thanks about jc perez website remark
thanks for comment and add have you an email adress then I'll send you a paper to be pubmished Regards Jean-claude perez 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad that you found it helpful. -- CelticCreationist 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I made edits and asked on the talk page if people wanted to have it reverted. Why would you change the page back when the process is for the community to collaborate on it through talk pages? --Tony 21:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed you posted a comment on the talk page - after making a dramatic revision of the article, which included deleting half of its content - the "conflict" portion that may have been the most important of all.
You have been instructed previously not to make significant revisions to articles except those which you have personally written. The exception to this would of course be articles tagged as needing clean-up, or obvious typos. This one had not been so tagged. The changes you made to the introduction alone were unacceptable and should have first been proposed on the talk page.
Deleting significant content from articles is something that is explicitly forbidden by CreationWiki policy, which defines such actions as vandalism and states that : deletion of article or significant content requires that a recommendation for deletion be filed and approved by administration.
In the future, use the talk pages to specifically propose changes to articles (except those you have written) - meaning place the revised paragraph in the talk page suggesting its placement.
I intend to take your revisions into consideration and will retain some of the suggestions. After which I would have placed a note on the talk page.
You think disclaimer is best heading for that?--Tony 02:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good... I was thinking of eliminating the number scheme as well and make it in strict paragraph form. What do you think?--Tony 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Smooth transition to new server I hope? Seems like it, congrats! I was curious however if US President and serious political theorist biographies would be OK to start creating? Of course with a Biblical Christian perspective. Is it to political? Or, does it fit the tone of CW and our worldview we try to promote?--Tony 19:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually there were technical troubles that prevented the move to a new server. We're going to try again soon after determining the best action to take.
I dont have a problem with such biographies or relevant political development in general. In fact, I would like to see biographies of U.S. Presidents - especially those that were firmly Christian. The Christian heritage of the US has been all but erased from the history books and I'd like to see us providing such education. --Ashcraft - (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete a lot of my text?  --Tony 00:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It was incorrect - and confusing. No creation biologist would agree with you that P.E. is consistent with creation biology. I basically reverted it back to what was there before you made changes. --Ashcraft - (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- How is it not consistent with creation biology?--Tony 01:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are allowed to delete content instead of suggesting I clean it up?
You shouldn't have changed the text in the first place, but yes I ultimately approve all edits. You have questioned my edits like this on several occasions, whereas you should simply respect that I have the final say. To question those in authority in such a manner indicates you have a problem being under that authority. --Ashcraft - (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't stating its solely a creationist theory, but that evolutionist claim sole ownership is bogus, because the change seen is consistent with creation biology. --Tony 01:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No its not at all consistent. Again provide a creationist source. The theory is an attempt to explain the stark distinctions that separate the Biblical kinds.--Ashcraft - (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Now you are using creationist language to describe the result of following the P.E. theory, in that it attempts, to explain stark differences between Biblical kinds... That is the consistency I am talking about. Perhaps I am not following your point clearly?--Tony 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
According to creation biology, organism do not change in a punctuated equilibrium manner as the theory states. The theory is completely contrary to what creation biologists teach and simply an attempt by naturalists to explain the absence of transitional forms.--Ashcraft - (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- So because creation biologists don't use leading scientific theories, then we can't on this Wiki when it makes perfect consistent sense? I see no inconsistency regarding the type of change posited in P.E. theory and what a creationist believes for change in organisms over any length of time. In fact the way in which P.E. takes less time to effect significant speciation the more credible it becomes within creationism due to our short time involved for such change to occur. I understand that it is used by naturalists to explain the absence of transitional forms, but why can't it equally be a pattern of change in organisms that is embraced by creationists? Is it only because creation biologists don't? --Tony 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes - we are presenting the "creation point of view", not "Tony's point of view". Do not make any statements that are not supported by creationist publications.
P.E. is a materialist evolutionary theory formulated to explain conflicts between Darwinian predictions and actual observations. Creationists do not agree that the types of change PE was formulated to explained have ever taken place. They are macroevolution in scale - not within the kind. As such, what you said couldn't have been more wrong.
I do see your point, change within a kind generally occurs quicker that evolutionists realize because they were designed to change and adapt quickly. But PE, like all evolutionary theories rely ultimately on mutagenesis (not designed mechanisms) for change - as such - inconsistent with creation biology.--Ashcraft - (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Article of contention
Thank you for your gracious offer.
I actually did ask him to delete it, and he said to keep it, despite the core self-description of the wiki that content "be written from the uniquely creationist point of view." Although written policy also states that "any creation apologetics related topic or content can find a home on this site", I don't see how Jeremiah Wright relates to the study or knowledge of creation as a scientific, historical, or theological issue, nor can I even conceive of any apologetic value such an article could have. If the article focuses on verifiable facts related to the purpose of the wiki, then I won't have any objection to it.
about main page news
Are we to make our own sentence or two describing the article? --Tony 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We should limit it to one summary sentence. You can write it yourself - sometimes I just grab one from the intro that helps to clarify the content.
We should archive a few creation sites that host news items in the footer of the following page. The link I placed there is probably the best, and a news item worthy of posting on the CW can regularly be found there.
Can you delete the history of my user page in the same way you did for the user page of Lowkey?--Tony 22:01, 22 August 2010 (PDT)
Thanks for asking me. No, the statement isn't accurate. Maybe the statement could be rephrased to something like this: "The Bible was used in the Middle Ages in conjunction with the Sacred Tradition of the Church as the foundation for the Church's Theology." -- CelticCreationist 20:36, 26 August 2010 (PDT)
- And then would you consider this middle ages treatment of the Bible, through Sacred Tradition as a particular approach towards Biblical theological study that places superiority of that Tradition, and the Church, over and instead of a common methodology for individuals to study the Bible?
