Talk:Creationism

	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.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)

Offended

I find RW Creationism articles incredibly offensive. You guys have made a whole lot of errors in your creation articles. However, instead of changing your articles which will only be reverted, I have decided to write here instead. ADefenceOfChristianity (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest not reading it if you didn't want to look at something that's against your confirmation bias? Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 04:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Instead of changing your articles...I have decided to write here." ...But you didn't actually say anything here... Were you just going to put "I'm offended. I'm offended. This is offensive" all over the place? Buck (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

He could conceivably mean he plans to write more later. Spud (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"I have decided to write here instead". That is, in fact, the correct strategy. I, for one, look forward to a well-argued defense of creationism.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You are totally right. Personally, I've never had anything to say that was so stupendous I heralded it instead of just saying it, but I join Bob in eagerly awaiting it. Watch this page is a go.Buck (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

So is the new person going to empirically prove that god exists, and that he's all powerful, and that he created all life on earth, and that god is a he, and that such things are even possible, etc etc etc? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That is my hope. They are going to change my complete worldview! I can hardly wait! (And I hope they don't try to find some imagined flaw in evolution - and then claim this means Zeus exists or whatever.). I want all the things you want.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Huge problems

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

This article has massive problems and is quite biased.

1. Evidence of creationism should be presented. Jah (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

here's evidence of creationism:

There, bias fixed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it's not clear what is being asked for as "evidence of Creationism". There is ample evidence which shows that the silly idea idea "creationism" exists. I am not aware of any good evidence showing that the ideas included in creationism are true. Our new editor is welcome to present them here.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I neither pro evolution nor pro creation. In fact I am not sure if the world was created a million years ago or only 6 000. All I am saying is there is good evidence on both sides, that all. Have a check on some creation resources like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research. Jah (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Both of those have dedicated articles on this very wiki picking apart their provably incorrect claims. There really isn't any good evidence on the creationist side. If you have evidence that hasn't been paraded and picked apart 600 times, I would love to see it. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 00:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone claiming that the world was created 1 million years ago. Maybe before Clair Cameron Patterson conducted his researches? Please, provide scientific evidence for your claims. We try to be accurate here, not unbiased. GeeJayK (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ :::: “I neither pro evolution nor pro creation”, proceeds to be blatantly pro-creationist: lists only creationist sources, and talks about when the world was created. However, perhaps I’m wrong … Perhaps you don’t mean the stance of being “pro” creation, but instead you meant the act of “procreation”, thus three options are available: “I am not a procreation” or “I don’t support procreation” or “I don’t procreate”; it’s a pity though, that short of a virgin birth, many of these options will leave you exclaiming not “Jah!” but “Nein!” Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 01:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There is no "evidence" on the Young Earth creationism side. Basic 19th century uniformitarianism showed the Earth to be millions if not billions of years old. Young Earth creationism requires ignoring huge hunks of uniformitarianism and basic logic to work. For instance, if we take the Ark story to be true how did the animals get from the ark to land separated by oceans? Why does radioactive decay of material like Uranium indicate elements existing for billions of years? Why are there transition fossils like the archaeopteryx? Why are there no records (even cave paintings) of many extinct fauna which should have been on the ark? The list goes on and on. By Occam's razor evolution and a very old earth explain the evidence better than Young Earth creationism does. Now Old Earth creationism is a totally different ida set with its own problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. If there is really "good evidence" for YEC creationism (or for that matter OEC), then it should be presented - it is pretty pointless to assert in exists and then not present it. As far as I am aware there is literally none, but if Jah has it, then he should cough it up it. The world awaits.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Given we have the same nonsense about a Jesus close to the gospel account why should this surprise us?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Does Mātauranga Māori count as Creationism?

Mātauranga Māori is a religion-based holistic belief system of the indigenous peoples of New Zealand that is being increasingly promoted by Maori activists as something that should be taught in New Zealand schools as a perfectly legitimate science of equal standing to Western Science. Does it count as an example of Creationism, given that its promoters are arguing that the whole belief system, including the bits about various gods and spirits being responsible for real world phenomena, should be taken as seriously as the actually science-base bits, like knowing how to cook the poisonous compound out of the local karaka fruit? ^{— Unsigned, by: 116.251.22.245 / talk / contribs}

"Creationism" is typically used to describe the idea that the Earth/Universe was created by some version of the Abrahamic God - either over a short or long period of time.

Nevertheless we also have, for example, Hindu creationism so I guess that Maori Creationism could also be a thing.

Having said that, the actual examples you quote seem so be more woo-like than creationism-like. But, there again, there is a lot of woo which flows from western creationism. So it might be that it is difficult to produce hard and fast rules the further you go from our collective western shared concepts. But if you have an actual creation myth which is being proposed as fact, then an article on Maori Creationism (with appropriate references) might well be interesting.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

David Brewster

"If it has been revealed to man that the Almighty made him out of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, it is in vain to tell a Christian that man was originally a speck of albumen, and passed through the stages of monads and monkeys, before he attained his present intellectual preeminence. If it be a received truth that the Creator has repeatedly interposed in the government of the universe and displayed his immediate agency in miraculous interpositions, it is an insult to any reader to tell him that the being slumbers on his throne and rules under a "primal arrangement in his counsels," and "by a code of laws of unbending operation.” - David Brewster

^ Not long ago, the above was common knowledge.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if your conception of knowledge is broad enough to include falsehood. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I never understood why Creationists are so keen on being against the Big Bang or Evolution

God is Omnipotent, after all, so what would be stopping him from causing a Big Bang or Evolution? The Bible has many Interpretations, none of which are considered the one true interpretation of it, so who is to say that couldn't be the case? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)