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

Talk:Index to Creationist Claims

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

I think we made a horrible mistake by linking these files to the Talk.Origins alphanumeric designation - thereby giving the file that as a title. The search engine works most effectively by pulling up files that have the keyword in the title. All of these files need to be moved to the descriptive title.

EvoWiki is basically mirroring the Talk.origins effort using the actual title instead of those stupid alphnumerics.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Creationist_claims --Chris Ashcraft 01:05, 29 December 2005 (GMT)

Use both. Roy 12:48, 2 January 2006 (GMT)


I have the renaming of these files now well underway, but I cant decide what category should be used for all of these types of files. Most of the categories are a single word, but my first few choices for these files were more descriptive - "Responses to Anticreation Assertions" for example. Weigh-in on a category if you have any thoughts. The categories are pretty general. Something like Responses, or Debates might be sufficient.

Special:Categories

If you want to help with this - I'm down to the geology section. http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Creationist_claims#CD:_Geology

Basically I am renaming the alphanumeric filenames to the descriptive title.

First - CD001 is moved to (Talk.Origins) Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems

Then the regular title - Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems is redirected to (Talk.Origins) Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.

To redirect a page, use the following code in the blank page: #Redirect [[(Talk.Origins) Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems]]

Why the "(Talk.Origins)"?

Why was the decision made to rename the articles to have "(Talk.Origins)" as the start of the title? I can understand the move away from naming them to the numbering system, but not that bit. I find it confusing in the Recent changes page to have entries such as "(Talk.Origins) Quote-mining" interspersed between entries such as "Talk:Judaism", and it doesn't exactly do wonders for the Category pages. What would be the problem with naming the articles after the claim but without "(Talk.Origins)" as part of the title? Philip J. Rayment 11:56, 25 April 2006 (GMT)

I think the answer is somewhere in the talk pages... I think it has to do with showing that the article is part of the Talk Origins series, perhaps even to distinguish it as a T.O claim and not an article written by creationwiki making that claim. Maybe Chris could shed some light on this.
In the meantime, I was thinking that we might put a tag or graphic on the T.O series articles. Maybe a colored border? Something to distinguish it as part of the series and not a regular article. This might also help seperate these from the Evowiki response pages. I know very little of what can be done on a wiki in terms of formatting borders and such. PrometheusX303 13:10, 25 April 2006 (GMT)
I don't doubt that it was to show that they are responses to T.O. claims/responses, but I'd like to know why that needs to be in the title. I hope Chris will answer that.
I don't know that a coloured border would be practicable, and by itself it wouldn't actually tell anyone why it was coloured, but certainly a coloured box at the top of each page is quite feasible, and could also replace the current box at the bottom of such articles. The following is a quick mock-up of what could be done.
This is a response to one of Talk.Origins' Index of Creationist Claims
Part of CreationWiki's responses to anticreationist claims
Talk.Origins' claim number: XX123
Creationist Claim: (as described by Talk.Origins)
Philip Rayment is the world's greatest creationist researcher
Source(s): (as listed by Talk.Origins)
Philip Rayment himself.
Of course this would be made into a template that could be easily added to each article.
Philip J. Rayment 10:14, 26 April 2006 (GMT)


It identifies the title as not being a true article, but rather a "response" to an article on another site. Perhaps more importantly, in many cases the title of these offsite articles are identical to the title of an article on the CreationWiki. The Evowiki article on Creation for example must be titled as not being an article about creation, but a response to the Evowiki article about creation (EvoWiki) Creation. There are a high number of these for Talk.Origins articles also (i.e. (Talk.Origins) Elephants). It was therefore decided to use a convention globally for such articles. Later I started to think that the site name in parenthesis should be after the title, which is more consistent with such usage elsewhere. --Chris Ashcraft 15:41, 27 April 2006 (GMT)

The coloured box would take care of the identification problem, but not the duplication-of-name problem. For that, it does seem that it is best to stick with having "(Talk.Origins)" or "(EvoWiki)" in the title. However, I'm thinking that having the coloured box may be a good idea anyway. See proposal below. Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 28 April 2006 (GMT)
Something like this might be good enough and could be quickly added to existing pages.
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Index to Creationist Claims) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

--Chris Ashcraft 23:10, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Proposal to move response identification to the end

I propose that we have the text "(Talk.Origins)" or "(EvoWiki)" as applicable at the end of the title, not the start as now. Chris has indicated that this may be better, and I also think it would be better. There are about 68 articles that would need renaming (moving), which I am happy to work through. What do others think? Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 28 April 2006 (GMT)

Sounds good to me. That way, the claim comes first, as it is the true subject of the article. PrometheusX303 13:41, 5 May 2006 (GMT)
I agree. I'm thinking having it after the title would be better.--Chris Ashcraft 23:12, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
With a page header in place, I now question whether implementing this naming convention across the board is necessary, or if its not best to simply handle this on a case by case basis. Perhaps we should simply add (Talk.Origins) to the end of titles when a title conflict arises.

