Talk:Creationism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 16 August 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Under construction, so don't tease me, mf's. I'm trying to build this as an explication fo a religious philosophy, which it is. Also, I'm making it fairly serious. No goats. --PalMD^{-yada yada} 17:54, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Goats are part of the glory of creation, too! --Kels 17:59, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I think this needs work still, but what could be added, specifically? This should probably be a showpiece article.-αmεσ (tinker) 18:30, 11 December 2007 (EST)

UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY SURPREME BEING

I know that creationism is correct!!! The universe is Gods palace. Beings appear out of Gods hand. God all loving. Obey God or he cast you into bad place beneath earth! 202.115.130.23 18:16, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I don't feel like it.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 18:22, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Well, he just seems like a troll or parodist, but i have real proof. 207.108.244.3 19:01, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Well, 202.115.130.23, IF that's your REAL name, you should know that most even vaguely religious people have no problem with the idea that their deities of choice created the universe. The problem comes when the "literalists" keep insisting that every single discovery in the fields of biology, physics, astronomy, and history in the last 200 years are a pack of LIES, because they contradict a 2500-year-old fairy tale. --Gulik 18:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

What's a surpreme being? A surprisingly supreme being? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This needs work

If someone's looking for something to do, beautification of this would be a sooooollid start-αmεσ (tinker) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not so sure. It really works as a bridge between the OEC and YEC article. All the interesting stuff is in them.--Bob^{bing up} 03:35, 17 January 2008 (EST)

The main trouble for me is that I just want to get hold of their ears and beat their heads on a wall while screaming: "It's all a load of bollocks, you poopumninks". I suppose that I'm as much suffering from "faith" as they are but I have faith in science and scientists whereas they have faith in a bronze/iron age myth and theologians. Consequently I'm incapable of reasoned argument when faced with such absolute twaddle. Sad but true : -( Susan^Purrrrrrr 11:47, 17 January 2008 (EST)

If the article is going to ridicule Creationism is it necessary to have that big template there?

If the article is going to ridicule Creationism is it necessary to have that big template there? Newton 23:03, 15 February 2008

Depends -- do we trust the reader to realize this article is ridiculing creationism:)? Exposing people to the ideas of creationism without warning labels could lead to lawsuits ... Ungtss 23:11, 15 February 2008 (EST)

And blind adoption of burning stupid...hate it when that happens[[User:PalMD/sig]] 23:15, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Doh, sorry, (hangs head low) Andy hates big templates indicating that what he "thinks" is bullshit, we apologise and will bring this wiki within the limits suggested by Crapopedia, this instant. (not). PS, Doc, your sig is broken. human 23:17, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Having it both ways

Your OEC section defines theistic evolutionists as old earth creationists. Then in the footnote, you say those same people think creationism is bullshit. Which one is it? Ungtss 23:13, 15 February 2008 (EST)

"Your"? You are one of us now. Propose improvements? human 23:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)

My improvements aren't consonant with the purpose of this wiki. This wiki exists to make fun of morons like some of the folks running CP. I'd want to write an article that accurately described the topic. I don't think that sort of thing is in demand here, unfortunately. Ungtss 23:21, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Cheap reply. What are we getting wrong in our article about creationism - young earth, and old earth, both? The OEC part is inaccurate? I'll buy that, since some OEC could simple be" "Big bang? God did it". Well, can't really refute that. Of course, can't prove it, either... I'll try to look at the two things you mention and see if this needs work.

BUT. As an editor here, you are relieved PERMANENTLY of calling RationalWiki "you". Do you understand the second person plural yet? human 23:39, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Sir yes sir:).

Its probably better to simply make the distinction (in this article, the OEC and TE ones are better in this regard) between the more innocent theistic evolutionism and the "literal genesis interpretation in an ancient/undefined point in time in spite of evidence" creationism. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 00:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Ungtss, I'd like the serious material... I think the order of the wiki is serious interspersed with snark. Please halp us?-αmεσ (tinker) 23:40, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Will do -- but I'll always defer to snark when it surfaces. Wasted too much of my life going against the grain in wikis with purposes different from my own ... Ungtss 23:43, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I think it's best to treat RW as having no purpose that one can cut against, unless you're trying to insert "LITERAL GENESIS IS THE ONE WAY OMG" into mainspace... so, in other words, I wouldn't worry about stepping on too many toes...-αmεσ (tinker) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Creationism and Christian theology

You say that Creationism rests in Christian theology. But Genesis was written a thousand years before there were any Christians. WTF? Ungtss 23:15, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I presume you mean this line: "The underpinnings of creationism rest in Fundamentalist Christian theology." And yes, it needs work, thank you for pointing that out. However, you say "You say that Creationism rests in Christian theology". This is a wiki. You are one of the editors. There is no you - there is only "us". human 23:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

M. Ungtss, i must point out a small fallacy in your reasoning. Genesis predates Xtianity, but it is canonical liturgy of creationist brand of xtians.User:PalMD/sig 23:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

As well as the Jews and Muslims. To be accurate, we'd say the roots of creationism rest in the book of Genesis ... which is accepted by all three religions ... Ungtss 23:25, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Sort of...at least in this country most creationists are the Christian sort. Im sure it's different in Indonesia. The ID mov't is pretty much exclusively Xtian.--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 23:30, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, but the article's not about "American Creationism" or "Intelligent Design." It's about creationism, a really old idea that Christianity and Islam got from Genesis. The article says that Creationism stems from Fundamentalist Christian Theology. It doesn't. Creationism stems from a book written about 3000 years before there were any fundamentalist Christians, by people that wouldn't even know what a fundamentalist Christian was if they met one. Ungtss 23:36, 15 February 2008 (EST)

"which is accepted by all three religions" Just to say my own part here: And they are all wrong - Unequivocally. human 23:34, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Wrong or not, they don't get their ideas from Fundamentalist Christianity. Ungtss 23:36, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Actually, the view that God rested on the seventh day is blasphemous in Islam, so Islam might take some of Genesis (indirectly, or directly from the Qur'an) as a basis for Creationism.--71.190.162.11 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How about, "belief in a literal reading of Genesis is foundational to creationism, a tenet shared by fundamentalist version of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and popularized by the American Christian fundamentalism movement"?-αmεσ (tinker) 23:42, 15 February 2008 (EST)

PERFECT! Ungtss 23:43, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks Ames... no thanks Ungtstst. Sometimes this stuff bores me (because cretinism is so stoopid, really), though I care when editors say "you're wrong, your're wrong" - especially without offering "help" - as in - "editing" or suggestions on talk pages, if they are timid, or at least cautious (please, suggest better wordings, simple challenges are easy but cheap). Anyway, back to the first line - Thanks, Ames. human 23:51, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I still think we need to make clear that Creationism, in the AMerican and british context, is not some isolated belief by many religions in Genesis--it is a theocratic movement by Fundamentalisst Cristians.--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 00:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'm with the spelling and punctuation impaired Doc (blessed be his non-existent soul) on this one. human 00:27, 16 February 2008 (EST)

, you ugly

offal@@@@2222...cough medicine rokxzorzzz!--PalMD --You don't know harsh! 00:37, 16 February 2008 (EST)

My understanding is that there are also some creationist Muslims. And Christian creationism is by no means limited to the US and GB.--Bob^{bing up} 04:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Bob! Arent you on hiatus? --PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 08:46, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sticking my toe back in. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 15:36, 16 February 2008 (EST)

How about, 'Creationism rests in Abrahamic theology'? ^{— Unsigned, by: 62.254.216.181 / talk / contribs}

What i was trying to say before the cough medicine kicked in

With all due respect to my fellow editor, in the context with which I am most familiar (North America), creationism is a socio-political movement as well as a religious idea.

From a pure, religious standpoint, all religions have creation myths, and the so-called Abrahamic religions share an approximate myth a laid out in Genesis, depending on what sects you ask. The vast majority of educated Christian, Jews, and Muslims do not take a 6 day creation literally, or are able to separate their religious beliefs from "daily reality".

In North America, there is a specific movement of anti-science theocrats interesting in changing public policy to reflect their version of reality. They are primarily Fundamentalist Christians. Most Orthodox Jews, for instance, simply remove themselves from secular society rather than trying to change it.

This movement represents a small fringe of the vast majority of North American Christians, but they are very politically active. It would be foolish and disingenuous to minimize this.--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 08:56, 16 February 2008 (EST)

And the political movement seeks to conflate the small minority of YECers with the large majority of nominally Christian Americans to leverage their power. This movement has succeeded in getting a large number of Christians to at least loosely accept some YEC tenets (ie, evolution did not happen). human 10:43, 16 February 2008 (EST)

All due respect being mutual, according to all relevant polls, the vast majority of college-educated Americans are creationists[1]. According to that poll, 25% of college grads in 91 were biblically literal creationists, and 54% were evolutionary creationists. Only 16.5% of college grads believe in the non-creationary standpoint. 45% of scientists are creationist.[2] I respectfully disagree with the proposition that creationism is held only be a "small fringe" of "theocrats" within the United States. Creationism of one flavor or another is, and always has been, the majority position in the US. And if you broaden your study to the world as a whole, secular evolution becomes even more of a fringe position, as all the Muslims, Jews, and African/East Asian Christians are taken into account. Ungtss 10:54, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I think residual cough medicine may have caused Doc to conflate YEC with creationism. At the simplest level, yes, almost everyone is a creationist ("Did God create the universe?" "Yes."). Many of those also think evolution happened. Some, of course, don't think the Modern Synthesis is correct, they think God guided the development of speciec. YECs think there was no such process to need guiding, that God pretty much the world/universe as we see it less than 10k years ago.

