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.
- 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 , and for creation discussion unrelated to the CreationWiki or its content, join our email list.
Avoid abbreviations if possible
I really think we should try to avoid abbreviations as much as possible. If someone who is not familiar with the Bible comes across a page that says Gen. 6 or Mt. 16 it may only confuse them instead of helping them. At least saying Genesis or Matthew will give them a clue what book of the Bible we are talking about. Also, I always find it easier to read non-abbreviations like Mount Everest instead of Mt. Everest. If this gets too cumbersome, at least the first few references to it should be spelled out. Same with using acronyms that not everyone is familiar with. Someone may be very familiar with WOMBAT meaning Wavelength-Oriented Microwave Background Analysis Team, but if they don't clarify what it means in their first reference a lot of us will be confused. Just something to keep in mind, because I will be changing them if I think they will confuse anyone. -- Tim Talbot
--Klang 07:11, 17 April 2006 (GMT)
- I agree totally. Except that a wombat is a burrowing creature with a pouch opening toward the rear :-) (now that would make an interesting article!) Philip J. Rayment 12:13, 17 April 2006 (GMT)
Hi, this is Tom Major from Wikible, the free open-content Biblical encyclopedia. I was wondering how possible it would be to get Wikible added to the Interwiki table in the database of this wiki. I figure the Christian wiki community can work together by linking to each other so as to support each other and not duplicate content, and an entry in the CreationWiki interwiki table would help. If you are unfamiliar with what this means, basically it would allow the users of CreationWiki to do the following in their links...
- [[Wikible:Article name here]]
...and that internal-styled link would automatically create a link to the Wikible article. This doesn't even have to be just Wikible, there are other great Christian wikis out there such as Theopedia, WikiChristian, and many many others. In addition, it might be a good idea to make one for EvoWiki, as they may be referenced often in responses. I hope that we can work together and continue to glorify the Lord as a body of believers!
--Tom 16:48, 6 April 2006 (GMT)
- Sounds like a fantastic idea to me ... that way we could focus our efforts on creationism-specific topics, not waste effort duplicating topics (like Christianity) that are covered better elsewhere, and get some cross-pollenization of editors ... Ungtss 17:29, 6 April 2006 (GMT)
- We will be adding Wikible to the Interwiki table once the move to the new server is complete. Sorry for the delay, but getting moved has been a priority now for about a month. Difficulties with our current host has convinced us to go ahead with recommendations to move to a server that will provide us with Shell access. It shouldnt be much longer.
--Chris Ashcraft 18:24, 7 May 2006 (GMT)
- Just a comment on duplication ... I agree that some articles may be more relevant elsewhere, but I would hate to lose articles like Christianity and Jesus Christ from CreationWiki. I simply think CreationWiki articles should emphasize any creation-evolution relevance in the subject. Example: Plenty of sites give general information about Islam, but when I wrote the bulk of the CreationWiki article on Islam I gave a brief overview of Islam, then put a lot of emphasis on Muslim beliefs about creation and evolution and how they differ from Christian beliefs. I think that's what visitors to CreationWiki will be looking for, and it's what makes our article different from the 133 million other articles on Islam on the web. If we do an article on a certain kind of animal, we should include which day of creation week it was created on, whether it went on the Ark, and any other relevant mentions of it in the Bible. They are pieces of information that visitors won't find on non-creationist sites that cover the topic. -- Tim
--Klang 06:22, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
- Good point, Tim -- we might even add notes to articles like Jesus Christ saying something like, "This article focuses on Jesus as He relates to Creationism. For an article describing his full life and ministry, click here." ... or something along those lines. Ungtss 07:47, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
Edit Summaries and Signatures
I'd like to request that editors use edit summaries. My first stop is always the recent changes page, and summaries help me know what has been changed, so I know whether I want to view the new version or not. They are also given with email notifications. When making a string of edits to the same page, the first edit should include a summary and any after that would be fine if left blank, unless the reason is changed.
As the editing page suggests: Before you hit Save, it is considered to be good practice to enter a very brief summary of your change(s) in the Edit summary box between the edit window and the Save and Preview buttons. It can be quite terse; for example if you just enter "typo", people will know you made a minor spelling or punctuation correction, or some other small change.
The addition of summaries could be quick if abbreviations were used. Spelling: sp Grammar: gr Things of that nature.
