| Revision as of 13:34, 11 July 2020 edit2a02:1811:2c21:f400:918a:5dcb:ae5f:bc65 (talk) →Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:49, 7 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,329,477 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 10 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 10 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Religion}}, {{WikiProject Philosophy}}, {{WikiProject Sociology}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}, {{WikiProject Theology}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Islam}}, {{WikiProject Zoroastrianism}}, {{WikiProject Creationism}}, {{WikiProject Alternative Views}}. |
| (65 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
|
{{not a forum}} |
|
{{vital article|topic=Philosophy|level=5|class=B}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Article history| action1 = GAN |
|
{{Article history| action1 = GAN |
| Line 18: |
Line 17: |
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|class=B|religion=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|religion=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Theology|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism|class=B|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Creationism|class=B|importance=Top|}} |
|
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Top|}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=high}} |
|
{{WP1.0|class=B|v0.5=pass|category=Philrelig}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{To do|2}} |
|
{{To do|2}} |
| Line 41: |
Line 40: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Creationism/Archive index|mask=Talk:Creationism/Archive <#>|mask1=Talk:Creationism/Is Creationism a theory|mask2=Talk:Creationism/Selection as a creative force|mask3=Talk:Creationism/What is wrong with the lead section|mask4=Talk:Creationism/Ranting|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Creationism/Archive index|mask=Talk:Creationism/Archive <#>|mask1=Talk:Creationism/Is Creationism a theory|mask2=Talk:Creationism/Selection as a creative force|mask3=Talk:Creationism/What is wrong with the lead section|mask4=Talk:Creationism/Ranting|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
|
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=ps|style=brief}} |
|
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|<font color="E32636"><big>'''IMPORTANT''' - If you wish to discuss or debate the ''validity'' of creationism please do so at or Debatepedia. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.</big></font> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{archives |
|
{{archives |
|
|index= /Archive index |
|
|index= /Archive index |
| Line 58: |
Line 52: |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Publications and media) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Publications and media","appear":{"revid":452303931,"parentid":452297526,"timestamp":"2011-09-25T04:35:41Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":630249308,"parentid":630058811,"timestamp":"2014-10-19T15:37:49Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020 == |
|
== Scientific methods and Mythology == |
|
|
|
{{cot|usual demands to unjustly legitimize pseudoscience, move along}} |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Please remove reference to all instances of evolution being "scientific". Evolution is just as much an unprovable religious belief system (called atheism) as any creation hypothesis. Stating evolution as "scientific" is misleading at best and simply lying at worst. Let's keep Misplaced Pages a safe and informative platform and not one for spouting off religious dogma. Thank you. ] (]) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}} Plainly nonsense. ] (]) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Requesting to expunge all instances of evolution being called "scientific" because one can not be bothered to differentiate atheism from evolution and religion is to have the article rewritten as antiscience propaganda, and runs afoul of ], ], ] and ].--] (]) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021 == |
|
With the following sentence; |
|
|
|
{{cot|fringe advocacy wall o’ text}} |
|
"Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views, some of which accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution '''reconcile''' their faith with modern science and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature." |
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change the following: |
|
|
"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: |
|
The word reconcile does not fit here, because reconcile means "make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed." |
|
|
|
"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 19th century onward, Young Biosphere Creation accepted the age of the universe and the age of the Earth, while accepting creation week as six sequential ordinary days and continues to reject evolutionary explanations as well as progressive creationism. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
References to be found: |
|
The "purposeful creations of laws of nature" cannot be reconciled with the scientific method of experimentation and observation. |
|
|
|
"Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown authored their Commentary on the Whole |
|
|
Bible in 1871. It is a comprehensive, verse-by-verse exposition that is still recognized as one of |
|
|
the great whole-Bible commentaries. Preacher Charles Spurgeon wrote “I consult it continually.” In their |
|
|
commentary on Genesis chapter 1 they concurred with key points 2 and 3 (above). |
|
|
|
|
|
http://newgeology.us/YBC.pdf |
|
|
Also: |
|
|
http://creationwiki.org/Young_Biosphere_Creation_(YBC) |
|
|
wessteinbr |
|
|
] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Looks like ] to a tiny minority view, lacks ], in particular we need to see ]. Also, any wiki is unacceptable as a source, particularly creationwiki. . . ], ] 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Biblical basis == |
|
I would suggest changing it to this |
|
|
Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views, '''disillusioned''' some of which accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution '''attempt to unsuccessfully''' reconcile their faith with modern science and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature.--]<small>]</small> 07:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Putting the word disillusioned in there doesn't even make grammatical sense, and there's no particular reason to believe that everyone who tries to reconcile their faith with science is unsuccessful. The idea that they "cannot" be reconciled is your opinion. ] ] 08:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{u|pepperbeast}} It's not my opinion the ] is well established and defined, stating that laws of nature come about by supernatural processes is not consistent with the scientific processes. And supported by multiple ] such as <ref>https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/24/big-issue-no-mystery-science-and-religion-cannot-be-reconciled</ref>--]<small>]</small> 08:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel the biblical basis section needs more sources and more scholars analyzing the matter. |