Fundamental YECs are so visible and politically active here in the US that USians aften make the linguistic error of saying "creationist" when they mean "young earth creationist". human 11:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Bingo. If we want to write a serious article, we should stick with the stats. "Creationism" is nearly everybody. YEC is about 45% of the population, 25% of college grads and 5% of scientists. Ungtss 11:16, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I suspect some of those stats depend on how the poll questions are asked. human 11:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Doubtless true. Ungtss 11:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Just to lower the level of discourse a little, I think, Ungtss, that your position is disingenuous at best, intentionally misleading at worst. Clearly, the majority of Americans are not "Creationists" in the sense the word is usually understood. Also, if that were true, it does not make creationism any more legitimate as science. Frankly, you are being a distracting shit-disturber rather than a useful foil. Perhaps you could contain yourself to the talk pages for a while, instead of eviscerating the meaning of articles that we have worked long and hard on. (giggle..i said "hard on").--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 15:47, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Between you telling me to stick to the talk-pages and Human telling me to quit bitching and start contributing, I'm in a bit of a quandary. For my part, I think you've resorted to ad hominem name-calling and proof by assertion, rather than addressing the facts at issue. Creationism is belief in creation. Lots of people in lots of different countries believe in lots of different creations. Why do you want to limit it to a particular country, a particular religion, and a particular politically-charged use of the word? Is it possible that weird troll who keeps calling this wiki "for whites only" has some factual basis for his vandalism? I grew up primarily in West Africa and Saudi Arabia, places full of the creationists you want to pretend don't exist ... Ungtss

Is it possible that weird troll who keeps calling this wiki "for whites only" has some factual basis for his vandalism?

No, no he doesn't. --Gulik 01:43, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Context is important, Unt. This article applies mainly to the concept as understood my the majority of North Americans, and probably Europeans as well. You can try to dilute it by generalization, etc, but it's really not the point. We certainly have room on the wiki for an article on creation myths. --PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 01:50, 17 February 2008 (EST)

The majority of people in the US and Europe know that Genesis was not written by Christians but by Jews. The only people pretending it rests in Christian fundamentalism are those trying to erect a strawman. You lose your credibility when you resort to strawman. Ungtss 01:58, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Well, Christianity _is_ a Jewish heresy, so the point still stands. --Gulik 13:29, 17 February 2008 (EST)

that doesn't support the point. Genesis is a Jewish book. Christianity and Islam are Jewish heresies that use the book. It's absurd to say that an idea rests in a religion that didn't exist when the idea was developed. The only identifiable purpose of that anachronism is to stain creationism with negative associations with fundamentalism. Empty rhetoric costs you credibility. If you want to be taken seriously, tell the truth. Ungtss 14:15, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Who are the "people pretending it rests in Christian fundamentalism" and where did they say it? I can't find it, must have missed it... human 20:27, 17 February 2008 (EST)

the article used to say that creationism had its roots in fundamentalist Christian theology or words to that effect. Amesg fixed it. Palmd indicated some desire to return it to its prior state, based on the reasoning detailed above. I disagreed, because creationism has its roots in a Jewish history book written at least 3,000 years before Christian fundamentalists appeared on the scene. Ungtss 21:24, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Unt, that's a load of bullshit. Yes, Genesis (Breishit) is originally a Jewish text, and before that it was something else. What counts is how it is used today. Creationism, in the context of North America is, was, and likely always will be a Fundamentalist Chrisitan movement. Don't fuck up the articles. Go troll yourself in a corner for a little while by writing essays, or just jack off in a corner. I don't really care what you do, but people worked hard on these articles. Set up a debate page or something. Oh, and fuck off.--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 21:30, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see, thanks. Some here have a tendency to conflate, as I said above "creationism" with "young earth creationism" - which, in its modern form, is a construct of Christian fundamentalists. This article should serve as a more of a disambiguation page, with the heavy guns aimed at the YEC page. At the same time, endlessly defending "all" creationism with the unbrella of OEC and other, more science-friendly beliefs is a fig leaf meant, in my opinion, to deflect legitimate strong criticism - and mockery - of the YEC position. Cdesign proponentsists, indeed, seek to create a "wedge" who's sharp tip are the YEC loons, and whose thick base depends on implying that the broad range of various Christian denominations and believers are "on their side". ;) human 21:34, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Exactly. Creationism is a minority Christian view that the Earth was created by a supreme deity in 6 days, and that the massive geological and fossil evidence that suggests otherwise is a practical joke on the part of the creator. The vast majority of Jews and Christians understand Genesis as a metaphorical account, whether or not a god started the whole thing going and intervened now and then when existence in the void got boring. As it is, there are two accounts of creation in Genesis itself, so taking it literally takes some doing. PoorEd 21:40, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Check It Out

The Bible and the Human Mind ^{— Unsigned, by: 63.228.78.243 / talk / contribs} 05:25, 28 March 2008‎ (UTC)

Two creation stories

Perhaps this section would be better moved to Creation Week and fought out there?--Bob^{bing up} 06:02, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Well Done, but Needs Work

Taking on the role of a rationally minded human being behooves us all, not to criticize and belittle our fellow brothers and sisters for their ideas, but rather to investigate all areas of life wherever possible.

There is evidence to suggest that the Universe is an intelligent being, and that everything in it might just have a purpose. When we consider where Quantum Physics has taken us, we can't deny that there is an underlying energy system throughout the entire universe from which all things seem to manifest. Physisists call this 'Zero Point' or 'Zero Point Energy', and still some other more ancient sources would call it 'Aether'. Much of what is ancient and considered foolish and archaic is becoming confirmed as modern science progresses.

In his book "Hidden Meanings", Laird Scranton describes how ancient Dogon and Egyptian symbols closely resemble those which modern Quantum Physists use to describe Quantum phenomena. More than mere coincidence, these symbols are based on physical motions and would be the same for any civilization, at anytime in anyplace, looking to describe the universe in which they live.

Futher still, ancient Mayan traditions were based upon cosmological events which couldn't possibly have been measured by any technology of the time as we know it, and much of what the Mayans had calculated was extremely precise, even perfect.

When we consider these types of studies and individuals who are credible, rational people, we see that possibilities exist where none were thought to have existed, and so we can not rationally say that everyone who has ideas about creationism is a 'crack-pot' or 'bullshitter'.

We must do the research before we dismiss what we don't understand out of hand. ^{— Unsigned, by: 198.103.94.104 / talk / contribs} 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

*deskhead* -- 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wooooo! Really? ħuman 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, aether ≠ zero point energy. Zero point energy is an artifact of the quantization of energy. Aether is, well, something different, more phlogiston-esque. The symbols in quantum mechanics are somewhat arbitrary; others could be used, and quantum mechanics would still make sense. As for the rest, well... Sterile egg 02:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On Amazon that fucking book is £156.95!!!!! WTF!!!! (>$200) (TYPO?) & it appears to be just a rehash of Griaule & Dieterlein's and Robert K. G. Temple and several others "work", i.e. largely discredited vonDanikenesque tripe. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 03:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps our anonymous IP would are to back up his assertions with some scientifically credible arguments?--Bob^{bing up} 09:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Apes and creationism

Us apes don't want to be related to no megadimwit (minimalistwit) creationists. Have better things to do with typewriters.^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk 16:39, 4 February 2010‎ (UTC)}

Nice Quote

“”Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.

—Tom Weller, Science Made Stupid, 1985HT

Spot on! 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not fooling me Susan. You wrote that, didn't you?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wish I had. 19:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Trilobites!

look here,creationists!--Thedoctor80 (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is God 'taking the mick'

By setting up an earth with fake geology and fossils, and supra-lunar red shifts etc to fool humans into believing that the universe has existed for 13 billion years rather than a few thousand? (Or allowing Satan to do the above).

Or did God give humans the ability to create an analysis of the universe based on information currently available to them (the Garden of Eden, a cow licking the snow away in Scandinavia etc etc)?

Do the cre(a)tionists use the best of modern medicine, GM foods 'and all the other benefits of modern life'?

82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

THE TRUTH AT LAST!

WHY DOSEN'T ANYONE BELIEVE ME? I HAVE FOUND THE TRUTH!THE FSM PLANTED HOLY RAVIOLI IN THE GROUND TO GROW HUMANS!THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD TREAT THE RAVIOLI AS HOLY!--Thedoctor80 (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Thedoctor80", moral relativism is so prevalent among Darwinists that that the insight is clearly self-evident. I looked at your contributions and I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have, so clearly you're wrong. Furthermore, you deny that exhuming heretics and burning their bodies deters depression. As I've said before, the course of history is a slow but steady movement to the right, as logic and the lessons of history have their positive effects. Don't you see how sometime can estimate when the truth when someone else conceals it? We're going to block your account unless you can explain why you are not a parody.--Andy Schlafly 01:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Refutable concept

Consider the following statement:

God had created the life. The probability of spontaneous creation of life from non–living objects is negligible. No artificial life can be created in the laboratory, even if the conditions of the early Earth will be reproduced and optimized for the creation of life.