- No, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church are considered to be of equal authority. None is 'superior' to the other. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching and were passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6). These teachings overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. Also, the Catholic Church has always used Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together in understanding its theology, so it isn't entirely accurate to refer to it solely as the 'Middle Ages treatment.'
- Bibles were available for people to read privately in churches throughout the history of the Catholic Church. But, before the advent of printing, books were rare and valuable. Each Bible was written by hand and it took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. Thus, they were often fastened down to a desk or lectern near a window to prevent theft—the way a phone book is secured in a phone booth—to make it available to everyone. -- CelticCreationist 01:04, 27 August 2010 (PDT)
- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are all equal, to the Catholic Church. Did the Catholic Church support a methodology for all to derive Biblical theology?
- This is Sacred Tradition.
- Your point about Bibles being scarce only lends credibility toward the option of having the select few, namely Catholic Church, provide theology, rather then a common methodology for the Bible so that all can gain Biblical theology, not just from the church. It shows the Bible functioning in a ecclesiastical, rather then a methodological framework.
- It seems that you are under the impression that the Bible was considered less important to the Church in the Middle Ages (which isn't true). I don't want to assume, but from your previous responses this seems like the case. If this isn't your intent, please let me know otherwise. First, the following facts must be considered: The Bible wasn't assembled and codified until the 4th century. And, even then, the Church had to go through over 300 documents to end up with the 27 that are in the New Testament. The Magesterium determined which of the several-hundred New Testament-era documents were authoritative, based on their being consistent with Apostolic teaching, as it had been passed down. Until the 1800's or so, the vast majority of the world's population was illiterate. Those who could read and write still may not have had the full capacity for accurately understanding the Bible. It is cautioned that one must be careful not to interpret the Bible by themselves, because, as is often the case, a person may not understand the full context of a passage and wined up with a false interpretation. The history of the Church is littered with heresies that ignored the 'methodology' of the Church.
- Your original reference to "elite" ecclesiastics isn't really correct, given the common connotations of "elite" in modern usage. "Literate" would be more accurate. The lack of availability of Bibles was not a result of Church restrictions, it was a result of the cost, in time and money, required to make a manuscript copy of the Bible. Only institutions could afford to own them. The very first book off Gutenberg's printing press was a Catholic Bible. Even with movable type it took 3 years to complete the first press run of 180 copies.
- To suggest that a "methodological framework" would have made Biblical theology available to all reveals a lack of understanding about the era which you're writing about (I mean no offense by that). The methods in which Biblical theology was made accessible to all were market crosses, church paintings, stained glass windows, and poetic and dramatic retellings of Scripture. Further, Bibles were available for (literate) people to read privately in churches, as previously mentioned. To suggest that the Bible would/could even exist in the medieval world, apart from the Church, is simply untenable. At that time, Europe was Christendom. Every grammar school, library, and university was an ecclesiastical institution.
- John 21:25 says that not everything Jesus did or taught is in the Bible. Yet, in Matthew 28:20 , Jesus commanded the Apostles (and by extension, their successors), to go forth and teach everything that He had taught them. There's a gap there if you believe that the Christian faith is dependent upon the Bible alone. The gap is covered by Sacred Tradition which St. Paul speaks of as being equal to Written Tradition (Scripture) in 2_Thessalonians 2:15 . Without an authentic interpreter, you end up with constant, never-ending splintering and schism and tens of thousands of denominations, all disagreeing on their personal interpretation of Scripture and all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit in their contradictory interpretations of Scripture. Catholics believe that the authentic interpreter of Christ's truths is the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. 1_Timothy 3:15 says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Nowhere does it say the individual personally interpreting Scripture is anything of the sort. In fact, 2_Peter 1:20 speaks against this sort of "personal" approach.
- The reason Sacred Tradition is often infused in Biblical study is that they both support each other—Sacred Tradition offers a timeline of historical implications of what the Bible has to say. Catholics don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Both the Bible and Sacred Tradition are used for interpretation. The Church does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition is accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence. -- CelticCreationist 20:16, 27 August 2010 (PDT)
After some thinking, I want to change my name to AntiEvolutionist to reflect my changing beliefs. Can you do that for me? Thank you!--Thinker 08:25, 12 September 2010 (PDT)
"Rationalwiki atheism faq..." seems irrelevent
The obscure website blog which conserns itself primarily with religion and politics has no place on CreationWiki which concerns itself with science and God. If I had the rights to delete both RationalWiki and the rationalwiki FAQ response, or at least downsize them to make them relevent to the Creation-Evolution contraversy, then I would. Unfortunately, I cannot do so. Can you do that? If not, may I ask who can?--ThinkerTalksee my blog 13:35, 18 September 2010 (PDT)
You deleted material I added. Good material about convergent evolution, why?--Tony 14:57, 18 September 2010 (PDT) Nevermind, I see what you are doing... Sorry.--Tony 14:57, 18 September 2010 (PDT)
You have once again edited text you did not write - something I have asked you repeatedly not to do. The vast majority of the times you have done this, I have not agreed that the edit should stand. You frequently introduce structural errors into sentences by adding content (run-ons, etc.). Please - again - limit your text-editing to content you have personally written with the exception of obvious typos.
Secondly, it was not "good information". Not only do creation biologists not hold to the statements you made, but it was a complete misrepresentation of the source you provided. Homologous DNA sequences are due to creation, they have not arisen independently by mutation. You may misunderstand creationary biological evolution on a fundamental level. The changes (evolution) that has taken place are due to intentional genetic edits made by the cell to help organisms adapt - not random mutation.