Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!


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

This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

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

Holy crap[edit]

This article has become way worse than it was a couple of years ago, the last time I visited (note my comment above). Weasaloid reminded me of its existence.

While clearly a lot of work has gone into this, it's actually just way too much. The density and intricacy of this article about a very minor YouTube vlogger is entirely out of proportion to any sort of sense or even good taste.

I am going to obliterate this and condense it into less insanity. Apologies.--ADtalkModerator 12:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And now, looking at this thing, I don't even know where to start.--ADtalkModerator 12:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted several entire sections, but really the whole thing just needs to be rewritten at a third of the size and a tenth of the detail.--ADtalkModerator 12:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


seems like this is a new alias? ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 00:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Weasaloid made a much-needed clean sweep of the article, but anonymous IPs have several times tried to undo it. I have temporarily protected the page from editing by IPs and new users.--ADtalkModerator 11:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for more information[edit]

Seriously. I just came from the lengthy page on vlogger dprjones and the stuff that happened in 2010. Nothing on that in this article.

Apparently, he came back? Nothing on that in the article.

In fact... there's pretty much nothing on the.guy here. How the heck am I supposed to understand his kookiness if all there is is two paragraphs that barely say what he's about?

Rationalists like me rely on information. Restricting access to such information is the opposite of rationalism, in my opinion. -Mackinz (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Old version is here. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
We used to write reams of stuff about various idiots on Youtube, but then we realised they were just idiots on youtube and pruned things back a bit. SophieWilderModerator 07:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, this is a wiki. You can edit it yourself.Put in anything you want. Scream!! (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Cake recipes? SophieWilderModerator 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Recipespace should still exist.
Anyway, on the wider point, the wiki is reflected by quality - and quality is often damaged by quantity. Massive tl;dr screeds dedicated to every little minor infraction by one throwaway pointless YouTuber who is now mostly active on a Facebook page with about 800 followers is hardly worth the time to put up with. It's best to say who VFX is, keep to the major notable stuff, and let other people obsess over it. Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think there's much overlap (at least at RW) between people who care about this subject and people who can write concise, relevant, interesting content about it. We previously had reams of obsessive cruft written mostly by drive-by editors and single-purpose accounts. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
+1, with one exception - RW still has reams of cruft written mostly by drive-by editors and single-purpose accounts. Unless you were talking about this article specifically.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I was talking about this article specifically. If you want to improve it, go ahead. But rolling back to the epic version linked above wouldn't be a good option. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
OTOH, it should be considered we're a pretty niche wiki. The people who come to here might just be the ones interested in all that gruft. I'm not saying that massive wall of text should be restored, but some obsession with minor detail is to be expected and niche relevant. Octo8 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, actually. Just anything but the text-wall that it was. Literally anything. A picture of Shawn's face blown up to 10,000x10,000 pixels would be better than that. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 10:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


This article states that Venomfangx holds the most subscribers among creationists... Kent Hovind's YouTube channel (Kent Hovind OFFICIAL), which Dr. Hovind regularly uses, as of this writing has 64 184 subscribers... more than venomfangx's 26 000... Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be right, I removed the incorrect information. Christopher (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Venom Fang's Debate with Rachel Slick[edit]

Reference could be made to Venom Fang's debate with Rachel Slick (, but I can't find a summary of their debate online and it's 1 1/2 hours.

In the opening, Shawn says that there is an objective reality and that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to the 5 senses. He says that a subjective approach just leads us to see whatever we want to. Rachel believes that perceptions of reality is subjective. Next in the debate Shawn gives three reasons or evidence pieces for why he sees the Bible or Christianity as reflecting objective truth. The third reason is that it is the only one that shows a continuous revelation from the beginning of Man to today. But this is questionable because the Bible's last book was penned in around 90-105 AD. Then, Rachel says that the concept of God only reflects subjectivity because subjectivity is what's in the mind and if God is the only ultimate reality and everything else is ultimately in His mind, then everything is subjective. This argument by her doesn't seem to make alot of sense to me because in her paradigm, one could just say that God is an objective reality, even if he views Himself, because His existence is distinguishable from His viewing of Himself. In other words, just because a being views itself in its mind does not entail that the being is only subjective. (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

May I ask...[edit]

Why we have a link to the fossil records/a past version of an article in mainspace?-Flandres (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)