I'd also like to remind users to sign comments on talk pages, preferably with four tildes. Most do this already, but some newer users forget. A recent discussion is a bit hard to follow because one user didn't sign comments. It doesn't take long for ~~~~ to become a habit.
These things, while not required, do help keep this wiki organised. PrometheusX303 09:01, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
Suggestion for a new article
I was thinkinng that a page of commonly misunderstood terms might be useful. It might be titled something like "glossary of ambiguous terms" and should include evolution, science, vestigial, etc, and an explaination of there definitions and common usages regarding creation\evolution. For example, the entry for evolution could include it's dictionary definition, it's common, everyday usage (such as "the evolution of the automobile") and how it is used in regard to the creation\evolution controversy. PrometheusX303 23:44, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
Bible says the sun goes around the earth
I did not see an email address for the author of this page.
I would like to contact them.
How do I do that? GourmetDan 17:43, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
He has an email address listed on his user page.
--Chris 19:03, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
Do we really want to say we believe in biological evolution?
I'm not trying to start an argument on this, but I would like someone else to comment on it.
I have left comments on the Talk:Evolution page and the Talk:Felidae page about my concerns (which have now grown considerably) over our promotion of Biological evolution. No one has yet responded to my comments.
My concern is this: We give a definition of biological evolution and say it is an "observable scientific fact", and it is "acknowledged by both creationists and evolutionists."
I wanted to check that it was indeed acknowledged by creationists as an observable scientific fact, so I searched the websites of ICR, AiG, CMI, Creation Research Society, Northwest Creation Network, Kend Hovind, Creation Tips, Biblical Creation Society, Creation Resources Trust, Creation Super Library, True Origins, and a few others. I think you will all agree that this is fairly good coverage of major creationist websites.
Almost everywhere in these sites that the term "biological evolution" is used, it is either criticized or taken to be synonymous with organic evolution, Darwin's theory of evolution, or something similar. It is never said or implied that creationists should accept the term as synonymous with speciation, rapid speciation, or that creationists should even use it in a positive sense. The reason of course is that even if our definition is accurate, most people won't distinguish the subtleties. They see Richard Attenborough on television telling them that biological evolution is a fact, and then he adds that we have all evolved from primitive slime. Then they come to CreationWiki and find we are saying biological evolution is a fact too. That concerns me greatly.
Proof of my point
CreationWiki is linked closely with the Northwest Creation Network. So if we were going to find biological evolution used in the sense it is used in CreationWiki's article on biological evolution, we should find it on Northwest Creation Network's website, right? Wrong. Look at some examples:
- "Although biological evolution has never been proven, cosmology, the science of the origin of the universe, has grown tremendously in this century." Northwest Creation Network, Evolution Exposed
- "Biological Evolution: The 'theory' that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past: We are descendants of ape-like ancestors. Apes are descendants of more primitive animals. Living things share common ancestors. Evolutionary changes (mutations, natural selection) give rise to new species. Called 'Descent with modification' by Darwin. Evolution requires time, and lots of it!" Northwest Creation Network 
All I am trying to point out is that no other creationists are saying biological evolution is a fact, and I don't think we should be saying we are creationists who believe in biological evolution. It's a contradiction in terms in nearly everyone else's minds.
If you talk to a Jehovah's Witness about the Trinity, they think of a three-headed monster. That's what they are taught and that's what they see in their mind if a Christian mentions it. So you have to give them the information in another way. Our definition of biological evolution is equivalent to that three-headed monster. We have to give the information in another way, because "biological evolution" is already taken to mean something negative in nearly every creationist's mind.
Whoever reads this, please give me your opinion below.
Tim Talbot --Klang 03:10, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
- Biological evolution is simply a process driven by genetic variation, speciation and natural selection. The creationist community does not disagree that this process has happened, and was responsible for producing a branching-tree-type history within each created kind.
- However, since this process has been extrapolated by atheists into explaining a greater quantity of change than the Bible supports, many creationists would simply prefer that this history not be called evolution. Some warn against saying that organism "evolve", and these would instead suggest calling it things like "diversification of a kind".
- The word evolution has many definitions, and therefore one must be careful when discussing its acceptance. Nevertheless, one such definition is clearly the 'process through which organisms adapt to their environment', which is commonly referred to as biological evolution. The extrapolation of this process wherein all organism on Earth are related to a common ancestor is broadly referred to as the general theory of evolution or the general evolution model.--Chris 12:55, 23 September 2006 (EDT)