Page 1 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

YowlingCat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,004

08 Jan 2008, 6:11 pm

I found this while looking for something else:

Creationist Wikipedia

:lol:



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Jan 2008, 3:06 am

YowlingCat wrote:
I found this while looking for something else:

Creationist Wikipedia


Interesting. It shows that you don't need parody to show that movement's silliness, but the parody is still fun:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 1:27 pm

Thanks for sharing the site, whether your intentions are to mock or not.

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 4:24 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Thanks for sharing the site, whether your intentions are to mock or not.

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page


That website does a good enough job mocking itself. From the main page:

"CreationWiki is a free encyclopedia of apologetics that is being assembled by an international team of missionaries."

Notably, they did not say an international team of scientists.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 4:35 pm

nominalist wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Thanks for sharing the site, whether your intentions are to mock or not.

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page


That website does a good enough job mocking itself. From the main page:

"CreationWiki is a free encyclopedia of apologetics that is being assembled by an international team of missionaries."

Notably, they did not say an international team of scientists.


Is wikipedia run by scholars? Who controls its content?



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

11 Jan 2008, 4:44 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
nominalist wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Thanks for sharing the site, whether your intentions are to mock or not.

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page


That website does a good enough job mocking itself. From the main page:

"CreationWiki is a free encyclopedia of apologetics that is being assembled by an international team of missionaries."

Notably, they did not say an international team of scientists.


Is wikipedia run by scholars? Who controls its content?

People who follow an impartial approach I suppose.

Haven't seen the site, but it wouldn't matter if they claim to be missionaries or scientists, it would be the same, the same purpose.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 4:47 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Is wikipedia run by scholars? Who controls its content?


That is not Wikipedia. I believe that the company which runs Wikipedia, Wikimedia, developed the Wiki software, but there are hundreds or thousands of wikis online now. Most of them have no connection with Wikimedia or Wikipedia (other than using their software).


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 4:49 pm

So? Why did you avoid my question? I wasn't saying Creationwiki was part of wikipedia, I was asking where they get their material from. Who writes it?



Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 11 Jan 2008, 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 4:50 pm

greenblue wrote:
Haven't seen the site, but it wouldn't matter if they claim to be missionaries or scientists, it would be the same, the same purpose.


Why don't you think it would matter? Fortunately, there are not many scientists who would run a creationist site. However, the fact that it is run by missionaries gives it zero scientific credibility.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 5:06 pm

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
nominalist wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Thanks for sharing the site, whether your intentions are to mock or not.

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page


That website does a good enough job mocking itself. From the main page:

"CreationWiki is a free encyclopedia of apologetics that is being assembled by an international team of missionaries."

Notably, they did not say an international team of scientists.


Is wikipedia run by scholars? Who controls its content?

People who follow an impartial approach I suppose.

Haven't seen the site, but it wouldn't matter if they claim to be missionaries or scientists, it would be the same, the same purpose.


I've read a few of their discussions about articles. If it's fishy or not backed up, they delete it. It's the same editing process as on Wikipedia, but it allows more freedom for an otherwise restricted topic to be discussed and shown.

I read somewhere in 2005 that around 30%-40% of practicing scientists held a Biblical view of Creation, but I don't know the numbers today. Also many of them lose their jobs if they are open about it, research along the lines of Creation science generally has little funding and not from the government as evolutionary themed research does, and scientific journals restrict Creationists from having any mention in their writings. Creation Research Society and Creation Ministries International are the only ones I know of who have scientific peer-reviewed journals, but they are one sided so somehow they don't count.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 5:10 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Is wikipedia run by scholars? Who controls its content?


Wikipedia is run by people who are open to a broad spectrum of views. It is certainly not perfect, and it is pretty easy to find some errors. However, Wikipedia has a built-in process to correct those errors. Who is going to be able to successfully criticize a bunch of missionaries on the fallacy of creationism? They have an religious agenda.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 5:12 pm

nominalist wrote:
Who is going to be able to successfully criticize a bunch of missionaries on the fallacy of creationism?


There's a loaded question. :roll:



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

11 Jan 2008, 5:18 pm

http://creationwiki.org/Biology

Creationist Wiki wrote:
Biological creationism is the doctrine or belief that the various species or kinds of living beings were created and so are not the product of a naturalistic process.


At least they admit it's doctrine or belief and not science.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

11 Jan 2008, 5:18 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
research along the lines of Creation science generally has little funding and not from the government as evolutionary themed research does, and scientific journals restrict Creationists from having any mention in their writings.

That's because creatinoism is strongly religious based and influenced by it, which by that fact makes it unnacceptable and questionable by the Scientific Community.

And that's the thing, Creationism is religious, so that is problematic enough.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 5:18 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I read somewhere in 2005 that around 30%-40% of practicing scientists held a Biblical view of Creation, but I don't know the numbers today.


If they did hold to that view, then, IMO, they would, by definition, not be scientists. However, the percentage range you quoted is not for scientists. It is for the American public. That is bad enough, but at least most scientists know better.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 5:22 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
At least they admit it's doctrine or belief and not science.


The problem is that a lot of creationists say the same about evolution, i.e., that it is a doctrine or belief. I used to debate them all the time, but I tired of it. Almost all creationists I have encountered come with the same talking points, and none of them are scientific.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute