From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
I've been trying to think of another brief site description to follow CreationWiki in the logo and on the main page. "The Encyclopedia of Creation Science" seems a bit long, though perhaps the most accurate. Having creation in both the title and description is redundant, but I cant think of a synonym that works around that. The spanish wiki group wanted to use "The Creationist Encyclopedia".
Have any other suggestions?
- CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation
- CreationWiki, encyclopedia of the creation
- CreationWiki, the creation encyclopedia
- CreationWiki, the creation science encyclopedia
- CreationWiki, the free encyclopedia of creation science
- I like CreationWiki, the creation science encyclopedia. CreationWiki, the free encyclopedia of creation science sounds awefully close to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. PrometheusX303 14:13, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
- I like CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creationism. But I suspect you want to empasize the science part.... User:allenroyboy 17 June 2006
- While I hate to lose the "science" emphasis in the description, CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation is simpler and may get the point across well enough. --Chris Ashcraft 22:41, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
- How about a name that more broadens the scope, that is of course, if the goal of Creation Wiki is to represent all kinds of info from a creationist worldview. Is CreationWiki restricted to science? I personally like CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of Creation and Science. Perhaps CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of the Creationist Worldview. --Tylerdemerchant October 27, 2007
- I like
- CreationWiki, Encyclopedia of Science and Creationism
- CreationWiki, Encyclopedia of Science and Creation
- CreationWiki, Encyclopedia of Science and Biblical Creationism
--Dbendele 18:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- I personally think an outstanding title would be: "Encyclopedia of Creation Apologetics"--Tsommer (Tony) 16:08, 27 January 2012 (PST)
New Philosophy heading
I suggest a philosophy heading so that articles can be posted about empiricism, induction, philosophy of science, the scientific method, and the general origins framework methodology. By "the general origins framework methodology" I mean that facts from fossils found in the present are fit into a theoretical framework about the past.
- I'd like to see a page on philosophical presuppositions -- what they are and what they mean and how they are used. It would clean up the uniformitarian page...User:allenroyboy 17 June 2006
Featured Articles for Easter
Our article on Jesus Christ needs lots of work, but I would certainly be in favor of featuring it following marked improvements. Miracles would probably be a good one too, but also needs more work. --Chris Ashcraft 15:04, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
I've added a link to the News template on the Main Page so that all editors can post relevant news when it happens. Since the main page is protected, editors could not easily access that page. It had also been "protected" for some reason, so I also switched it to unprotected. The link can be found on the bottom of the Recent Headlines column, and looks like the following - .
- The "Recent Headlines" section, I think, should be drastically shortened -- it extends two to five screenfuls past the rest of the page content, depending on the size of the viewing window. Mdotley 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- The descriptions can/should be shortened to 1 sentence. Any links that have gone dead should also be removed. --Mr. Ashcraft 23:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Probably any that extend the page past the FA/Portal column should be dropped, and moved to a News Archive of some sort. Currently, that would be the Feb 2007 article on churches "gearing up for Evolution Sunday," and any below that point. As disk space is relatively cheap, there are many of those links that will probably never go dead. Mdotley 13:19, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
- I change them every so often. Did you have an article to recommend or were you just questioning the frequency? --Mr. Ashcraft 11:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Spelling error in Main article: Look for "mocked by the media and active discriminated against in public schools..." and note that "active" should be "actively". And just a bit further down, "actively oppose creationism and lobbies to keep these views..." cannot be correct as is... either use both "opposes... lobbies" or "oppose... lobby" (I think your subject is plural so this latter pair of verbs would then be the correct forms). TheStarman 03:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
- You're right, it should be "oppose ... lobby", b/c the subject is "A number ... and the National ..." (emphasis added). Any subject with "and" in it is plural. ~ MD Otley (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Why is the logo a Stargate device from the TV-show Stargate SG-1? The show seems profoundly anti-creation to me, with repeated references to, "millions of years ago," and the overarching theme that every ancient polytheistic "god" is, in fact, a manipulative extraterrestrial (of course SG-1 has never come close to the topic of monotheistic faiths, but by implication...). Just curious.
I should note that I'm a huge fan of the show, not for the ideological stuff, but because it's good sci-fi (or was, prior to season 10).-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 15:31, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Most likely it's just pure chance. It just looks bloody cool. Nothing more and nothing less.
- O yeah, stargate is an awesome show. The newer ones aren't as good, but the or-rye(or however they spell it) saga was really good.--Nlawrence 22:09, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
It does look cool, and the Ori saga was fun (movies forthcoming) but that's the most anti-creationist of them all! Think of it - a group of aliens, pushing a book called "Origins" that dulls the wits and commands thought-crushing mindless obedience - and the freedom-loving Americans who fight the establishment of a theocracy? I mean, I like the message, but as I make abundantly clear, I think creationism is rather silly. Do you see the analogy?-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 14:47, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- I do get that is was an analogy against religion, but that does mean it wasn't cool. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I like a good story. Know what I mean?
- If you really want to get technical, the ori saga could also be interpreted as showing the evils of Islam. The ori reflect the modern Jihad more then they reflect right-wing christendome. The Ori want enslave humanity and put their near Islamic religion on us in a huge holy war. --Nlawrence 15:49, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Very true! I guess it's all colorable, and in the end, still awesome :-). I'm looking forward to the movies... have you been watching Atlantis? Season 4's off to an awesome start... and I still can't wait for Battlestar to start back up. You might really like it if you liked SG1.-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 16:36, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- I should clarify that my interest is only that you're markedly more tolerant than Conservapedia, Lawrence, in that you allow potentially different cultural views and can enjoy them. I'm glad :-) -αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 23:00, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
My "logo" question is about the upside-down Darwin fish logo used as this site's favicon (to the left of "http:" in the address bar). What does it mean exactly? Is it original art for this site, or can it be found elsewhere? If so: where and for what purpose is it used elsewhere? And while reading this section I see where AmesG - a self-described non-creationist and member of RationalWiki - says this site is "more tolerant than Conservapedia" and "allow[s] potentially different cultural views and can enjoy them". This raises the question in my new-to-this-site mind: does this site consider any non-creationist explanations of life, etc., as being possible? If not, what is he referring to? Student 00:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
To be honest i have no idea about the upside down Darwin fish. However responding to your last question that I will quote:
"does this site consider any non-creationist explanations of life, etc., as being possible? If not, what is he referring to?"
I would like to say, and I am not speaking for the whole of the community I do not think but would like to think so because I provide a rational basis to approach much controversy. Through "explanations of life" if you mean natural mechanisms that enable diversity of life, then yes, we do most definitely consider what many see as driving forces for strictly scientific evolution such as speciation. However to a certain extent and not in the totality as doctrinally written by Darwins ultimate philosophical presumptions. If you however mean the origin of life, the creation of life mechanism we shall call it, we try to present both sides as equal, supernatural creation or abiogenesis. These are, respectively, unobserved mechanisms for creationism and evolution. We have to rely on things outside of science, thus the origin of life issues should be addressed as philosophical issues. We see origin of life (not the diversity of that life) for both sides as equal because both rely, and are equal within the realm of philosophy. Likewise both mechanisms for the origin of life cannot be considered observable science.
With regard to User AmesG (who, by the way, no longer has an account here): A non-creationist may publish to the Talk pages (in the namespaces Talk, User talk, CreationWiki talk, File talk, Category talk, Template talk, or any other kind of talk) but not to the "main" namespaces (with the obvious exception of his own user page). You must take his statement about Conservapedia with several micrograms of sodium chloride; he has a "history" on Conservapedia, which is why he would get involved with Trent M. Toulouse, founding Bureaucrat of RationalWiki, to begin with. (I ought to know: I am also a senior administrator on Conservapedia. If you want details, e-mail me.)
Now about whether these other concepts are possible: In point of fact, we regard nothing as possible without Divine intervention—a thing that evolutionists cannot admit to exist. We present the non-creationist explanations of life, geology, astrophysics, etc., and then, quite frankly, punch holes in them—because much of what you read in textbooks these days owes more to Rudyard Kipling ("Just-so stories") than, say, to Sir Isaac Newton or Galileo Galilei. The bottom line: life itself is a miracle; one cannot get around that. But when a particular way of "scientific thought" rules out the miraculous, then nothing is possible. Yet here it is. It exists.
So what they do is say that "life is the exception to the rule that informed systems cannot self-generate," for example. They make that statement without warrant or foundation. It's "just so," as Rudyard Kipling would say.
Now we also welcome anyone to describe old earth creationism and intelligent design. After all, we do not wish to misrepresent any particular position; that would serve no purpose, nor bring any glory, least of all to God. But we seek not only to define what is possible but to define what occurred. To that end we take a creationist point of view, which we make explicit.--TemlakosTalk 11:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
So between these two answers I gather that this site leans toward the belief that God created the universe/life, but is not so insistent on it all having been done the way that people who believe the Bible to be unerring/100% reliable history believe? Rather, that it's possible some version of evolution from single cell to human evolution took place? If I'm not interpreting the answers correctly please forgive me, it's not for lack of effort. I'm just trying to figure out exactly where this site stands on these issues.Student 01:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite accurate. We do hold the Bible to be 100 percent reliable history, and young earth creationism informs everything we write. That said, we wouldn't want to have an inaccurate representation of old earth creationism and what it means and represents. But we're pretty well convinced of the young-earth explanation, especially since the evidence has been rolling in. See RATE Group, for example.--TemlakosTalk 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Also if I could add just a few points. Student, you asked, "Rather, that it's possible some version of evolution from single cell to human evolution took place?"
That isn't quite representative of our position, because we see this single-cell to human as an unseen philosophical assumption. Creationists could just as easily posit a created kind hypothesis from which diversity of life can be achieved. The created kind and single-cell assumptions are philosophical, at their core being unobserved. One is inherent in secular naturalism, the other within religious supernaturalism.
If you take a look at speciation and start there you will see reliance upon observed diversity events that creationists gladly accept, but the single-cell to human evolution falls wildly short as being observed and thus truly scientific. --Tony 01:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I can fully understand not wanting to misrepresent a differing point of view. So this site is 100% YEC, and while doing its best to accurately describe alternate beliefs, is officially and unashamedly and vehemently YEC? If so, let me ask a question about Tony's statement above, where he said "Through "explanations of life" if you mean natural mechanisms that enable diversity of life, then yes, we do most definitely consider what many see as driving forces for strictly scientific evolution such as speciation. However to a certain extent and not in the totality as doctrinally written by Darwins ultimate philosophical presumptions". This seems to suggest a belief to some extent in non-Biblical scientific explanations for the current state of life on Earth, which, if true, would mean that the creation chapters of Genesis would be inaccurate, particularly with regard to statements about there being no death until after the first sins. Although, and no disrespect intended, I'm having trouble following Tony's posts, so I may be misunderstanding him (and it's also possible he misread/misunderstood my posts).Student 03:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Again you are confusing philosophical assumptions, and natural observations. Genesis deals with the origin of life in philosophy like evolution does with abiogenesis being that it is not observable by science in nature. The scientific observations in nature dealing with speciation and other diversity mechanisms are equally interpreted by evolutionists and creationists by their philosophical assumptions to reach a conclusion. There is no stranglehold on the facts derived from a scientific method, there is however a stranglehold upon the philosophy underpinning conclusion based on the evidence by evolutionists.
