Talk:Creationism

From TinWiki.org

This is a discussion page Please finish your message with your signature by typing ~~~~ or by using the signature button in the editing toolbar. Discussion pages are used for discussing the writing and editing of articles. To add a message, click the plus (+) sign tab. To reply, write directly under the post you are replying to, and preferably indent your reply by entering a colon (:) at the beginning of the line. A discussion page is for discussing the article it accompanies, not for discussing the topic described by the article. tinWiki is not a forum, but an encyclopedia. Talk page Policies Tutorial Help

Hey Nyg, what is the < ref> thingy you keep posting in your articles? What ever its supposed to do doesn't seem to be working.

--Sardion2000 06:19, 11 March 2006 (CST)

That < ref> thingy is something they use in Wikipedia, I believe. And you're right, tinWiki is not at all Wikipedia. Even though both use the MediaWiki software (which is created for Wikipedia, and is used by very many wikis...), there are lots of differences (in what works here compared to in Wikipedia). Optimist 18:04, 28 May 2008 (CDT)

Obvious errors in this article

"Creationism movement seeks to have the scientific theory of evolution replaced with creationism, or at least to have creationism taught alongside evolution in schools."

All the court hearings I'm aware of only want to put creationism at the same level of evolution. Furthermore, all major creationist organizations(AiG, CMI, ICR, GRISDA) have openly stated they don't want laws enforcing creationism on science classes. They out the obvious fact that if schools did teach creationism, many teachers would distort what creationists actually believe.

" This is the idea that biblical creationism is a science comparable to the Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, Chemical Sciences, etc. The phrase may have been coined by, but was certainly vastly popularized by Henry Morris, a creationist who authored the work Scientific Creationism. Most creationist movements today are essentially scientific creationist movements."

No it's not! It's the view that it is a realistic and testable model for origins. Creationism cites the "Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, Chemical Sciences, etc." for support.

"This is the idea that the bible, especially Genesis, should be interpreted literally; that the earth was created in 6 literal days, is around 4,000 years old"

Please cite ONE creationist that believes this. I have been reading creationist article for about 7 years now. We believe it was 6,000 - 10,000 years old. The writer of this article is not remotely familiar with creationist ideas.

" Strictly speaking, ID does not make any suppositions about the identity of the designer, though implicitly it would seem to require, at origins, supernatural agency."

Incorrect. You can be an atheist and believe in ID. Google raelism.

Some other errors are that you guys cite True.Origins as a major creationist organization. However, True.Origins isn't even an organization! It's just one guys collecting articles (Tim Wallace).

This article need to be rewritten.--Nlawrence 15:53, 21 December 2007 (CST)

The Notes section

I believe the Footnotes, or Notes, section should be used for listing reference numbers. If there are no reference numbers in the text, like this[1], and the purpose is to list sources and so on, the header is probably better to call References, or Sources (or something similar). Optimist 18:06, 28 May 2008 (CDT)