Misplaced Pages

Talk:Creation science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:46, 3 July 2007 editReinis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,337 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 22:50, 3 July 2007 edit undoOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits REMINDER: WTF is going on in this project.Next edit →
Line 80: Line 80:
I notice the history is gone now, pretty much.--] 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I notice the history is gone now, pretty much.--] 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:It's moved to ]. –] 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :It's moved to ]. –] 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Who gave you the permission to do this. Let me figure out how to undo your crap. ] 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:50, 3 July 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning

Creation science was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}.

REMINDER

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Creation Science. See WP:NOT


Archives


Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Creation science

Talk:Scientific creationism (article was merged into this)

It has been suggested in these archives,

The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.
  1. that creation science claims creation is directly observable;
    /Archive 10#CS assumes Creation is observable
    /Archive 10#CS does not argue that Creation is observable
    /Archive 10#Dan's unexplained reversions
    /Archive 10#observed
    /Archive 9#Fallacy in intro
  2. that creation science is not a creationist ploy
    /Archive 8
    /Archive 1#Creation Science as propaganda
  3. that creation science is not science;
    /Archive 10#'Creation science is not science'; Fact or View
    /Archive 10#Yet another vague interpretation of NPOV?
    /Archive 10#Creation Science advocates disagree whether CS is science
    /Archive 8#another entry
    /Archive 5#What is the story of creation?
    /Archive 4#Creation 'science'
    /Archive 3#Science and empiricism - Pseudoscience
    /Archive 3#Creation science is not natural science or social science
    /Archive 2#Pseudoscience
    /Archive 1#Disbelieve
    /Archive 1#Creationism is not science
  4. that science cannot allow for the supernatural
    /Archive 5#supernatural
  5. that the title is POV, as it suggests CS is science
    /Archive 9#Incorrect title?
    /Archive 9#Oh Puleeeeze!
    /Archive 9#Request for comments: What's in a name? POV or SPOV?
    /Archive 11#Non-science disclaimer
  6. that criticism should be relegated to a seperate article or section;
    /Archive 10#Separate Page for Criticisms?
  7. that since evolution is not heavily criticised in its article, neither should CS be;
    /Archive 9
  8. that since no-one is trained to be a creation scientist, the term does not, should not exist
    /Archive 9


I notice the history is gone now, pretty much.--Filll 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's moved to /Archive 12. –Fatalis 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Who gave you the permission to do this. Let me figure out how to undo your crap. Orangemarlin 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: