Information icon.svg The 2018 RMF board election has started! We are electing 3 boardmembers for the 2018-2020 term.
Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Creation science

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


A stub which just links a few articles together.

Consider merging with Creationism162.82.215.199 15:58, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

What happened to the long talk page that used to be attached to Creation science? Especially the discussion over using the quote marks in the title? Or was that on a slightly differently titled article? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my confusion, that was at Creation Museum. Nevermind... maybe we should drop the quotes here, again, just due to the redirect issue... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, drop them from the title. They aren't used in the text beyond the first line. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys will love this, it's RIGHT off of Conservapedia.. they admit that they intend to lie right in the first sentence: -CenaxKikia

Vatican hijacking science?[edit]

Basically, this article is the Vatican claiming the big bang is inline with the Christian Creation Myth. I thought it should be included, and figured this would be the article for it, but wanted to run it by some other folks first. --Logic and Empricism 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


... to the upstanding citizen Ham, whom I mistook for Hovind. And sincere apologies to Proxima Centauri. --larron (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Expanding upon the falsifiability section to give a relevant example inline[edit]

What I would propose adding to the section:

As an example, suppose someone advanced this creation theory: "The entire universe was created just 10 minutes ago by an omnipotent being, but it was created with all the internal evidence that implied it was billions of years old". That could not even in theory be proved nor, in particular, disproved. So it's outside the realm of science as it is untestable and uninteresting (it implies no measurable much less practical effects on the world we live in). Making the timetable 6000 years ago doesn't change this.

The point is to bring the concept home to lay readers who might lose interest or understanding in the abstractions in the existing section.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

That's been done. See Last Thursdayism.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)