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

CreationWiki:Coffeehouse/archive5

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

Discussion.png
Add new post


Archives

  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


What Happened to CreationWiki?

From my point of view, CreationWiki disappeared for a time, then came back with the announcement that it was on a new server, then disappeared again and is now back. I saw rumors on the CRS Forum last night that the site had been hacked. If someone managed to take control of the site for a bit or damaged it in some way, I could see why that would take time to fix.

I hope I am not being improper in asking, but I would like to know some of the details. I can imagine that it was a bad time for the administrators and probably soaked up a lot of time. I could pray better and feel better if I had more information. Can anyone fill us in?--John Baab 09:46, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Filling you in might prove more difficult than it seems. Frankly, we (the administration) don't know ourselves. The reason we don't is that our hosts chose that day to upgrade their installation of PHP on the server involved, and our account was never again able to host even a plain-vanilla MediaWiki installation without running a script in an endless loop.
Our dedicated server is, in essence, a server configured for Virtual Private Server hosting, but with two key differences:
  • No one but us is hosting a site on that server, and
  • We have the highest administrative access and therefore can install any kind of enhancement for MediaWiki display or security that we deem appropriate and necessary.
That we haven't had any more problems since inaugurating service on a dedicated server, cannot be a coincidence. We'll probably never know whether using a dedicated server made the difference, or merely getting off the server we were on. As it happens, having a dedicated server confers on us some very welcome benefits in addition to the enhanced authority we now have to manage our own security.
Of course, dedicated servers cost extra. Donations are always welcome.--TemlakosTalk 10:26, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Would it help if we informed you (somehow) of exactly what times we tried to open CreationWiki and we could not? Do you need information about when users are not able to open the site? Even since the update to a dedicated server there have been several day long periods when my browser could not open CreationWiki.--John Baab 06:01, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

No. That is not necessary. There are administrators working on the site each day.
The CreationWiki has not been offline since we updated to a dedicated server. Your inability to load it must have been a personal connectivity issue (i.e. your computer was not connecting to your webhost, you were using the wrong URL, etc.) --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

I saw a video on YouTube titled "CreationWiki and Lies"

In this 3+ minute video on YouTube, "lies" on CreationWiki are exposed and rebutted.

I'm not a qualified scientist, so I'd like someone to watch this video and refute this guy for me.unsigned comment by Anima (talkcontribs)

If once we start trying to swat every fly in the secular world, we'll never again have time to do what's more important.
Russell Humphreys can speak for himself. In any event, the videographer didn't even catch the one salient problem with Humphreys' model. John Hartnett did, and so his cosmological relativity-based model is more current, anyway.
His lists of transitional forms is a big yawner. It's as if he never read our transitional-forms response archive.
His references to Hugh Ross are telling. He (that is, the videographer) can't seem to make up his mind whether to be a nominal Christian or a flat-out, stone-cold atheist. And I've noticed that atheists always trot out Hugh Ross every chance they get.
The very existence of this video means that we're doing something right. Check out your references to the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke.--TemlakosTalk 02:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarities between chimp and man

I was wondering if it is too early to fix a percentage of similarity between chimp and man. The reason being is that there are no sequence comparison charts (indeed such would probably fill volumes of books) and that evolutionists have cited percentages back in the 80's when the Human Genome project hadn't even been completed and the Chimp project not even begun. Something seems fishy. The studies therein seem to be ambiguous. Evolutionists use cloudy terms to indicate "divergence", not using clear language as would be appropriate (differences). If creationists agree on the current "percentage of similarity" claim, isn't that setting us up to acquiescence? Additionally, the percentage seems to be too high. Men and monkeys have quite a bit different between the two and the coding must reflect that. Additionally, do creationists have any genetic projects currently in the works? Just a thought.unsigned comment by ScienceResearch (talkcontribs)

Indeed, you hit the nail on the head: The chimp genome is fully 10% larger than the human genome, so obviously there's a greater difference than the 1.6% (or the 1.4%, or 1.2%, depending on who you ask) that is so oft cited.
But let us do some quick math: the human genome is 3.2 billion base pairs long. Therefore, being generous to the evolutionists and granting them a mere 1.2% difference, that's 38,400,000 nucleotides that need to be changed - without intelligent direction. One nucleotide out of sequence in the DNA can be enough to kill, though this is usually not the case. But changing 38,400,000 nucleotides in an unguided fashion? That will kill.


Furthermore, there are very intricate systems within an organism that do nothing but search out errors in the DNA and fix them. If the system is gone, then mutations accumulate quickly and kill the organism. With the system in place, mutations are corrected, and thus, evolution cannot happen either with or without the correction system. If you're ever in Big Valley, Alberta, visit the Big Valley Creation Science Museum (www.bvcsm.com) - we have an extensive display on just this subject.
This does not take into account the accumulation of mutations which are going on right now. See Jonathan Sanford's (John Sanford) excellent book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome for more details - millions of years of accumulating mutations would not cause evolution, but would kill all life on planet earth.

Regards, Ian Juby