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

This Creationism related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story Nominee
This article has been nominated, among others, for random inclusion on the Main Page.
Please discuss its nomination on this talk page.
If it is accepted, its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

History of creationism[edit]

Intelligently Designed: How Creationists Built the Campaign against Evolution. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this article should be at least a silver[edit]

It appears to match the requirements. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. -DiamondDisc1 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's time to Silver this shit. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Humor removal[edit]

Was there really a reason to do that? This article was apparently already judged as a good one over a long period of time and the snarky tone of the altered section fits the nature of the site. Arawn Emrys (talk)

Yeah but it isn't humourous. Acei9 22:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The foundational falsehoods of creationism[edit]

If you care about Creationism, I highly recommend checking out AronRa's now-classic video series, The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

Here, just to get the saliva running, I'll start you off with the first vid. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Would it be possible to change 'Fossil record' (article history) into some form of deliberately ironical putdown? (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK: it already is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
As it is used of all articles the term becomes invisible.
Probably most people even while accepting evolution as a reasonable explanation (even if sometimes complexified by eg one species evolving in tandem with others or being specifically selected for traits by another - do ants specifically select aphids on the basis of their sugar production?) probably wonders at why there are so many species and how did such complexity develop ('sensory spots' once developed can be adapted to register light/sound/pressure etc - but how did they become eyes and ears etc; hibernation makes sense - but how did pupation develop? etc) (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The joke is that Wikipedia calls the same tab "History". We call it "Fossil record" instead, because the fossil record is a record of our history. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why no Young-Earth atheists?[edit]

Have you ever noticed how everyone who holds to a young age of the Earth is religious? If the Earth really were only a few thousand years old, then shouldn't there be at least one non-religious scientist to pick up on the fact? There ought to be at least one PhD.-holder going around saying "I don't belive in any sort of god, but I have found considerable evidence that the Earth may not be as old as we previously thought. But again, just because the Earth is a world that's only 6,000 years old, it does not necessarily follow that it is a world that was also put there by some powerful supernatural entity." — Unsigned, by: Skadooshbag / talk / contribs 22:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)[edit]

It's a good article(as the Silver award), and with how Creationism could possibly be considered one of the more knownpseudosciences. A few touch-ups in some places might be the only thing needed. Custom (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)