The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

User talk:1990'sguy

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the CreationWiki!

We thank the Lord for your willingness to serve Him by participating in the development of this educational resource. The CreationWiki is a collaborative effort and your help is needed. Our hope is that by working together we can build an archive of knowledge that will spread the truth of His creation throughout the world.

Please note that only creationists are permitted to edit articles. New editors are encouraged to visit the community portal to find ways of getting involved. It is also important to familiarize yourself with policy, such as the requirements for uploading images. The CreationWiki has been equipped with numerous help files that are essential for people unfamiliar with editing using the Mediawiki software.

  • Policy - We now ask that editors provide references to support all article content.
  • Creating a new page - Simply enter a title for your new article and click "Create page".
  • Editing Help - Authoring within the CreationWiki may require a little education.
  • Formatting Help - Formatting pictures and creating tables will help make your pages professional.
Please feel free to delete this message from your user-talk page after viewing... Ashcraft - (reply) 17:10, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

Answers in Genesis

I think the issue is with the template itself. I've looked at the coding and will work on it when I get a chance. Clarinetguy097 21:58, 3 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2017 (EST)

Is Genesis History

No worries...

May I ask you why you think the "Background" section of the Is Genesis History? article should be at the end, rather than closer to the beginning of the article?

The section content in secondary to the main topic. Article structure usually follows the pattern of "Introduction, Main Content, Related (or secondary) Content. The "Background" section that was added contains only trivial information - namely one motivation behind the project. It is best placed (IMO) at the end of the article. --Ashcraft - (reply) 13:26, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

Thank you for explaining, Mr. Ashcraft. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

News post deletion

Per the CreationWiki:Vandelism page: "The CreationWiki is an archive of information relevant to creation apologetics. While the encyclopedia is admittedly a Christian young-earth venture, we do not discriminate against perspectives that expresses a legitimate interpretation of the creation."

The Big bang is clearly a "a legitimate interpretation of the creation." Certainly the belief that God caused the Big bang is legitimate. Your action of removing my news item, seems trivial. Not only is it in line with the nature of CreationWiki, considering that there is an article about evidence for the Big bang. But you deleting a news post, but not challenging the article about the Big bang seems contradictory. If a news post about evidence of the Big bang promotes atheistic belief, what does an actual article on this wiki demonstrate? It seems this would have been a perfect time for discussion about the topic, instead of just deleting it. You should look through other news items and realize that the news post is tame compared to one posted September 2, 2010 [1].

Please explain your actions a bit more. --Tsommer (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2017 (EDT)

In the "Participation" section of CreationWiki:Policy, it states that "Articles should be written from the "Creationist point of view" (CPOV), which holds that the universe and life on Earth are the result of an act of creation by God. The young earth creationism position will remain the principal perspective on the CreationWiki, but any creation apologetics related topic or content can find a home on this site." I know and understand that the YEC view is not the only view allowed here, but what you put on the news feed was blatant theistic evolution, which is not any type of creationism. This site is meant to combat both atheistic evolution and theistic evolution, and having these news posts, especially the the USA Today article, undermines and even violates this.[2]
As for the Big Bang article, the wording makes it appear to support evolution: "Big Bang Confirmed Again, This Time By The Universe's First Atoms. Thanks to new observations, both the helium and deuterium ratios are now measured, confirming the Big Bang once again." I think any casual reader, and most editors, to say the least, would see this as an endorsement of evolution and an attack on creationism.
To be honest, I was cautious when removing your news posts. I think many of them, such as the one on the federal judge blocking the deportation of Iraqi Christians or the East Jerusalem center, are not relevant to this site's mission and add clutter to the news feed from more relevant posts (don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what you have posted, and some I think is relevant, but at the same time, a lot is not).
I hope I have given an understandable explanation. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
The Big bang is mainstream and scientific, however lacks the necessary explanation of its cause. In other words an act of creation by God. It does not attack creationism. I can see that an evolutionist or atheist could think that the Big bang is a threat and challenge to any form of creationism, but that isn't the case. An attack on YEC, sure, but not an attack on the entire spectrum of valid beliefs supported by the view of creationism.--Tsommer (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
Evolution is also "mainstream" and "scientific" according to our culture. It doesn't mean we accept them. Besides, CreatinWiki exists because we don't accept what is considered "mainstream" and "scientific" (of course, evolution is not scientific, hence the scare quotes). If we are accepting scientific theories simply due to acceptence by the culture, we are undermining the purpose of this wiki.
Also, the purpose of CreationWiki is to fight evolution, atheistic and theistic; cosmological, geological, and biological. If this is the case, why in the world would we devote our firepower to attacking other creationists, especially YEC, the most prominent branch of creationism? This clearly undermines this wiki's purpose. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
Evolution is true and is a real natural phenomenon, to an extent (much like the Big bang). It is the extrapolation from observed change in organisms (finch beaks, etc) to conclude macro changes and universal common ancestry that is the issue. You might want to check out the Biological evolution article on this site. Nowhere does it say evolution is not scientific. It is careful to delineate the difference between observed change in organisms and theoretical speculation. We have to be careful not use blanket statements like "evolution is not scientific" or use scare quotes. Evolution isn't scary, and in fact when argued for correctly shows how creationists rely more on observation than the neo-Darwinists.--Tsommer (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2017 (EDT)
Wait, you're saying that you believe in evolution? The purpose of this site is to counter evolution, whether from a YEC or OEC perspective. You're showing me that you are not a creationist, and if this is really the case, per CreationWiki:Editors, you are thus not allowed to make major edits to articles. Theistic evolution does not count as being a creationist.
Regarding the substantive points about evolution that you brought up, you are confusing evolution (change from one kind to another) with adaptation. We do observe adaptation all the time, but when adaptation occurs, an animal remains of the same genus (kind). We never observe bats turning into birds, polar bears into frogs, etc. Only bats turning into different types of bats, finches turning into different types of finches, etc. This is 100% in line with YEC (which I hold to), and organizations such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International take this position. They accept adaptation and view it as something completely different than molecules-to-man evolution. The vast majority of evolutionists confuse and mix adaptation and evolution, and you seem to be confusing the two, and it seems to me that you do not know what creationist organizations believe on this topic.
Also, I am not "scared" of evolution. I have seen this line so much from theistic evolutionists, as if I'm just clinging to my guns, Bibles, and my YEC while "science" treads forward (I am using the scare quotes because it is false to equate evolution to science, at least, as if YEC theories are not on the same level). I'm not scared of evolution, and especially not science, which I believe confirms a young earth. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
Not allowed to make major edits? I'm an administrator.--Tsommer (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
I didn't know you were, and now I'm confused why, considering that you state to believe in evolution.--1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
What we are both explaining is microevolution. Biological evolution to a certain extent. I feel on that point alone we have a lot in common, and our arguments most likely overlap quite a bit. I would love to explore our views in more depth but this format isn't that friendly to that kind of constructive dialogue. If you have any suggestions on a chat program or something we could use, I would be down.--Tsommer (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification. I am most comfortable continuing the conversation either somewhere on this website or Conservapedia (on a "debate" page), which I also edit. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2017 (EDT)
Was going to say we could post our dialogue here when done. I think we have established our stances enough so that others can see the similarities and differences. Take care!--Tsommer (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2017 (EDT)
Thanks. You too! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2017 (EDT)