--Chris Ashcraft 09:09, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Proposal to include a standard box

I propose that even though we need to keep "(Talk.Origins)" or "(EvoWiki)" (as applicable) in the article titles, that it would be useful to have a standard coloured box at the top of such articles. These boxes could contain the following information:

  • The claim, response number, and sources, as applicable.
  • The information currently contained in the box at the bottom of such articles (applied with the {{return icc}} template).
  • Boilerplate explanatory/qualification text, such as "This article does not necessarily reproduce every point of the Talk.Origins response or its references", as we feel is appropriate.
  • Links to the previous and next responses.

This would actually require a number of different templates (one each for Talk.Origins' Creationist Claims, Transitional Fossils, and EvoWiki claims, etc.), but all following the same style and perhaps all using the same base template. These templates would replace the existing {{return icc}} template and probably the {{to quotes}} template.

What do others think?
Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 28 April 2006 (GMT)

I like the idea. It wouls set the responses apart from other articles, which will be especially helpful when a person is browsing random pages or searching. PrometheusX303 13:41, 5 May 2006 (GMT)

Lack of Responses

I notice that there are quite a few articles lacking from this list. Is there a problem? I know it's a long list but if Mark Isaak has so much time to make a refutation to some of these (abandoned) claims then we should also have the time. Scorpionman 21:13, 4 May 2006 (GMT)

Lacking as in not there at all or lacking as in no article yet? Cpjr is making good progress on them. I'm quite sure the intention is to have an article or at least short rebuttal of each. PrometheusX303 21:41, 4 May 2006 (GMT)


There is also a lack of response to my proposals just above! And I note that you (Scorpionman) have created links to some of the articles, by linking the claim text as well as the claim number. There is no need to link to both in the index, and current policy is to name the articles in the form "(talk.origins) <claim text>". I have proposed changing this (see proposal above), but whether we stick with current policy or adopt my proposal, the links that you have created are not the links we actually want, so your efforts were, to some extent, a waste.
If we could get agreement on the proposal for the naming convention, we can start creating the remaining links (as distinct from actually writing the articles).
Philip J. Rayment 02:41, 5 May 2006 (GMT)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to waste effort but I wanted to see why there were no links on some assertions (or if the links to the claim numbers would also be red). Scorpionman 18:48, 5 May 2006 (GMT)
The list is a work in progress, and there have been some changes in how the pages are linked. I don't think all of them have been changed yet, so some may link one way, and some another.

Claim Sources

In an effort to make the claim pages a bit more uniform, I am proposing including the line Source: (source) on each page. Those with no source should be labeled No source given. This would help clear up any questions as to whether a source was given. PrometheusX303 18:10, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Good idea. Even though I've been contributing to CreationWiki for a few months now, I have still been confused by some of our responses to these Talk.Origins pages. For the first few weeks I wasn't sure who said what, what we were replying to, and where the information came from. I also didn't know how any general visitor to the site would work out why we were replying to a number starting with CH (and what it meant). I think adding the source may help, although a lot of good information will still be buried on CreationWiki because almost no one is going to search Google for something like CE261.1. -- Tim --Klang 20:41, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
There is a template to use when writing a response page, but some pages were written without it. These need to be cleaned up. If they don't address the specific points in the T.O page claim, then (in my opinion) they should not be part of the index, but a seperate article with different title. PrometheusX303 21:39, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
I couldn't tell you why the response archive was originally setup so that the claim number would be the title, but we decided a while back to use the claim description as the title instead. About 3/4ths of the titles have already been converted from the claim number, but the last forth still remain undone.
A header at the top of each page was previously suggested to clarify the purpose of the articles. Perhaps the following template will do the job. Template:Icc header
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Index to Creationist Claims) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

--Chris Ashcraft 23:04, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

That header would help a lot. -- Tim --Klang 05:14, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

To add the header to the T.O. articles simply place the following code at the top of each page.

{{Template:Icc header}}

--Chris Ashcraft 09:02, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

I'll try to add them as time permits. I'll concentrate on these responses for a while, trying to make the layout more uniform. Some also need template substitutions. PrometheusX303 13:31, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
Well, I was going to... PrometheusX303 19:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

One source: Bullet or no?

When dealing with quotes that cite only one source, should a bullet be used? Any claim with more than one source will be bulleted.

