Talk:Creationism/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 10 September 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Young Mennonites

Apparently more accepting of evolution than average US citizen. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Influencing highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution: Mormons as a case study

Apparently educating Mormon undergrads about evolution or educating them about their own religion improves acceptance of evolution, as does reducing religiosity. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Identity-Based Organizations

Identity-Based Organizations:

The economics of religion has focussed largely on religious practice. Organizations that are stricter in terms of their practical requirements (dietary, sexual, sartorial etc.) are more successful at recruitment and retention (Iannaccone 1992). No link between doctrine and strictness has been analyzed. One question that arises is why don’t all religious organizations raise their strictness? Why aren’t Episcopalian congregations as demanding of members as Jehovah’s Witnesses?5 A sociological conception of religion is one of “a unified system of beliefs and practices” (Durkheim 1915). Our model shows how an organization’s belief system might dictate its strictness. Non-affiliation is more costly for an individual who wishes to acquire, or be seen to acquire, religious beliefs that are “further” from the mainstream belief system (e.g. creationism). Hence religious organizations that cultivate more extreme belief systems can be more extreme in terms of their practical demands of members. Episcopalian congregations are unable to raise strictness, because beliefs prevailing in mainstream society are a close substitute for their belief system.

FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

History of creationism

Intelligently Designed: How Creationists Built the Campaign against Evolution. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this article should be at least a silver

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

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

Humor removal

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

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

The foundational falsehoods of creationism

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

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

Question

Would it be possible to change 'Fossil record' (article history) into some form of deliberately ironical putdown? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK: it already is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

As it is used of all articles the term becomes invisible.

Probably most people even while accepting evolution as a reasonable explanation (even if sometimes complexified by eg one species evolving in tandem with others or being specifically selected for traits by another - do ants specifically select aphids on the basis of their sugar production?) probably wonders at why there are so many species and how did such complexity develop ('sensory spots' once developed can be adapted to register light/sound/pressure etc - but how did they become eyes and ears etc; hibernation makes sense - but how did pupation develop? etc) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The joke is that Wikipedia calls the same tab "History". We call it "Fossil record" instead, because the fossil record is a record of our history. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why no Young-Earth atheists?

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

• Because no one can go back in time and objectively verify the age of the Earth. Lightest (talk)

This is really two statements:

No one can literally travel back in time (as far as we know) - obviously true.

The age of Earth cannot be objectively verified - obviously false.

This smacks of the silly, How do you know? Were you there? nonsense.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)

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