Talk:List of creationist claims

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

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



Here's my problem with moving these all to this page. They are harder to sort through, and if done well, they will be pretty long. I think, personally, they worked better as individual pages that linked off this page.Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 21:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

They would need appropriate titles and RW style, which is much more difficult as individual articles. Blue Talk 21:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
While I understand that, my reason for waiting was to see what we could do. now we will have to reduplicate efforts, rather than just saying "ok, take a pause and let's see what is out there". I kinda think we move way too fast to "delete" or "integrate" (myself included) when something doesn't sit right at first. we become a swarm, and that's never good.  :-)--Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 21:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


These are really hard to read as fourth level headers. You can't tell where one argument ends and the next begins easily. We either need to use primary headers for each of the arguments, or find a font style (color, italics, other?) that sets teh title of the argument off from the 'response' to that argument. I've been reverted, but it really does read poorly without some kind of off set.Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 21:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, about the section headers, I don't think it's too difficult to tell them apart. And the alternative (level-two headers) is hideous. Blue Talk 21:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you are a great reader, and I suck, but i just now saw that they are smaller. it's really not a good offset for the 4th level. what about an indent? Can we do that easily? would it look any better/worse? Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to separate the sections you could use horizontal rules. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Important Claims[edit]

To me 'Important' implies some sort of weight or validity, might not 'major' or 'common' be better adjectives? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Kind begets Kind"[edit]

I believe this is a crucial claim, and has been left out. It is the biological essentialism belief that no animal can ever reproduce outside certain prescribed limits, and appears to be due to Lyell, 1835. I am creating an article on this, because I believe it forms a crucial underpinning of YEC beliefs. I would like feedback thougt, Please see: Forum:Undermining The Core Belief of Young Earth Creationism --CatWatcher (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

List of claims[edit]

I think this page would be better as a list of claims (like Talk.Origins') that link to other pages. Can this happen? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

All right, I've changed the page. I know RW's got a million more articles in this vein. Addition time. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)