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

User talk:MithirandirOlorin

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 - (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2011 (PDT)
Nah, I'll keep it, try to make sure I don't forget.--MithirandirOlorin 18:50, 26 May 2011 (PDT)

about ur comments

Yo you should sign your comments. When you edit a page there is a little toolbar at the top, its the one with squiggly lines on it, right next to the red circle with a line in it.--Tony 21:48, 25 May 2011 (PDT)

You mean this?-Olorin--MithirandirOlorin 01:45, 26 May 2011 (PDT)
Ya, exactly... Also good additions to talk pages, I have read all your stuff and learned a few things, especially regarding the Table of Nations and biblical chronology layout. Feel free to add and expand on your comments within the article itself, add a paragraph if you want to give the article some more substance. --Tony 11:11, 26 May 2011 (PDT)
Awesome, I think the Japheth info I should latter repeat on Japheth's discussion page.--MithirandirOlorin 13:48, 26 May 2011 (PDT)
Yup, I already checked it out :), cool stuff man.--Tony 19:18, 26 May 2011 (PDT)
Cool, thanks--MithirandirOlorin 21:03, 26 May 2011 (PDT)

Compendium of World History

Should have a page, A few Website have it for Free online,s and while is has all to for interesting info, it also has allot of Bad info. Much of it is sourced but much is not. I'd like to know where he gets the succession of Ancient kings of Italy from, the one that starts with Jannus (Who he claims is Moses).--MithirandirOlorin 01:13, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

I keep getting

Database error From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science Jump to: navigation, search A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "SMW::getSMWPageID". Database returned error "1033: Incorrect information in file: './jcreatio_live/smw_ids.frm' (localhost)". --MithirandirOlorin 07:36, 8 June 2011 (PDT)

Talk page comments

Please take your time when typing your comments. Then carefully review them to ensure they say exactly what you intend. Sometimes you have so many typos that I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Thank you. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (PDT)

This is part of the reasons I never edit main pages myself, cause I'm not particularly eloquent. I have however tried to make sure my comments can be understood. I'm still getting that Database Error constantly, I still haven't been able to view the Gether page.--MithirandirOlorin 15:40, 22 June 2011 (PDT)
As the old movie quote goes, "A man's got to know his limitations." That sounds like a wise course of action.
A separate but related point: if you fix a minor typo in old comments, that's usually going to be OK; but if you change the meaning of what you said, you need to handle it differently.
  1. One way is to add a completely new reply, explaining that you had not said what you meant, and then saying what you should have the first time, inviting others to accept your "reset" of the conversation.
  2. Another thing you can do is to strike out the mistake and underline the correction, so subsequent readers understand that other editors may have been responding to the old text, not the new.
The one thing you must not do is to simply correct your old text after someone replies, leaving that person or those people to look like fools for responding to things you apparently never said. Readers should not have to delve into the page history to see that you made substantive corrections to your comments after replies were posted.
Please un-repair any fixes that materially change what you said if that change affects the portion of the comment to which someone else has replied. I noticed that you did this on Talk:Biblical chronology dispute, but you should probably check all your recent edits to ensure you did not do this elsewhere. Thank you very much. ~ Webster (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2014 (EDT)

Greek flood legends

Hi, I'm interested in your studies of Greek flood legends. --Anaccuratesource 21:09, 7 October 2012 (PDT)

I'm afraid my studied come mostly down to what I've read on Wikipedia.--MithrandirOlorin 12:52, 6 July 2014 (EDT)

The Evolutionary Science of Homophobia, and how Homosexuality proves Creationism

I'm rare among modern Pro-Gay Christians in also being a Conservative Fundamentalist/Bible Literalist, and visa-versa. What I find saddest about that though is I've had trouble on Facebook finding fellow Pro-Gay Christians who are also enemies of the Theory of Evolution.

See, the arguments the Republican Party Christians use when their trying to add secular non Biblical reasons for supporting their positions on Homosexuality, all in fact sound very Darwinian and Materialist to me. Insisting that only the sex that can continue the reproduction of the species is valid. To Evolutionists the only reason sex is so pleasurable is to motivate us to engage in it and make sure the species continues.

And I have encountered Atheists online who are Homophobic for all these reasons. It's not just radical Christians who propagate modern Homophobia. These encounters were on IMDB a long time ago so I can no longer document them. But these were Atheist individuals who had no problem questioning my masculinity (the usual overlap of Sexism and Homophobia) for not liking Sports, and liking TV shows stereotypically meant for women. They pretty blatantly accusing all Bisexuals of just lying for attention.

It's because I believe in Intelligent Design and Six-Day Young Earth Creationism, and that God gave us a Spirit and a Soul, not just flesh, that I believe sex has a spiritual purpose too, not just biological. And because I don't hand wave away the Song of Solomon and it's details I know that God is okay with sexual expressions that are non reproductive. It is also an expression of Love, the love between a Man and a Woman is the not the only love The Bible considers valid.

To some of the most Anti-Christian people out there right now, it's pretty obvious that Homophobia wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for The Bible verses that get misused on that subject. But I think that assumption is wrong.

The Homophobia of the last two centuries is a uniquely vile monster unprecedented in earlier eras of Secular or Church history. However the basic fallen human sensibilities that lead to it can be documented to have existed in the BC era. Just look at how Julius Caesar was degenerated by being called "Every woman's man and every man's woman". The roots of the Church's homophobia seemed to enter the Church very early on, but no earlier then it's Anti-Semitic tendencies which also popped up in the Second Century.

But our modern notions of Sexual Orientation were purely the invention of Victorian scientists and psychologists. And indeed it was not originally conservative Christians who (from the Evolutionists' POV) "Rejected Science", who first sought to proclaim Homosexuality a "Pathology", to label it a mental disorder the same as Pedophilia, or an addiction the same as Alcoholism, and Lesbianism in particular an example of how scary and threatening untamed female sexuality is, and thus labeled it another symptom of "hysteria". No, it was Secular Scientists who first did this, Scientists who whether professing "Christians" or not, embraced the ideas of Darwin and Galton and their fore-bearers.

Creationists have a long history of pointing out how the Evolutionary theory has contributed to the history of the evils of Racism and Eugenics. Darwin's book was racist in it's very name, and filled with Racists and Sexists comments. I would not however fall into the trap of saying they Evolution created Racism, I would say it's the other way around.

It's now an proven scientific fact that Homosexuality and Bisexuality are perfectly natural and normal variations of human sexuality. And to me that is a problem for the Theory of Evolution, whether Evolutionists want to admit that or not. I know all the usual arguments about how homosexuality can be genetic even when homosexuals don't usually reproduce, but those are rationalizations. If the Evolutionary model were true, any genes that do not further propagate the species should have been gotten rid of by "Natural Selection" ages ago.

So I think Creationists should embrace LGBT people, as proving what Jesus said about being "Born Eunuchs", and disproving the logic of Darwinian Natural Selection.

My refutations of the Biblical Arguments against Homosexuality are here. --MithrandirOlorin 12:52, 6 July 2014 (EDT)