Such a statement is refutable concept. It could be rejected by the experiment with creation of artificial life in the laboratory.

The opposite statement, that the life at the Earth was NOT created by God, but appeared as a result of natural evolution, is not refutable and, therefore, not scientific.

Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a very serious misinterpretation of falsifiability, it's certainly nothing more than a semantic argument based on how you phrase your question. If you say "God created life" that remains irrefutable because the goalposts about what God's involvement is can be easily moved. That life appeared through natural abiogenesis is refutable and falsifiable on account of the fact you can demonstrate life spontaneously appearing with no potential natural causes - though this is a problem because you can't be sure you've exhausted all naturalistic pathways. Whether or not it can be replicated in a laboratory is mostly irrelevant. ADK^{...I'll ruffle your communist!} 16:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant because it predicts the results of the experiments. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

".. falsifiable on account of the fact you can demonstrate life spontaneously appearing with no potential natural causes .." how would you do that ? Hamster (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement that I can demonstrate the spontaneous appearing of life is not a fact. Such an expression should be assigned value FALSE, because I cannot demonstrate it. I suspect, nobody can do it. The rest of comments by ADK seem to be out of topic ("lick", "spork", etc.); so, I think, we have no need to discuss them. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. (to be said in Jack Sparrow "sea turtles" kind of way) ADK^{...I'll lick your paperclip!} 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, falsifiability has nothing to do with how you go about disproving something, although that's certainly good practice for any scientist working on developing a theory. It just needs to be some observation that can disprove it. It's considerably more difficult to disprove special creation on account of the potential for goalpost moving, leaving you with special creation as an explanation regardless of evidence. ADK^{...I'll assassinate your spork!} 16:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dmitrii. First off you say "consider the following statement" and then give a paragraph of statements. Your first example statement "God created life" would not be falsified by the subsequent creation of life in a laboratory, and I'm not sure how it could be falsified. Your later example statements, which boil down to "Life cannot be created in a laboratory", would be falsified by the creation of life in the laboratory. So what?

Science assumes that all causes are natural. That is not about falsifiability but is the only way way science can operate.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the only way science can operate because supernatural beliefs are unfalsifiable. You can merely gather what evidence and theories you like and then just STOP, and say "all gaps in the theory and unknown are the work of supernatural entities". However, that's not a falsifiable belief because it's never clear when it would be acceptable to stop and say that, you can't exhaust all naturalistic mechanisms and explanations to the point where you can say that with a straight face. ADK^{...I'll exercise your contraband!} 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Bob

Hello, Bob. The comments by ADK look senseless; to avoid the mixture, I reply you in the subsection.

Bob types: ..paragraph of statements... – Sorry, I did not take them into the parenthesis. I expected, the paragraph and the boldfacing will be recognized as the grouping operation. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of my statement is just extreme compression of Bible, in order to indicate the context. That sentence by itself is not refutable, so, we may drop it out from my statement; it remains refutable after such a shortening. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob: Your later example statements, which boil down to "Life cannot be created in a laboratory", would be falsified by the creation of life in the laboratory. So what?
- So, this is way to refute it! The statement "Life cannot be created in a laboratory" is refutable. So, I consider it as as scientific concept. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob: Science assumes that all causes are natural. -This your sentence is not refutable. It refers to the definition of naturalism as property of a concept. We have different concepts of the term "science". My definition of science is at http://tori.ils.uec.ac.jp/TORI/index.php/Science ; it is different from the science at RationalWiki. In order to enable the constructive discussion, first I try to find the statements we both agree; so, I begin with the simple example about refutability (You call it Falsifiability). Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. So you accept that your first statement about God was not scientific. Thank you.

With regard to science not dealing with the supernatural that is part of Methodological naturalism which is itself part of the scientific method - as indeed is falsifiability.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In order to avoid confusions, we need two different concepts of science:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science by Rationalwiki (Let it be R-science) and

http://tori.ils.uec.ac.jp/TORI/index.php/Science (Let it be T-science)

The R-science implies the falsifiability, allows the objective knowledge and the Methodological naturalism, but also the Omnipotent theory by Marx–Lenin-Stalin-Zedong, Lysenko's transmutation of pine to birch, Oparin's spontaneous creation of life, Menshikov's gravitsapa; interpretation of Genetic, Cybernetics, Quantum mechanics, Relativity theory as pseudo-sciences, and other similar things.

The T-science implies the refutability, rejects the idea of the objective knowledge, but formally accepts even such concepts as those of God, Daemons, and even the Law of Conservation of Energy-Momentum and the Axioms of arithmetics may be revised in a concept that satisfies the six Axioms of TORI. (Although it is difficult to satisfy the Axioms with concepts mentioned, if at al.)

I consider T-science to be more efficient, than R-science.

You consider R-science to be more efficient, than T-science.

Do you agree with the last two statements? Are you ready to compare the efficiency? Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dmitrii. I see that you very need to talk about your concept, that may be called as "scientific pluralism (or, maybe, relativism)". So, I'll join you. As I'd said at Russian section, not only falsifiability determines belonging some suggestions to the scientific hypotheses. And speculations like "life cannot be created in a laboratory" has no more reasons than an arrangement that "all babies brought by a stork" for small children that don't know anything about human regeneration processes. Why? Because both of this hypotheses not require any evidence to be formulated. They are just empty speculations.

And, of course, it is very interesting that your "six axioms" are not able to distinguish science and religion. This is very big defect of such criteria.--Bertran (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demitri. I think the best person to talk to about your ideas is Jim Jast if he's not available then Maratrean could be interested. Cheers.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bertran: "life cannot be created in a laboratory" has no more reasons than an arrangement that "all babies brought by a stork" - Sorry, this statement is wrong. Perhaps, you mean birth. There are observations on babies delivered from vagina, but there are no observations of a baby brought by a stork. There are descriptions of life on the Earth, but there are no descriptions of creation of life in the laboratory. I have another example for you: Do you consider the statement "The number of atoms of each kind in any closed system remains constant" as scientific concept? Sincerely, Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've answered to that at Russian version. These two suggestions are uncomparable.--Bertran (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please indicate your answer? I found, I typed ...концепция о сохранении количества атомов каждого элемента в замкнутой системе столь же успешно предсказывала неудачи алхимических опытов. (http://ru.rationalwiki.org/wiki/Обсуждение:Научный_креационизм), but that is not a question and you did not say wether you consider the hypothesis mentioned as a scientific concept or not. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. For details see Russian version.--Bertran (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Russian version your answer is "yes". Is this answer valid for the English version? I repeat, the question was Do you consider the statement "The number of atoms of each kind in any closed system remains constant" as scientific concept? Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? See my response above one more time. I said yes.--Bertran (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not kidding, but some replies seem to delay. Thank you for the answer; en fin, I an successful to get it. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the comment by Bob, it some Maratrean wants to communicate some Demitri, then that Maratrean may consider the idea to send a message to that Demitri. Sincerely, Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think, Bob, that they've found each other? I hope that they don't.--Bertran (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope they do. I'd buy the popcorn and sit back.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a match made in the fires of Satan's ass-crack. ADK^{...I'll edify your cardboard box!} 11:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dmitrii, I am Maratrean, pleased to meet you. Please tell me about your theories. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I consider creationism as refutable concept. (and abiogenesis as religious one). It is specified at the top. Also, there are links at my userpage, and you may visit also http://tori.ils.uec.ac.jp/TORI/index.php/Biogenesis and formulate there your questions or objections. I hope, I have no need to copypast my argumentation here. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I clarify, you say you deny abiogenesis, but you identify two forms of that denial - (1) life in the universe always existed, (2) life in the universe was created by God. Are you saying you prefer (2) over (1), or are you saying they are both equal possibilities in your eyes? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Maratrean

No. I would not say that I deny abiogenesis. I cannot deny it because it is not a refutable concept.
The concept The life in Our Universe was created by God, and no life can arise from non–living matter in a chemical reaction is refutable. The description of methodic of a chemical experiment, that leads to creation of life from a non–living materials (and confirmation of this methodic by independent researchers) would be refutation of this concept.
The concept The life can be created in a chemical reactions is not refutable. Neither I not the admin of this site (bertran) can describe any hypothetic observation that would refute such a concept.
As for my eyes, I suspect, that some life can be created in laboratory (although not as a result of a chemical reaction). The principle of biogenesis is old; there were many reports about the experimental refutation of this principle (in particular, by the soviet veterans), and they happened to be frauds – in the same ways, as the attempts to convert led to gold in the alchemy, or to construct the perpetual motion machine, some gravitsapa of the Khrunichev space production and research center, etc...
By the way, is TORI reachable from your server? Your questions look in such a way, as if you did not see it... Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I read your page at TORI, I just decided to ask questions here instead of there. OK, consider two concepts - "life originated through abiogenesis" and "life was created by God". You say the first is not a scientific concept, but the second is. But I want to concentrate instead on the difference between "life was created by God" and "life is uncreated and has always existed". Are they both scientific concepts? Do you prefer one over the other? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

.."life was created by God" and "life is uncreated and has always existed". Are they both scientific concepts? - No. None of them is scientific.