|
::I agree that "disillusioned" makes no sense and isn't sourced, but the sentence as it stands is clearly wrong/ungrammatical. "Views" cannot "reconcile their faith", only people have faith. {{re|Dave souza}} could you help fix this please? Thanks. ] ] 13:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because I feel like there is more information regarding that section.] (]) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Thanks everyone, good call that "views" can't reconcile faith. Have reworded it: {{quote|Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or ] of religious views. Some types accept the reality of biological evolution; ]ism and varieties of ] reconcile religious faith with modern science, and hold that God purposefully created through the ].}} |
|
|
:Feel that's clearer. As for the reconciliation, the question of where laws of nature come from is beyond science. These types of creationism combine their religious belief in divine creation with acceptance of all the findings of science – to quote , |
|
|
:"Theistic evolution is a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. . . . .However, TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene — some believe that God created the laws of nature and allows events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs believe that God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans)." |
|
|
:These theological views exist, whether they're successful or not isn't an issue for this concise lead statement. . . ], ] 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Dave souza}}The issue with it is that it makes it appear as if even if you adopt least intervening TE's to say that "God created the laws of nature" it gives the illusion that there is a possibility that this position can be successfully reconciled with modern science and accepted. When reality is this in itself does not at all reconcile with modern science. For a reader that's unfamiliar with the topic, it should be made clear, that although there has been an attempt at reconciling their beliefs with modern science, it is impossible to be reconciled without the even passing the first step of the scientific method that is a testable hypothesis.--]<small>]</small> 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Source? . . . . . ], ] 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Even while I agree that accommodationist theism does not present falsifiable hypotheses for a scientist to consider, people who believe that theism and scientific results can be reconciled do not generally claim that this reconciliation is supposed to happen using the scientific method. ] (]) 13:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::For examples, ]. . . ], ] 19:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ref talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutrality== |
|
== Nomination of ] for deletion == |
|
|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I challenge the "neutrality" (Article Policy) of the word MYTH when referring to the Genesis account of creation. There are several definitions, and the one chosen by your source, a skeptic of creationism, is derogatory of the Genesis account. A common understanding of the word MYTH is that it's an invented story, idea, or concept; an imaginary or fictitious thing or person; an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.{Dictionary.com} Article is tainted. The word "myth" as used by skeptics of the Genesis account of creation does not come from a "Neutral point of view" as required by Article Policy. It would be sufficient to simply call it "the Genesis account." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
The page will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. |
|
|
|
:{{u|Roglenoff}} - I've refactored your comment slightly, since that section header you created was exceedingly long - I hope you don't mind. |
|
|
:The use of the word 'myth' in this context is actually discussed explicitly by the cited source which appears directly after the word is first used in the article (Scott 2009, p58). Here is a brief extract: {{tq|...the word ''myth'' is a term of art in the anthroplogical study of cultures. The common connotation of ''myth'' is something that is untrue, primitive or superstitious – something that should be discounted. Yet when anthropologists talk of myths, it is to describe stories within a culture that symbolise what members of that culture hold to be most important. A culture's myths are unquestionably important, and ''myth'' is not a term of denigration.}} In that context, I believe that it is the appropriate term to use in our article. Best ]] 08:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::{{re|Roglenoff}} it's hard to believe you've even read the article, as the first sentence says "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation". No where do we refer to Genesis as a myth. We say "Genesis creation narratives". And see ]. It's not our fault that so many people misunderstand the use of myth in this sort of context. ] ] 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.<!-- Template:mfd-notice --> <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Christian Criticism == |
|
==Biased Statement== |
|
|
|
|
|
In the following line in the article: "are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myths found in the Bible's Genesis" the phrase "creation myth", by definition implies that creationism is a false idea. This is a biased statement. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Hello David. I recommend reading ]. ] may also be useful on how to approach perceived bias in relation to improving the encyclopedia. —]] – 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=no-yes}} |
|
|
Under “Types” correct spelling to “between the” ] (]) 08:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 08:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Please remove reference to all instances of evolution being "scientific". Evolution is just as much an unprovable religious belief system (called atheism) as any creation hypothesis. Stating evolution as "scientific" is misleading at best and simply lying at worst. Let's keep Misplaced Pages a safe and informative platform and not one for spouting off religious dogma. Thank you. ] (]) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}} Plainly nonsense. ] (]) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Requesting to expunge all instances of evolution being called "scientific" because one can not be bothered to differentiate atheism from evolution and religion is to have the article rewritten as antiscience propaganda, and runs afoul of ], ], ] and ].--] (]) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The very first line in the '''''Christian Criticism''''' section states that: "<u>'''Most'''</u> Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools." I am challenging this claim. |
|
Replying to Theroadislong: |
|
|
Evolution is a theory without proof, based on homology and measurement of simple anatomical characteristics. It has gained popularity from the perspective of comparison of anatomical remains and comparing skull sizes and shapes. It relies on skull volume indicating intelligence, however, this is a misogynistic proposition, stating women are intellectually inferior to men. It cannot account for how any human being was or is in capacity, for instance, the intelligence of a computer in the 1950's was far less to a smart phone. Yet the former has many more wires and volume. The neuronal connections are unknown, the brain, memory and intelligence is far from understood. It would be best to call evolution an atheistic hypothesis. It is not far from non-sense, it states we originate from and are ourselves Great Apes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As the (2) citations for this statement cite two books to support its stance (''none'' of which have undertaken the required scientific polls or other methods to verify its legitimacy), I am challenging unsubstantiated assertion. It is simply an opinion held by these two authors, which are not real proofs to support such a broad assertion. It is much more accurate to say that ''Some'' rather than ''Most'' disagree, since these two books on their own cannot justify a broad claim as so, and should be shown as so. ] (]) 20:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Darwinist survival and carbon dating == |
|
|
|
:Only a small minority of fundamentalist Christians - mostly in the United States agree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools there are many sources for this. ] (]) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::“Most Christians worldwide, as represented by statements from their governing bodies, are in fact accepting of biological evolution as being fully compatible with their faith.” . ] (]) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Adnan Oktar == |
|
If carbon dating were correct, then modern human would have walked the Earth for around 100 000 years. However, if every couple on average had 4 children then for every person there would be two descendants. If this was drawn as a graph, then 2 to the ~33rd power is equal to 7 billion. This means there would be a total of 33 generations of human beings. If we say for instance only half the families survived, halving the total to 3.5 billion. Then only one generation later it would total 7 billion, if every couple had 4 children, with 2 children allocated per person (3.5 x 2 = 7 billion). The same goes for 1.75 billion, making 34 generations (1.75 x 2 x 2 = 7 billion). If there was just over one child per person on average, so with couples having just over 2 children on average, then this would amount to 237 generations to reach 7 billion. The event of 4 or 5 children is more realistic, due to this being the case in tribal, agrarian and hunter-gatherer cultures. This can be seen as a . Many tribes would have to have died, in the smallest case where every couple had just over 2 children, there could be 10 to the 59th power of people who died. The other case is that for over a total of 700 non-consecutive generations there was just below 2 children per couple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article about Adnan Oktar, which was written under the title of Islam, should be removed. Adnan Oktar is the leader of the organization and is currently in prison in Turkey. Because he is dishonest, his statements are also not valid. ] (]) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
For the last case the calculations were from dividing 100 000 with 50, giving 1428 generations. If for every couple there were just above 2 children, then we would reach 7 billion in 237 generations. Then it would take 237 generations just below 2 children per couple to get back to one person on the planet. So there would have to have been the combination of a nearly half the people having just 2 children and many tribes perishing to take 100 000 years to reach 7 billion. However, a tribe may not survive with just 2 children per partners. So many tribes would have to have not survived, however, there is not much archaeological evidence of this. There is also the premise that in no case there were 34 generations of 4 children per couple, without having the opposite tree of 1 child per 2 couples for 34 generations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I made this edit , I don't think we lose much by not mentioning him here. Even if '']'' is an interesting book. ] (]) 20:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
There is also the fact that the African continent is from coast to coast at about 10 000 kilometers, e.g. from Cape Town in South-Africa to Alexandria in Egypt. Walking 8 hours per day at 5 kilometres per hour, this distance could be covered in 36 weeks. Therefore, it is not realistic to say the migration took millennia, due to food insecurity with a nomadic culture that does not migrate constantly to find new sources of food. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
I feel the biblical basis section needs more sources and more scholars analyzing the matter.
I challenge the "neutrality" (Article Policy) of the word MYTH when referring to the Genesis account of creation. There are several definitions, and the one chosen by your source, a skeptic of creationism, is derogatory of the Genesis account. A common understanding of the word MYTH is that it's an invented story, idea, or concept; an imaginary or fictitious thing or person; an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.{Dictionary.com} Article is tainted. The word "myth" as used by skeptics of the Genesis account of creation does not come from a "Neutral point of view" as required by Article Policy. It would be sufficient to simply call it "the Genesis account." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roglenoff (talk • contribs) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The article about Adnan Oktar, which was written under the title of Islam, should be removed. Adnan Oktar is the leader of the organization and is currently in prison in Turkey. Because he is dishonest, his statements are also not valid. 78.190.128.59 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done Plainly nonsense.