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


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 a non-creationist is setting up this page as a distraction. I don't think we should take the bait. I think the page is done now and is quite clear. Creationist 22:22, 21 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

It is not permitted to delete content on the CreationWiki. If you believe that vandalism has taken place, report it on the vandalism page and allow the admins to take the appropriate action. --Chris Ashcraft 22:29, 21 January 2006 (GMT)

Creationist -- no non-creationists here -- we're all on the same page:). I just think it's good to articulate all the views on an issue. The Bible verses Mr. Ashcraft cited couldn't possibly be any clearer about what the Bible has to say on the topic:). Ungtss 22:55, 21 January 2006 (GMT)
This is CreationWiki. We needn't give all the views. We just need to give the right view.  :) Creationist 22:58, 21 January 2006 (GMT)creationist
Touche:). But how will people know it's the right view unless they can compare it to all the wrong views, and see why they're wrong:)? Ungtss 23:03, 21 January 2006 (GMT)

Chris Ashcroft, I just read your post

Dear Chis,

I just read your post. I didn't know we couldn't delete material at CreationWiki. My mistake. Creationist 23:00, 21 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

CreationWiki never states which view is the right view.

I realize this page was set up as a distraction. I don't think we should take the bait.

Nevertheless, I realize that by giving the Bible's view it is stongly implied that is CreationWiki's view. But it is never stated which view is the right view at this page.

Creationist 23:06, 21 January 2006 (GMT)creationwiki

Wouldn't you agree that people are better persuaded by evidence than by a declaration of which is the "right view?" we've got some biblical evidence already ... there's plenty of room for more if you'd like to add it ... Ungtss 23:08, 21 January 2006 (GMT)
I will beef up the Bible section for homosexuality and I think that will be sufficient. Creationist 23:14, 21 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

I made CreationWiki's stance clear on homosexuality

Here is what I wrote:

Although many argue that the Bible contains error in terms of its teaching aobut homosexuality, Bible has shown itself to be trusted and that it is inspired by God, and shows evidence of this in many forms.

Creationist 23:19, 21 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

fish or cut bait? Expand section using science literature needed if we are going to fish

Should we delete this section and move on to other matters or should we expand this page.

Here is some of the science from the science journal Science:

Although completely unrelated genetically, adoptive brothers were more likely to both be gay than the biological brothers, who share half their genes! This piece of data prompted the journal Science to respond: "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Vol. 262 Dec.24, 1993). [2]

I think this lines up with "Raise a child in the ways of the Lord and he will not depart from it" from the Bible. In short, parents can influence children to make good choices.

Secondly, I don't think we should sugarcoat things and go into all of the diseases that homosexuality can bring. Creationist 23:32, 21 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

It's a good question how explicit we should get. it's an explicit and uncomfortable topic, but the more explicit you get, the more obvious it becomes that our view is correct. any guidance on limits to how explicit this article should be, Mr. Ashcraft? Ungtss 23:34, 21 January 2006 (GMT)

bolstering the bible

while i think it's great to point out the bible's merits as often as appropriate, i think it might be a bit off-topic for this article. perhaps a brief statement and link to more detailed information elsewhere would be more appropriate than a long defense of the bible? Ungtss 00:09, 22 January 2006 (GMT)

Looks like good stuff. let's stick it in there:). Ungtss 23:29, 21 January 2006 (GMT)
I added some comments above under the "fish or cut bait" section.

Creationist 23:32, 21 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

Good work, Creationist:). Now we've got an article:). Ungtss 00:04, 22 January 2006 (GMT)
I am glad you liked some of my info. With that in mind, I have been suspicious of the "alcoholism gene". I added a comment which expressed my reservations. [3] Personally, I think we should alter/remove the alcoholism gene sentence. Creationist 00:19, 22 January 2006 (GMT)creationist
I agree. i didn't realize that one was just as speculative as the "gay gene." i'll take it out. Ungtss 00:20, 22 January 2006 (GMT)

What about lesbianism?

I realize this article title "homosexuality" was picked for us by vandal. With that being said, I think we ignored lesbianism.

Here is one article having to do with lesbianism. [4] Creationist 01:07, 22 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

If you think there are any issues specific to lesbianism that should be discussed, go right ahead -- I thought the article addressed both male and female homosexuality. As to the vandalous originator of this page, he apparently had nothing to do with his days but giggle to himself about straw-man representations of hellfire and brimstone preachers he's heard about in movies. i think the best remedy to that sort of nonsense is presenting a nuanced and intelligent discussion of the topic, and i think we've done that. Ungtss 01:41, 22 January 2006 (GMT)
I stand corrected. I do think though that the Romans verse be expanded to included the females too. Creationist 02:06, 22 January 2006 (GMT)creationist
The Romans verse at CreationWiki has been expanded if memory serves. Problem solved. Creationist 02:08, 22 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

Good article guys! PrometheusX303 13:48, 22 January 2006 (GMT)

"Animal homosexuality"

Here is some material which can be added to the article: The Animal Homosexuality Myth by by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo Creationist 19:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)creationist

A quick note

A portion of this article was copied from with the permission Andy Schlafly who is the director of Conservapedia. The conservapedian author who wrote the material also gives his permission for it to be copied here)

From what kind of encyclopedia would you need permission to copy material? They surely can't hold rights for the contents of the website... it's user contributions!! or can they? this is crazy --JFrancis 03:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a big deal with it. --Tony 03:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose the page be re-organized and re-written just a bit

Below the line is the proposed new article layout, let me know what you think. If that is ok with everybody I will make the changes.-

Homosexuality is sexual attraction and thus sexual act between members of the same gender.

-Tony 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The acceptable portions of the proposed revision were incorporated. The article should be converted to the "footnote" referencing method.

--Ashcraft - (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Tony 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)