Do you prefer one over the other? - Yes. I prefer the first. There us Hubble law, it determines the proportionality between the distance $D$ to an astrophysical object and the speed $v$ it goes from us:

$v=HD$ ,

where $H$ is the Hubble constant; it is estimated as

$H\approx 73.8{\rm {{\frac {km/sec}{MegaParsec}}\approx 2.4\times 10^{-30}\,Hz}}$ .

The inverse of the Hubble constant, roughly, determines the Age of Universe,

${\rm {Age~of~Universe}}\approx 1/H\approx 0.4\times 10^{30}{\rm {sec}}\approx 1.4\times 10^{14}{\rm {years}}$ .

Roughly, a hundred TeraYear ago, there were no life in Our Universe.

Sorry, there was mistake. Thank you for the correction. The corrected estimate:

$H\approx 73.8{\rm {{\frac {km/sec}{MegaParsec}}\approx 2.4\times 10^{-16}\,Hz}}$ .

The inverse of the Hubble constant, roughly, determines the Age of Universe,

${\rm {Age~of~Universe}}\approx 1/H\approx 4.2\times 10^{17}{\rm {sec}}\approx 1.3\times 10^{10}{\rm {years}}$ .

Roughly, a dozen gigaYear ago, there were no life in Our Universe. The concept with God does not lead to such a contradiction with commonly accepted paradigms. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC) correction: Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, Big Bang yes, abiogenesis no = Old Earth Creationism. About the Big Bang, have a chat to JimJast. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing - what about evolution? I see two possibilities (1) abiogensis no, evolution yes - God created basic life, but then left life to evolve into higher forms itself; (2) abiogensis no, evolution no - God created not just basic life, but also higher forms of life as well, evolution doesn't happen. Which is your view? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that you heaven't confusions? 10¹⁴ (one hundred trillion) years old of Universe is not stated by BB-theory.--Bertran (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, although what do we call a theory which claims the universe has a finite age, but several orders of magnitude older than mainstream BB theory suggests? It's not mainstream BB theory, but it is not e.g. steady state theory either, and it can still have a Big Bang. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but if you look above at the calculations of age of the Universe made by Dmitrii, you must to observe at least two mistakes there. I am talking about arithmetics.--Bertran (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree his arithmetic is wrong. using his logic of Age of Universe = 1/H, and H = 2.4e-30, Google tells me (1/(2.4e-30))/(365.25*86400) = 1.32033699e22. And I haven't checked it all, just that calculation, so there may be more errors. But, personally, I was more interested in the concepts, than whether his calculations are right. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you found the errors in the arithmetics, will you please correct them? Then I'll answer your questions. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we then have ${\rm {Age~of~Universe}}\approx 1/H\approx 4.2\times 10^{29}{\rm {sec}}\approx 1.3\times 10^{22}{\rm {years}}$. I don't know about the logic, but that should fix the arithmetic at least. Also, that's only your second line, I haven't confirmed the first one (and obviously, since the second uses the results of the first, if the first is wrong, so must be the second). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, according to Google, 73.8 ((km / second) / megaParsec) = 2.39169305 × 10^-18 hertz. So the first line is out by a fair bit. And then, that turns into 1.3e10 years, or about 13 billion years. Which, yeah, agrees with mainstream Big Bang theory. So I take it you agree with mainstream Big Bang, you just had some bad arithmetic. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Maratrean. I have corrected the numbers. Hope it is better now. Dmitrii Kouznetsov (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The economy of miracles

...is the idea that creationists will resort to Goddidit only when absolutely necessary to explain away inconvenient facts, so as to seem more 'scientific'. It is the prime reason that they go to the trouble of amusing us with their amazingly complex ideas for things like the flood, eg the ol' hydroplate theory. See here (and search for the term) for a creationist's description.

Do we have an article on this topic? Do we want one? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 08:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you mean trying to explain miracles with weird and wonderful explanations, it's certainly worth elaborating on but probably in the miracles article rather than on a separate page. ADK^{...I'll assassinate your baseball bat!} 11:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that Eyeonicr means that miracles are a "weapon of last resort" for creationists, only to be used when their "complex ideas ..." fail. Pippa (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's right. I had thought that I had first heard the term on this site somewhere, but the search box has failed me if I did... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 23:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the "economy of miracles" rather like Occam's razor? Since Occam himself was a Catholic theologian (and a monk to boot), it seems to me likely that Christian ideas about the "economy of miracles", "divine simplicity", etc., are likely closer to Occam's original idea than modern scientific/materialist/atheist interpretations are. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The paradox of God's sanity

God creates the universe.

He (rather than she, it, 'assorted flavours of us, them, and gender X - as with the passports) designs it such that there is no obvious evidence of God being present (possibly 'being an artist wants the artwork to be admired, not the technique'). Moreover, the universe is so designed that sentients, being designed in God's image (not images, despite sentients' diversity) develop theories that make the universe far older than it is, with much more complexity than 6000 years of development would allow. (Passing mention to Last Thursdayism here.)

IS God (1) insane, (2) wishing to be totally ignored, (3) operating a perverse way of eliminating most persons from going to heaven, (4) illogical, (5) giving sentients the knowledge that they are capable of receiving (much as a school infant is given basic books rather than starting with post-doc theses), (6) playing the ultimate puzzle-giver? 82.198.250.67 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You left out the most obvious possibility - non-existent. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I'm sure you're aware that that's not the point. ADK^{...I'll xerox your glycerin!} 17:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Items 1-4 are a comment on the 'sanity' of the Young Earthers (note quote marks), and 5-6 are compatible with most deist positions (and an assortment of religious positions). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to Evolution denial

Do you think this would be an accurate title? Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No. "Creationism" is what it's own promoters call it (when they aren't obfuscating and calling it intelligent design). Renaming it "evolution denial" would just be a doomed, pointless attempt at re-framing a well-established battle. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No for pretty much identical reasons. Further, this is about creationism, that it postulates that the Earth was magically created (whether it be young or old) it's not simply "evolution doesn't happen" because it actively replaces the idea with something else. Global warming denial does deny climate change is occurring, but doesn't replace it with magic (some odd theories to explain away the evidence, but it's centered around a denial, not proposing an alternative as creationism does). ^bomination 13:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I think that evolution is what really irks creationists - they cannot accept that man is not a special creation by God - they are wedded to a recent creation and "evolutionary" is just their snarl shorthand for any science that posits an old-Earth/universe. If we renamed the issue then we would drop off the map and be lost to the debate. However, I see no harm in redirecting Evolution denial to here. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The harmless deed is did. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Creationism is many things. Although many creationists deny evolution some would argue that (a) god created the world and then used evolution to achieve "his" (or perhaps its) ends. Consequently creationism does not necessarily need to be either associated with or need denial of evolution. It's a different - though equally wrong - concept.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I erred somewhat, this article is, of course, just Creationism and not Young-Earth Creationism. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Notably, Islam doesn't posit a young Earth, only no evolution. In theory, that's "evolution denial", but is better covered by a more specific topic of "evolution and Islam". There's also the occasional fuck-up on the pop-science front that says "evolution has stopped because of [X]", which might be evolution denial. These are interesting topics, but nothing that really warrants renaming "creationism" to "evolution denial". ^moral 15:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tighterness

This article should be a bridge to better and more in-depth material. As it is, it's a bloated mess. Key material get's omitted from some sections while strange detail is explored in others. I think I started down the latter rabbit hole a few hours ago. Purple drank. Would someone like to collaborate with me to organize this thing once and for all? 06:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want tighterness you should put your finger in my vagine. Watch out for the rats though. And the badger. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Article rating

User:Nutty Roux apparently does not believe this article merits any brainstars, even bronze. I would like him to justify his continued removal of brainstars from this article here. Blue (is useful) 07:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Show me the discussion leading to this article getting a "brainstar." It looks like someone adding it unilaterally. When it comes to core material, this kind of decision requires consensus, not someone with hotrate and a clicky finger. The onus is on you. 07:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The irony of asking someone to prove that an article on creationism deserves no stars is breathtaking. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Precedent is that bronze can be added without discussion, and a discussion like the one I started is only necessary when people disagree. That is all I will say on the matter. Blue (pester) 08:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that I've seen people just put these stars on things. This says that only silver and gold need to be nominated so presumably bronze can be given by anybody.

However, it seems that this article is an exception and needs (for some reason) a nomination process . OK. I nominate this article for bronze.--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) No need to nominate. I looked up the criteria for bronze. This article fits. End of. Sophie^Wilder 10:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Outcry edits

Outcry removed from the article:

The claim is apparently false, as the Discovery Institute, currently the leading promotor of intelligent design in the United States, was remarkably candid in admitting in the wedge strategy document that its purpose is to advocate creationism on purely religious grounds

Given that the two governing goals laid out in the wedge strategy document are (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document):

1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

I would say that they are entirely wrong, and the article should be changed back to it's original form.Tielec01 (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree and shall revert. Nobody^{don't bother} 06:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Our intro paragraph starts off:

• "Creationism refers to the belief that the universe and everything in it were specially created by God through magic, rather than naturalistic means."

after waffling around for a while the intro section ends with:

• "Other varieties of creationism are sometimes less in conflict with empirical observations; some are not in conflict at all, such as the deist belief that the universe developed exactly how the scientists say it did."

It seems to me that the first sentence and the last sentence can't both be true.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

it might be more correct to say "Christian Creationists" but thats the only group activeely promoting creationism in the uSA. The australian aboriginals have there own creation myths but they are not very vocal about it Hamster (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hindu creationism is a thing. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 21:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment about "Christian Creationists". Surely if you are a creationist of any stripe you believe that some God or Gods magicked the world into existence?

My point about the contradiction above is that is you believe that god or gods magicked he world into existence (sentence one) then you cannot simultaneously believe that that "the universe developed exactly how the scientists say it did" (sentence 2).--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 07:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the second sentence.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It could've been "magicked" into existence at the Big Bang, and everything which followed would've been the universe developing according to the physical laws as set by the original creator deity. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, reinstating previous version of second sentence. Nullahnung (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on! How can "Some undefined god created the universe through a magical act" possibly be compatible with science?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the magic of philosophical pedantry! Nullahnung (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume that this deity's "magical act" can't possibly be explained scientifically. If it's conceivable that humans might one day create miniature universes (be they physical or virtual), then it would seem contradictory to rule out the hypothesis that a sentient being could've given rise to our own universe. Of course, we don't know what, if anything, gave rise to the Big Bang, so all of this is mere speculation for now. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that if you invoke supernatural explanations then science, which uses methodological naturalism, cannot accept those explanations. If you are going to redefine God as some all-powerful though not divine alien then you are not really talking about "God" doing it.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 06:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have the impression that you're confining yourself to certain narrow definitions which necessarily exclude any divine explanation from scientific consideration. If you define a deity as a being with supernatural powers and methodological naturalism as the working assumption that only "natural" explanations are to be taken into consideration, then logically you're going to be excluding all explanations that involve a deity. But is it really necessary for a deity's powers to be "supernatural" (in the interpretation of "beyond the physical")? Do scientists and creationists even mean the same thing when talking about "nature"? To a scientist, "nature" is simply a word to refer to "everything out there". But for a creationist, "nature" is synonymous with "God's creation". It's not because creationists consider God to be supernatural by their definition of nature that deities are necessarily supernatural in a scientific sense. A god that flies through the skies and shoots lightning might just be lighter than air and have a physiology that allows it to generate electricity, like an electric eel. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a non-supernatural deity. Though whether or not it would be a "deity" in that case might be open to question.

What theoretical experiment could be carried out to disprove it's existence? Because, apart from the deist god being excluded from scientific explanations by methodological naturalism, it's also excluded because there is no way to test the hypothesis using the scientific method. The existence of the deist god is a matter of faith and "God of the gaps" arguments and not evidence.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 09:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a possible scenario, even if it's not testable. There are plenty of untestable possibilities around like what if everything was an illusion created by a demon to trick you for no apparent reason? Of course they seem absurd and not even worth considering, but they're not "incompatible" with what science has observed so far, in so far as every scientific model and observation could coexist along with these scenarios. What makes this particular scenario (a deity from a parallel universe or something somehow causing the Big Bang) more appealing to your average deist than the demon scenario is that we don't appear to have any better explanation for what caused the Big Bang, we just know it happened. Nullahnung (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand it's possible and I understand it's appealing to some people. But neither of these is enough to make it science.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore. All the sentence was trying to say is that there exists no conflict between empirical observations and some deist beliefs, not that deist beliefs are the same as science. Nullahnung (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that Goddiditwithscience is a decent scientific hypothesis. I was just objecting to your objection that "God = supernatural, thus creationism = incompatible with science" with the suggestion that a creator deity doesn't necessarily need to create the universe through supernatural (i.e. scientifically inexplicable) means. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

My objection is to this statement: .... some (creationist ideas) are not in conflict at all (with science), such as the deist belief that the universe developed exactly how the scientists say it did, but that God created the universe.

This idea is clearly in conflict with science as science does not accept supernatural explanations of anything - much less the origin of the universe. It is also in conflict with science as it is a non-testable assertion.

It is on the same level as claiming ghosts exist. It is possible and some people might like to believe it. But being possible and attractive to some does not make it scientific.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

As I already said, though, creator deities (or deities in general) don't need to be supernatural. Also, if everything that is non-testable is in conflict with science, then many of the theories proposed by theoretical physicists about what would've preceded the Big Bang are in conflict with science. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Falsifiability is an important concept in scientific theory. There is no experiment which could theoretically be carried out which would falsify the assertion that a God created the universe. It's like claiming that I have an invisible non-tactile elephant in my garage. It's possible but untestable.

Your suggestions about creator-deities as aliens who create the universe simply muddy the waters. Where did they come from? It explains nothing and only pushes the creation question one step further back.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, there's a notable difference between "in conflict with empirical observations" and "in conflict with science" (where you seem to be equating "science" with "a purely scientific world view"). Since we don't have any empirical observations of reality before the Big Bang, we can posit whatever we want to have kickstarted the Big Bang - quantum foam, God, a Velociraptor, a cute little pink unicorn - and it wouldn't be in conflict with any empirical observations. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am equating "science" with "a scientific world-view". You can indeed posit whatever you like before the big bang - just don't call it science.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have turned into a silly semantics debate where both sides have pretty much the same opinion, but are arguing over what the phrases "in conflict with" and "compatible with" mean and whether they differ in meaning, etc. etc. Nullahnung (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I disagree. The idea that science can encompass the opinion that the universe was magically created by God is fundamentally wrong.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And now we're entering a silly semantics debate about what "encompasses" means in terms of science. As our own page says, science is the system of acquiring knowledge through use of the scientific method. Areas yet unexplored or unexplorable by science, such as what caused the beginning of the universe (which leads to the Big Bang) are obviously not known and may or may not ever be known, so you can just start believing whatever you want, be it spaghetti monsters or monkeys with elephants, because it wouldn't conflict with the knowledge that science has successfully recovered. Nullahnung (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

As you rightly point out "science is the system of acquiring knowledge through use of the scientific method."

But what are we to do in respect of areas in which we have no scientific knowledge yet? We can, as you seem to suggest, simply make something up and believe that - but this frankly is not very productive and kind of silly as it means we have an "answer" and no further investigation is required.

On the other hand we can say "I don't know - we don't have enough information yet. It needs more investigation. Let's do that."--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 05:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, not carrying a belief other than "we don't understand this yet" seems to be the most sensible option to me as well and is an attitude that may be productive in terms of science. Another attitude I've always believed in is that you question your beliefs constantly, especially when there is no scientifically acquired knowledge regarding them, and this is conducive to progressing your model of these things in the future. Therefore I am open to the idea that believing whatever silly thing you want about things not yet investigated is not in fact in conflict with science because you can always question and change them at any time. Nullahnung (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with accepting uncertainty until we gain more knowledge on the issue, but that also implies not arbitrarily ruling out possibilities you don't like. When scientists themselves have suggested that we ourselves may one day be able to create universes, it seems rather odd to suggest that creation by an intelligent agent, regardless of its divineness or lack thereof, should not be considered among the possibilities when we hypothesize about the origin of our own universe. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It does seem rather silly to consider pink unicorns as the beginning of the universe, though. I mean, why would you do that without some sort of scientific evidence? You wouldn't. Same deal with a god. I do get where Bob is coming from. Nullahnung (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, evidence is the question. It's not that (as rationalists) we are justified in believing things when there is no evidence against them. Instead we are justified in believing things when there is positive evidence in their favour. And even then our level of belief should be proportionate to this evidence. The better and more conclusive the evidence the more confident we can be. If we have multiple converging lines of evidence then our confidence grows even further.

But how can we possibly say that we believe something to be "true" when our only evidence is the lack of negative evidence? Let's believe in Bigfoot, or fairies or ghosts or alien abductions. After all we can't positively show that these things don't exist.

As far as the alien "intelligent agent" is concerned we have two problems. 1. There is no good evidence in favour of this hypothesis. 2. It serves no purpose as an explanation of origins as we are then left with explaining the origins of the "intelligent agent".

I am not rejecting an hypothesis - but forming an hypothesis is just step one. After that you need to look for supporting evidence for the hypothesis and/or look for ways to test it experimentally. Until there is evidence in favour of the magic alien and some way to test it experimentally it will never get any further than being an hypothesis. For the moment it remains at the same level of probability as the hypothesis "fairies created the universe.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 09:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. While I understand where you're coming from, I feel compelled by philosophical pedantry to point out that silly beliefs with zero evidence to back them up do not in fact conflict with science as long as they don't go against any evidence and are also subject to change in the future through continued inquiry. Nullahnung (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that a statement about which science has yet to come to a consensus could not be described as untrue. But it also seems to be that nobody would have any reason whatsoever to believe the statement is true. The number of ways of being wrong is vastly greater than the number of ways of being right, and any idea not backed by evidence is statistically far more likely to be wrong than right.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, I get that. Nullahnung (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So what are we discusing now, exactly? I thought we'd established that nobody who's currently partaking in this discussion is proposing Goddidit or aliensdidit as proper scientific hypotheses or worthwhile beliefs here. Yet here we are talking about justified belief, evidence and testability once more. If you wanna talk about the scientific relevancy of these kinds of speculations, that's fine, of course.

Okay, so first let's talk about "evidence" for how the Big Bang got kickstarted. Are we likely to ever find evidence that clearly points to a specific hypothesis? Personally, I'm very doubtful about that. If there ever develops a scientific consensus on the issue, I think it'll depend largely on the perceived plausibility and simpleness of the theory. So as far as I know, we don't have evidence pointing in any clear direction. Should that mean that nothing meaningful can be said about it? Not necessarily.

Now, instead of looking at just our own universe, I propose instead we look at the issue more generally: let's talk about the various origins universes in general may have. If we suppose that a sufficiently advanced civilization or entity can create universes and we assume that such civilizations or entities exist or have existed at some point, then we must conclude that there are both natural universes and artificial ones. Perhaps some of such artificial universes are substantially different from natural ones, while some may be indistinguishable from them in substance. Now, what can we say about the creators of artificial universes? Are some of them gods? Are some of them fairies? Are some of them unicorns? If reality is infinite in space, time or both, then we must conclude that even extremely unlikely possibilities will eventually become real. Assuming this, would there be any universe-creating beings that look like fairies or unicorns? Yes, but there would be an unimaginably huger number of universe-creating beings that didn't look like them. What about gods? Well, that depends on what definition we employ. Either gods are beings formidable enough to be worshipped by lowly mortals (which I could argue would include a great portion of all beings that are able to create universes) or gods are beings formidable enough to be worshipped by lowly mortals and that have the magical power to ignore or change the laws of physics (which is a description that in itself assumes the illegitimacy of science). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That's some pretty funky weed you're smoking there. Placeholder (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish. I'm way too poor to afford weed. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Arguments against creationism

Number 895 (or whichever we are up to) onwards

• No beer-lakes
• No 'bamboo gun plants' (ie producing the blanks) or bullet-seed plants.
• Non-Americans
• No 'burgers on legs' (which can be shot at).
• People who insist on believing in the alternative views which can be deduced from the evidence.

What else? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

6 days

If God created the world in 6 days, does that mean 6 Earth days, or 6 Venus days, or 6 Neptune days, or 6 days on a planet in a galaxy on the other side of the universe from the Milky Way? And Why did God create the Earth at the very beginning and create the Sun on day 4? What did Earth orbit for 3 days? And why does it say on day 4 God made the moon and the sun and the stars? It says the Sun and the stars? I thought the Sun was a star. And how did God create vegetation on day 3? Didnt the plants all die without sunlight for an entire day? And why did God create the seas on day? What controlled the tides for a day until the moon was created? And why did God create birds and fish before land animals and humans? And after creating an entire universe, why did it take God 2 days to create all the animals on earth? When did God create all the life elsewhere in the universe (I really do not think there can be such a big universe and that Earth can be the only place where anything happens)? And why did God have to rest? Does God get tired? Isnt God all powerful? Does God still rest? Is God asleep right now? What happens when God "rests"? Wouldnt the entire world plunge into anarchy and the universe could explode? And finally (for now)(that is all I can think of right now), if God was so powerful, why did it take God 6 days to make the world? Couldnt God have just created it instantly? Did God "need" a certain order to create things or else it would fall apart (like if you put the roof on a house before you put up the walls)? God can do anything, so he does not need to wait 6 days to make something. CedricDoodlehopper (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's just a mystery.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The real question that you completely missed out should be "how was there such a thing as 'day' and 'night' before there was a sun?".-- 194.81.33.57 (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC

(First I apoligize how Im editting this, still getting used to how the site is set up) The person/people that actually wrote the Book of Genisis never said 'day'. It was aeon and it specifically meant period of time. Please stop hacking the text as well as the original language. Also, source your stuff. My sorce is any given Jewish person well versed in historic language like Aramaic or Arabic. Anyone that says it means a 'day' is falsifing the original language. Or are we now saying that the Bible was never transscribed by hand by people we have never met? The only arguments that are valid in this particlur situation is going back to what was meant by the creator of the text, which is sourced back to the Catholic Church or Jewish folks that have access to the original texts. The last thing is, can any of you get a Strongs Concordence? It would kill these archaic debates. This was settled in the 400's AD along with most of the language isses. Less than 100 years after the voting took place by men only, what was supposed to be the Bible in 334 AD at the Council of Nicene. But everyone knew that right? Or are the Christians wrong? (DeanCorso11)

Are you people daft?

Science is fake, and dinosaurs never really existed because The Bible tells us God created the Earth only 3000 years ago. Do you people know you are all going to hell for your wicked beliefs?^{— Unsigned, by: 5.104.224.246 / talk / contribs}

I'm afraid that nobody really believes you are serious.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Awww, and I was looking forward to a real one! ^{Don't click here} 11:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Deists and God of the Gaps being "less in conflict with science."

A man asks a woman if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it, and agrees. He then asks if she will sleep with him for ten dollars. "What kind of woman do you think I am?" she asks, shocked. "We have already ascertained what kind of woman you are. Now we are negotiating."

If you put God at the start of a 6000-year long process that is the coming into existence of the present, you are a creationist. If you put God at the start of a billions-and-billions of years long process guided by natural forces that is the coming into existence of the present, you are a creationist. Both are in conflict with science. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, clearly you are using a definition of the term "God" that includes an anti-scientific component. I would argue that this is not a necessary component. Thus you're basically begging the question. I would elaborate further, but I'd just be repeating stuff I said over here. Feel free to read and react to some of the points raised there. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this, but empirical observations ≠ science. The meanings of these phrases are not, by any means, identical. 141.134.75.236 (talk)

Well, when we have reliable empirical evidence of God causing the Big Bang, then it can go in the article. Otherwise, it's just plain old creationism. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Kinda odd that this wiki isn't called EmpiricalWiki then, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Drink? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my French but believing that a G-d of gaps created the universe is comparable to believing that the Earth (or for that matter the universe) is six thousand years old is complete BS. Creationism is absurd because it goes against scientific data, hence Rationalwiki's page of science you have to disbelieve in order believe in Young Earth Creationism. We see this often among all Creationists who believe that Jesus buried Fossils to test our faith. What the page is suggesting is that not only are all those who believe that G-d created the universe are creationists (which is true), but that all of those who believe G-d created the universe are on the same intellectual plane as those who believe the universe was created in seven (technically six) days. This page exists to expose the anti-scientific nature of the Creationist movement. This is not the proper place to discus whether a G-d that may or may not exist caused the big bang or whatever would have come before it. Let me explain what the entire concept of a "G-d of the gaps" is: phenomenon that cannot be explained are attributed to G-d, period. Comparing the dismissal of scientific data because said data contradicts religious (or political) beliefs to a "G-d of the gaps" is completely ridiculous.^{— Unsigned, by: Alsto003 / talk / contribs} 01:27, 9 June 2014‎ (UTC)

How This Promotes Ignorance, Education Policy de-evolution, Global Warming:

'Creationism' may be a term associated with the Christian Creation Myth but it is not logical or helpful to the mission of RW to operate on the assumption that that particular creation myth represents its primary denotative meaning.

Question: What causes RW editors to stonewall or argue against rewording pages or structurally redesigning RW to reflect understanding of this? Fear of providing fodder for arguments against teaching evolution; separation of church and state; global warming remediation, etc?

Privileging the Christian creation myth privileges the Christian creation myth; it promotes the Christian religion. It 'canonizes', lends credence to, and elevates Christian ideology (which is highly disassociated from science and physical matters) over all ideologies associated with religions and spiritual beliefs which are not or are much less disassociated from the natural world; these range from much less to not at all antagonistic toward science. The ideologies or cultural pov represented in these numerous 'alternative' (hello?) religions and spiritual belief systems are simultaneously discredited, further minimized and marginalized by this privileging of Christian creation myth. This is out of keeping with RW mission in that allowing such entanglement with the institution of Christian 'Creationism' trolling is like wasting time cavorting with satanic chlorofluorocarbon 'angels'; time that would be better spent towing indigenous emergence creation stories free of the rising ocean whirlpools, drowning in reverse down the sipapu hole.

By dint of the influence of the whole Judeo-Christian-Muslim branch of religion and Christianity in particular, this telling and retelling of Christian Creation Stories reinforces and lends status to the most disassociated branch of religion and drags a particular perception of religion into places where giving it canonical status among religions interferes most profoundly; look at how much energy has gone into this here.

That is understandable to a degree under the premise that most if not all (Western world) arguments against educating our citizens (about evolution 'as if' it were fact, about global warming 'as if' it were not a 'debate', about separation of church and state 'as if' there is a point in maintaining it) in public schools are derived from Christian religion or operate under the pretense of being derived from it. But after a point, relegating so much of our resources to reactive, defensive engagement with that rather than creative tactical offense merely increases the fallout and influence of Christian creationism and anyone associating themselves with it.