Bullet:

Claim A###: Bullets look better on CreationWiki

Source:

  • Captain Quotinger, The book of sources , pp12-16


No bullet:

Claim A###: Bullets look better on CreationWiki

Source: Captain Quotinger, The book of sources , pp12-16

As a professional book editor I can tell you the normal practice with publishers I have worked with is to use bullets only if there is more than one point to be made. Someone else may be able to tell you whether the practice is different on CreationWiki, but if it's not you might as well follow normal publishing practice. Hope that helps. -- Tim --Klang 06:57, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
Ok. The bullets would keep multiple sources aligned. If there is another method tht doesn't use them, I don't know it. As for single source, I won't use bullets. This is, of course, subject to change if others wish to give their opinions. PrometheusX303 09:39, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

incorrect

If not all of the assertions made by Mark Isaak are incorrect, why are we rebutting him? Scorpionman 14:21, 8 November 2006 (EST)

WELL?? Does anybody have an answer, or are we just going to sit dumbly by while the evilutionists take over the world? Scorpionman 11:40, 14 November 2006 (EST)

  • Let's put it this way, most of Mark Isaak's assertions are incorrect. The experts seem to be busy with other things. I am sure they'll get to it once they got time. At least we are making progress in answering anti-creationists. By the way, why don't you respond to anything if you're concerned about it? That would definitely help! Gil

I would love to, but I'm very busy a lot of the time; I'm still in my sophomore year and I'm studying biology. I assure you that I'll be much more capable to answer these boneheads when I'm finished with this course. Scorpionman 15:23, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Why are these not on our list of TO's index?

Stalin's policies were influenced by Darwin

Babbage was a creationist

The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates.unsigned comment by Nlawrence (talkcontribs)

Talk.Origins continue to add to that list of responses. Its very likely they were added after we first duplicated the archive. Feel free to make updates as needed.
p.s. Please sign your comments. --Mr. Ashcraft 14:12, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Sorry, sir. I’ll try signing my comments more often.

Anywho, I will be going through our response files and compare them to the original one. Just to see if it has changed.--Nlawrence 16:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Added Claim CA006.2 Stalin's policies were influenced by Darwin --TChapman500 07:58, 27 July 2012 (PDT)
PS: I made a mistake on the edit note. CA002.2 is not the claim that was added to the list, it was, in fact, CA006.2. Sorry about the error. --TChapman500 08:14, 27 July 2012 (PDT)
Added claim CA114.4 to the list. --TChapman500 08:53, 20 August 2012 (PDT)
Added a stub article for Claim CD016. I do not have the resources necessary to make a proper refutation, sorry. --TChapman500 17:49, 23 August 2012 (PDT)
PS: I tried a new page format for this page. --TChapman500 17:54, 23 August 2012 (PDT)
Please do not experiment with the page format in the articles. If you want to experiment, create a sandbox subpage in your userspace. ~ Webster (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2012 (PST)

Proposal: Claim Status

I think it be useful if every claim (on the claim page and on this list) said it's status; i.e. if the original argument on Talk.Origins is wrongly attributed to creationists, false, or still true. After reading a lot of them these are the main conclusions drawn, it will highlight ones that aren’t clear or do not yet draw a conclusion. What do others think? --Jkern 18:11, 4 March 2007 (EST)

If it really is that easy to classify them, then it's a good idea. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Addressing a rebuttal

I suggest we peruse http://www.jackscanlan.com/tag/index-to-creationist-claims/ for weaknesses in our arguments. ~ Webster (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2013 (PST)

Looks like a waste of time to me. I've just had a look at the first two (CB301 and CB360). The first's main argument is "we exist, so evolution happened, so what CreationWiki claims isn't possible clearly is possible". Or, to quote from the blogger,
"Since evolution is an emergent property of populations of organisms, it does not violate thermodynamic principles, because if that were true then the populations of organisms could not exist. Life would not be possible, and yet it is, so evolution does not violate thermodynamics."
The next one offers a theological argument (i.e. it's arguing for what the blogger thinks God would or would not do), but without understanding the theology. For example, he claims that "This is a classic case of creationists ascribing human-like qualities to their God...", ignoring that what the Bible actually teaches is that God gave God-like qualities to humans. That is, we were made in His image. (That doesn't mean that we are omnipotent, etc., but it does mean that we have some things in common, such as creativity, love, etc.) He also fails to acknowledge the effect of the Fall, arguing as though the fallen world we observe today is the way God designed it.
Any criticial review of this CreationWiki stuff might possibly throw up some things that we can improve, but with this particular site we'd have to wade through a lot of dross to find any such valid points hidden in there.
Philip J. Rayment 07:13, 7 March 2013 (PST)