2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $7608.77Goal: $10000

RationalWiki talk:Project Creationism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Didit arguments[edit]

Arguably, falldidit and flooddidit are just Goddidit with becausehumanitybroughtituponthemselves tacked on to make God seem like less of a bad guy. Satandidit would be a more effective alternative to absolve God of their involvement if not for the fact that God is said to be omnipotent and thus would have the power to stop Satan from mucking up their creation. Would aliensdidit also be featured in this didit article you're proposing? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Aliensdidit is goddidit with green, bulbous heads. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And what about ancientlostcivilization/mythicalraceofsuperhumansdidit? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And jewsdidit/illuminatididit/gaysdidit/sjwsdidit/reptoidsdidit. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 02:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
"Goddidit" is the only one of these which is a phrase people actually use. The others are just made up who whoever wrote those articles. The last thing we need is more of these. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hence a merge. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A question...[edit]

Does porting over the pages form EvoWiki just mean copy and pasting them to new pages over here?

Userpage/Talk 03:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, mostly. Also adding RW-specific templates, links, etc., and deleting the EW-side page. The last step is the problem -- as far as I can tell, nobody's granting EW curator privilege, which is necessary to edit/delete EW pages. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Could we just put them in a category that stated that there was corresponding articles on EvoWiki which should be deleted ASAP?

Userpage/Talk 04:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)