The point? What does this have to do with RWs mission?

These Christian 'creationism' arguments are designed to distract, they are designed to affect democratic participation and public policy and whether genuine or disingenuous, well-laid or not, they gain enormous traction due to the cultural dominance of this particular religion and branch of religions (which, by the way, does not represent the more 'scientific' emergence creation myths but rather the ideological type which identifies with the human mind as 'creator'); many citizens who are religious but not Christian, or neither, are swayed by these arguments. The degree to which we engage with these arguments has a huge impact on our ability to promote well-informed public dialog, functional democracy and public policy which reflects healthy relations with sound science.

--Greeneggs (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What? --Inquisitor (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Devoting so much energy and attention to 'refuting' Christian Creationism gives it POWER, gives those who use it to shove the fossil fuel industry further down our throats POWER; it keeps the Christian Creation Story at the top of the food chain, and the Great White Hunters of Science have wiped out the Buffalo Wolves of other creation stories that would cull the Christian Creationism sheep herd down to size and keep that damn Christian Creationism and all the purposes it serves in check here more effectively than the Great White Hunters of science do. 'Effectively' as in effective medicine, man! hah; how's that for brevity? Did that make more sense?

I'm telling you: The Bush Administration put a brand new English textbook in my son's hands in a public school well north of the dixie line and East of the Missippi. It had a Chapter on 'History' beginning with the Christian frigging Genesis -Creation MYTH provided as a frigging EXAMPLE of HISTORY, and a Chapter on 'Mythology' beginning with the EXAMPLE of a NATIVE AMERICAN CREATION STORY. FK that MF shit! You all are going right along with it. Okay, I got the paper bag.--Greeneggs (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: But I love what you're doing, Inquisitor. Better you than me!--Greeneggs (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Significance of how creationist one is

This I quote from our article:

"While people who believe in this model accept scientific explanations for the development of the universe, their presumption that there exists an unobserved supernatural first cause means that they are no less creationist than people who subscribe to YEC."

What do we even mean by that? The wording is written as if there was an "amount of creationism" that people can have while at the same time basically telling the reader that you are either creationist or you aren't and that there isn't any "amounts" in between, which is a contradiction of meanings within the same sentence. But that is a minor concern with this sentence and is more a criticism of the wording than the overall meaning. More importantly, why do we even need to say that you are either creationist or not? That seems rather like a given that's not worth mentioning. Nullahnung (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It reads that the intended point is that this fake "compromise" position is still just as wrong on the science, and that people take it on as a kind of inoculation against the ridicule that creationists receive, and the article is trying to express that it's not valid to this end. "Just as creationist" is an attempt to express that. Ikanreed (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If everything you say is the case, then it would be much clearer (relatively) to put the words you have just written in the article than to just have "just as creationist". It seems to be a phrase of which the intended point only becomes clear when you have gone through the necessary initiation into the context, thus not very reader-oriented. Nullahnung (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty judgmental on its face. Ken Miller (Cell biologist who argued for evolution in the Dover trial) really is quite different from Ken Hamm. Yet both are Christians and believe in god. Saying Ken is "no less creationist" than Ken Hamm is flatly absurd.One tin soldier (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The legal standard of 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' might aid in assessing the relevance of actual belief, which cannot be scientifically verified. Technically, belief doesn't exist, in that sense, by default, because the existence of belief is an unproven scientific theory. Belief (in fact or fiction) 'could' be conditional, bifurcated, presumed, professed, a pretense, a rhetorical device. Statistically, what anyone -credentialed or not- can 'report' about their own or anyone else's opinion or belief can be useful, but as a means of measuring actual fact, data gathered thus is notoriously flawed and easily manipulated. So does the pseudo-science of quantifying belief waste resources barking up the wrong tree? In the case of Creationism and its 'theoretical' impact, is the glorious art of bullshit part of a category of reality that is more scientifically significant than believed?--Greeneggs (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok I'll bite. So I'll just start with the first sentence I take clear issue with - your second. (Though the first is none too clear.)

You state: "Technically, belief doesn't exist, in that sense, by default, because the existence of belief is an unproven scientific theory."

First of all "belief" obviously exists as people "believe" things. Whether or not they should believe them might be open to question - but the reality that people believe things (to varying degrees) seems to be unquestionable.

Secondly you go on to state that "the existence of belief is an unproven scientific theory". I'm guessing that you mean "hypothesis" rather than "theory" here, but even if we allow "unproven hypothesis" I'm still not sure what you mean. Could you clearly state "the scientific hypothesis of belief" to which you object that we can understand your point?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Captor demands attention, be back on that.--Greeneggs (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You write the following: It reads that the intended point is that this fake "compromise" position is still just as wrong on the science, and that people take it on as a kind of inoculation against the ridicule that creationists receive, and the article is trying to express that it's not valid to this end. "Just as creationist" is an attempt to express that. It is flatly absurd to compare Young Earth Creationists to creationists who simply believe that G-d created the universe. What this comes off as is that you are saying that accepting something like Isaac Newton's clock and clock-maker theory is "just as creationist" as the idea that the universe was created in six days less than ten thousand years ago. There is a belief which you are undoubtedly familiar with called the "G-d of the gaps" which attributes that which is unknown by science to a Supreme being for lack of any other explanation. In addition one can always maintain that a "G-d of the gaps" created "the universe" if only because the word "universe" in the language of the bible can be translated and interpreted however we damn well please. Now to argue the merits of the "G-d of the gaps" definition would create a heated argument between me and you, but from the point of view of this agnostic putting people who believe in a "G-d of the gaps" in the same camp as true believers is insulting because the former is willing to accept science and the latter is not. I understand that atheists view any belief in G-d as contradictory to science, as an agnostic I fundamentally disagree with this specific assertion. However I disagree with your characterization for another reason. Attempting to say that being a Young earth Creationists is no different than believing that G-d created the universe is wrong because the two approach religion with fundamentally different philosophies. The former tries to make science comply with religion and the later makes religion comply with science. The result of these two philosophies is that the former is visibly crazy and the latter is not visibly crazy. Alsto003 (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

For me the implied equal condemnation of all creationist beliefs just shows how dogmatic this atheistic rejection of God-explanations is. For one thing, we can pretty much be sure that some universes (also counting simulated realities; though arguably not "real" physical universes, their simulated nature may be undiscoverable for entities living inside these realities) are artifically created. Since we have pretty much nothing to go on to determine the ratio of artificial universes to natural universes, declaring the hypothesis as absurd or irrelevant would be pretty damn presumptive. And if we consider the hypothesis that we're living in an artificial universe, would it be so odd to ascribe all sorts of out-of-this-world properties and powers to our creator entity? They would hail from a different universe after all — who knows how different?

Regardless of whether there are any creation narratives that might have some merit to them, however, labeling YECs and deists as "equally creationist" is just plain bogus. Young Earth creationists, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth, would have to believe in a large number of creative acts by God — the creation of the universe, the creation of light, the creation of a separation between terrestrial and celestial "waters", the creation of land, the creation of plants, the creation of the Sun, the Moon and the stars, the creation of water creatures and airborn creatures, the creation of land animals, the creation of Adam, and the creation of Eve. Deists, on the other hand, would believe only one of these was directly caused by God; the first one. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Creationists are the dumbest people on the planet

I love how they come in here and give out to people for "mocking" creationism. Creationism deserves to be mocked. Anything this fucking stupid deserves to be mocked. If I believed that the reason women feel pain during childbirth is because a talking snake told one to eat an apple, then I would deserve to be mocked too. Parogar (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you now or have you ever been a participant in /r/atheism?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Who cares! He's dead right!

Proofs against creationism No (XXX) and (XXXI)

Nobody has ever reported any dinosaur/trilobite/hallucigenia ghosts (even if one accepts that ghosts are at least partly 'the mind finding images' and related phenomena).

Nor do the reincarnationists claim to have been such in previous lives.

It appears that both phenomena have a limited 'remembering time' within which the creationist timespan would fall.

Therefore creationism is invalid. 86.134.53.34 (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Gallup poll

“”A 2012 Gallup poll[6] reveals that 15% of Americans agree with the statement: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." 46% believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so." 38% fall somewhere in the middle and think that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." Thus, 51% of Americans accept the theory of evolution in some form, whether theistic evolution or more the purely scientific theory of evolution.