Creationists have the science realm and philosophical realm of which interpretation of data is done, just like evolutionists. Its as if each side is trying to prove their philosophies through natural observation. True science should be practiced, and presented without philosophical bias in either direction however.--Tony 06:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to try to get the same terms with you, Tony, let me correct you on something I think you're mistaken about. When I talk about creation, I'm talking about history, not philosophy. Granted, what a person believes about history (life:creation or abiogenesis; universe: creation or big bang) guides their beliefs about what reality is, and therefore guides their philosophies, but when you start talking about philosophy and skipping what I'm talking about (history), things get muddled. I think that's why I really am not following you, because you're talking about something that I'm not thinking about.Student 00:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If you are talking about science or history, philosophy is still involved at some point, because even history is proven by scientific investigation and if it can't be, then philosophy is needed. It seems you have just used the word history instead of origin of life, when talking about abiogenesis or creation. But either way philosophical assumptions are still needed because scientifically, or "historically" they are not observed. You may be able to read about these events but this is deductive reasoning based on inductive methods of investigation, or philosophy used to interpret science.
Granted, what a person believes about history (life:creation or abiogenesis; universe: creation or big bang) guides their beliefs about what reality is, and therefore guides their philosophies
This philosophy will then be used by individuals to determine for themselves if abiogenesis or creation is indeed the "historical act". This is how science should be, leave it up to the individual to decide the conclusion given the scientific observations of the diversity of life we all see. --Tony 00:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Error in the news blurb
"No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film Richard Dawkins, World’s Most Famous Darwinist, Stoops to Gate-crashing Expelled. NYTimes. March 21, 2008" It was actually PZ Myers that was not admitted into the film. Also the link should really be: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html that way you won't be prompted with a login screen. -- Creationmac 06:40, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
- Thanks for the new (and simpler) link. But the gate-crash idea was Dawkins', so the description is still good. PZ Meyers was excluded while trying to accompany Dawkins.--TemlakosTalk 06:36, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
- I think the term "gate-crashing" is rather disingenuous. Nowhere in the NYT article does it say they weren't invited. It even states they registered online to get tickets... -- Creationmac 06:47, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
Many Articles Here need to be broken into smaller sections, e.g anti-creationist debate tactics and Biblical scientific foreknowledge since they are quite long. Unfortunately I ditched creationism long ago so someone else will have to do it:(.--Torus 11:13, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
- Please note the restricted use of this page as stated at top. Use this page for discussion related to content on the Main Page only. For general CreationWiki discussion, use the Coffeehouse forum.
To simplify the code on the Main Page, I suggest that over the long term, you shift more to a bare layout, with templates supplying the content, as you have already done with the News column. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- The code looks a lot cleaner now -- I'm sorry I didn't mention that earlier.
- The next thing I think we can improve is that the news column is almost twice as long as the other one (five screen-heights to three, for me). If the ratios for the column widths were reversed, that would fix it, but I'm not sure that having the news column over a third wider than the "Featured" items is what we really want. I think the better solution is to keep less than a year's worth of reports on the Main Page -- I don't think six-month-old items are really "news" anymore, anyway. Another approach would be to tighten up the descriptions, so that more items could fit in the limited space available. Some combination of these solutions would require a bit more work, but might make the changes appear less obvious to readers. Finally, a major redesign, putting the news full-width above or below the "Featured" items is an option, as well.
- I'm kind of brainstorming here -- does this bother anyone else? ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick check-in on my wiki
Good to see so many new faces arou-- oh. Looks like my insights didn't draw the enthusiastic crowd I was hoping for. Bummer. Just wanted to catch up on my projects. Looks like they're doing well. Y'all doing a great job...except for you. You need to work a bit harder, you're letting the evolutionists make a little too much sense. Anyway, glad to see the rampant prosperity. Remember to behave and such. And remember: paychecks come in a month! Look sharp! Love, Bob Nashmer (Welcome, soldiers of the Lord) 22:48, 14 December 2011 (PST)