sound realistic.


We have a impostor on our hands! We need to go through ALL of this edits. --Nlawrence 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

You can find the EvoWiki user confessing to be a impostor here:

The user should be infinitely banned. Anticreationist are welcomed here, but you HAVE to be open about and not pose as a Christian. --Nlawrence 17:45, 16 January 2008 (EST)

EvoWiki Major Re-design

Take a look at the website. It has been totally re-designed, and our links to the old pages do not work anymore. Just a heads up. --Tony 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)