Who came up with the questions for this poll? It basically forces people that think God personally created humans but are totally open to the idea of evolution to pick the YEC option. The stated conclusion does not follow from the poll. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Fix pls. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Changed the last sentence. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the problem is equating acceptance divinely guided evolution with the actual scientific evolution. Guided evolution is no more scientific than YEC, just less fractally wrong. Therefore, the actual conclusion is that 84% of respondents prefer pseudoscience to the real deal and only 15% either know or care enough to align their beliefs with the results produced by scientific enquiries into the real world, rather than choosing comforting BS. As for the questions, they've been repeated several times over several decades as seen in the article. Anyway, I've snarked it up a bit and pointed out that it still bodes ill for the acceptance of scientific results, though. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@.236 - I chose unfalsifiable as a link to highlight that choosing Old Earth theistic evolution is to choose an option not much less unscientific than YEC (or at least recent human creation). Sure, YEC is more blatantly incompatible with science, but theistic evolution is in some ways even worse, because it accepts scientific results but then tags on an entirely unverifiable (and thus unscientific) needless explanation onto it. Sure, it's "merely" an unscientific explanation and not a denial of scientific results, but I think that such weaseling is the worse because of it. It's the same reason that William Lane Craig is higher on my shitlist than, say, "Doctor" Dino or Ken Ham: I prefer blatant, but (somewhat) honest denialism to weaseling. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, since you bring it up, specifying "and God didn't intervene at any point" for the scientific view is actually just as unfalsifiable. Methodological naturalism requires the implicit assumption that God or some evil demon didn't mess about with stuff. But once that assumption becomes an explicit part of the hypothesis, that hypothesis becomes unfalsifiable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

However, unlike theistic evolution, specifying "and God didn't intervene at any point" actually reflects the best of our current scientific knowledge (i.e. we have no reason to suspect divine or infernal intervention, thus they are not invoked as explanations) and since such a provisional stance is inherent to science, it's not really a problem putting it in (we can't know what we don't yet know). As for unfalsiability, these questions aren't meant to be scientific hypotheses, but descriptive of the respondents' beliefs. Specifying the lack of a divine/infernal intervention, when science currently shows no indications such involvement, is no more problematic than adding "and elves didn't intervene at any point" (the obvious difference being that while significant shares of the US population are willing to contemplate divine intervention, this is not the case for elfin involvement). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

[EC] My problem with it is that it basically sets up a false trilemma, only giving people the options of Young Earth creationism, evolution happening with some direction from God (including mankind arising this way) and an explicitly godless scientific view of evolution. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the Gallup questions have the advantage of targeting the most divisive issue in evolution/creation divide, namely the origin of human beings. Thus, I think that the three categories are probably pretty good proxies for, respectively, YEC, OEC (and yes, I include theistic evolution here as simply another brand of Goddidit) and evolution. Sure, the questions might miss some who believe in an Old Earth, but a recent divine creation of humans - but seriously, how many believe in an Old Earth and/or evolution, while insisting that humans beings are the recent products of divine creation? I mean it also miss those who think that only humans are either divinely or naturally evolved beings, while other animals could've evolved the other way or have been created and replaced in successive waves, but again: how many are likely to hold such views? By contrast, choosing the most divisive topic might yield a better picture of the respondents' core beliefs. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

How many? You'd be surprised! 26% to 36% of those 46% alleged YECs are likely not YECs at all. In one survey run by the National Science Board since the early 80s, 80% consistently agree with continental drift over a span of millions of years, with another 10% replying they "don't know". (Source: Just How Many Young-Earth Creationists Are There in the U.S.?, National Center for Science Education (And there's plenty more interesting information in here.))

And then we're still only talking about the US. I can assure you that in Europe, young Earth creationism is almost completely unheard of. But that doesn't mean all Europeans are completely atheistic or deistic, of course.

"the respondents' core beliefs" See, there's your mistake; you assume that most people have solid beliefs. The way questions are asked can have a huge effect on the result of polls like this. Just think of the difference in results when people were asked about Obamacare and when they were asked about the Affordable Care Act. (I'm sure we have that in an article somewhere.) See, most people don't particularly care about the age of the Earth, the age of the universe or exactly how long humans have been around; what they do care about is humanity's position in the universe. Most people are human exceptionalists and a very popular way of justifying that position is by invoking God as our creator. That's why (one of the main reasons anyway) so many people picked the "God created humans recently" option. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The point remains that a whopping majority of respondents chose answers that are either blatantly creationist or "merely" unscientific (theistic evolution). Sure, if you choose less divisive issues you'll get more bland results, as your link points out with regards to continental drift. But that link also suggests that the topic is simply obscure or unimportant to most people, except for what the author calls "the hardcore YECs" (of the Ham/Hovind/etc. variety) - but this RW article is on creationism in general and the willingness to accept "non-controversial" bits of science while adhering to creationism when it comes to humans is entirely relevant here.

The sensitivity to phrasing simply indicates how politicised the topic is in the US, but also how little the actual scientific record matters for the answers given (i.e. most respondents seem to do a Colbert and "look it up in their gut"). Just because the "most YEC'ish" answer contains some non-YECs doesn't mean it's any less creationist. Again, I think that exactly because human origins is the most divisive issue, it's a far better indicator of creationist attitudes. Otherwise, you'll just have the reverse problem, because you'll see less creationism than there actually is (because if you ask in general terms respondents are more likely to "slip through" as non-creationist, despite holding creationist views of the origin of humans). Anyway, why not slap your link onto the article somewhere as a nuance on the Gallup stuff? The article will be all the better for it.

As for creationism & religiosity in Europe: ??? When have I claimed that the lack of support for creationism in general an YEC in particular equates to a lack of religiosity? I haven't, and that for the very good reason that this is not a view that I hold as I live in Europe and now plenty of believers, but no creationists (eh, scratch that - I do at least know of one... and he's the new Minister of Science, Innovation and Higher Education... sigh...) ScepticWombat (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should absolve non-YEC creationists, but I think it's useful to distinguish between different varieties of creationists (and maybe consider not being equally judgemental towards all of them as we are to YECs). There's no reason why we can't ask multiple questions or give more options to choose from so we get a more accurate picture of people's views. Is it really that surprising that so many people didn't go for the humans-evolved-from-lower-life-forms-and-God-certainly-wasn't-involved-at-any-stage option? Roughly 85% of the world population identifies with a religion; and religions generally posit a deity or divine force influencing life. Even if they completely accept the scientific theory of evolution and think theistic guided evolution is pretty silly, do you really think they're gonna go with the option that explicitly states that the divine definitely didn't have any part in that pretty important part of reality? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor writes: "My problem with it is that it basically sets up a false trilemma, only giving people the options of Young Earth creationism, evolution happening with some direction from God (including mankind arising this way) and an explicitly godless scientific view of evolution."

The Gallup question can be phrased as "Go did all of it, God was involved somewhere, God was not involved anywhere". Surely this covers all the options? Where is the "false trilemma"? Perhaps this is a failure of imagination on my part - but what are the other God/evolution options? ^{— Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs}

Except the question isn't phrased like that at all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not explicitly. But do you think that the reworded question is a "false trilemma"? If so, what are the other options?

For that matter using your rephrasing above: YEC, God involved somewhere, God involved nowhere - what are the other options? --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The options provided, particularly the middle one, aren't as non-specific as you present them. As to 'what other options'; the main option that gets ignored is the one I spelled out in the article: a general acceptance of evolution, but with God still separately creating humans. In addition, there's also plenty of people that accept the scientific theory of evolution (including humans having evolved from lower primates) and don't feel the need to tack on the addendum "but God guided it all the way" or "God guided it/intervened at these specific instances", but on the other hand feel uncomfortable with outrightly asserting that God definitely had no part in it at any stage. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't see your point.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Then that's a pity, I guess. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't win them all.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Gold

What does this article need to be gold? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Silly thread

Lots of Au-particles. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If gold formed molecules of two atoms, would they be au pairs? Bicycle^wheel 08:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, only when the "au pairs" is at the start of a sentence. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What about when you're talking about 80s indie band The Au Pairs? Bicycle^wheel 19:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That'd work too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sensible thread

It needs to be silver first. How about finding a silver article and working to make that one gold? Bicycle^wheel 08:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Then what does the article need for silver? As for why this one, because it's one of RW's most important and most linked articles. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 11:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

pardon me while I link to the page all about rating articles.

• Article topic is directly relevant to and worthy of RW's mission (i.e., potential upgrading to cover story would be uncontroversial). - PASS
• Article should not contain repetitive content. - much repetition of links, and concepts (eg 8 links to the Intelligent design, including overuse of the Main template, and an appearance in See Also). Identically-named sections make a nonsense of the TOC facility.
• Article is almost fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories. - 17 references; most statements uncited. FAIL
• Article is illustrated appropriately. - the only two illustrations are satirical cartoons. FAIL.
• Article is free of blatant spelling and grammar errors. - PASS

As well as this, the first half of the article is mostly endless bullet points of links to other articles. That's great if you want to find a particular article, not so great if you want to read about creationism. So there's a way to go before the article even deserves silver. Enjoy yourself. Bicycle^wheel 17:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Goo-to-you

A couple of questions

is saying evolution is created by the Illuminati to get rid of god an example of a false dilemma?

And is a creationist saying "goo to you" a sign to dismiss anything else he says?^{— Unsigned, by: ‎68.116.121.14 / talk / contribs}

A false dilemma is a fallacy that happens when two or more choices are present that don't necessarily represent all possiblities. So, it depends on the context which this Creationist is saying this. If s/he is insisting that evolution is true OR the Illuminati created evolution to get rid of God, then yes, it is a false dilemma. If s/he just stated that the Illumanit invented evolution, then no, it is not a false dilemma.

"Goo to you by the way of the zoo" is a book by some Creationist named Harold Hill. If the Creationist hasn't misspelled anything, then s/he is probably implying, (based on the text of the book,) that evolution is a religion, that you believe it, and that you are wrong. This is a PRATT because it mischaracterizes evolution. Derp cat (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)