The Creation Wiki is now operating on a new and improved server.
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
It's hard to believe that some of these questions were asked seriously.
Example: (1.1) "... explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect." Oh really? How many creationists do they think believe the Bible is incorrect?
Example: (1.2) "Why are many Christians evolutionists?" Duh! Why are many astrologers evolutionists? Why do ships go missing in the Bermuda triangle? Like there's only one answer?
Example: (1.3) "Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?" Duh again! Why are many murderers evolutionists? Why do some people like the color yellow? Why do many old ladies play Bingo?
And so on. I agree that answers should not be long, but I'm not sure it would matter if there was no answer given. The questions wouldn't rate a pass in a high-school logic class.
--Klang 02:29, 25 November 2006 (EST)
I agree, we should probably just leave the silly questions.
--RichardT 11:37, 3 December 2006 (EST)
Is anyone aware of the response available here,? Just thought i'd let people know.
--Gil 15:04, 1 December 2006 (EST)I have a proposal for Question 4, on the alleged coherence of secular dating. Anyone care to comment or to correct my impression? Or should I just post it?
Answer: This is a loaded question. Creationists have never conceded any such coherence among secular dating methods. Indeed, Andrew Snelling of the RATE Group describes a finding in the Grand Canyon region of the United States that bears directly on this question. Twenty-seven rock samples from the Inner Gorge of the Grand Canyon turned out to have wildly different apparent ages, when tested according to different radiometric models, and often when tested according to the same model. The differences in ages vastly exceeded their published tolerances. Neither is this the first such instance. The literature is full of other findings of wildly discordant dates for the same formation--including one instance in which none of the reported ages bears the slightest resemblance to reality. More to the point: postively the youngest apparent rock in the records of the United States Geological Survey has an apparent age of 700,000 years. This finding alone suggests that radiometric dating would be unavailing to date the eruption of, say, Mount Vesuvius, did not ample historical records of that eruption and its aftermath already exist to date it positively. For another detailed discussion of the weaknesses of radiometric dating, see this essay by Douglas Sharp at Revolution Against Evolution.--Temlakos 14:26, 21 December 2006 (EST)
While I'm on the subject: Many have asked me--and I'm not sure that's on the FABNAQ--why I, as a YEC, do not or cannot cite "neutral" sources. My reply: That also is a loaded question. Science is not value-free, and never has been. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier used no "neutral sources" when he dealt the coup-de-grâce to the phlogiston theory of combustion, to name one example. And I suggest that we are very close to having our own "Lavoisier Moment." Maybe the RATE Group have already given that to us.--Temlakos 14:37, 21 December 2006 (EST)
OK, I went ahead and posted my answer--after expanding on it and moving most of it to a separate, linked article. Check it out, please, and talk to me if I am in error--because I want to get this right! This finding excites me more than any other single thing in creation science, and as such is the thing that drives my passion--so if I have misunderstood any of it, I want to know right away!--Temlakos 22:24, 21 December 2006 (EST)
Re: 'Observations', the question explicitly asks for observations supporting creation, not observations undermining evolution; the answer given is mostly the latter. Re: 'The water for the flood', only half the quastion has been answered - nothing is said about where the water went to. Roy 14:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Are they better now? Philip J. Rayment 23:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Flood bit is, observations section isn't - it's still mostly arguments against evolution. (Which don't work, btw - for example, the total number of bacteria in the wrold is many orders of magnitude more than 10^21 (see here), allowing that supposedly rare triple mutation to happen thousands of times a second) Roy 08:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Like it says on the very top of the page, "This page still needs substantial work in formatting, organizing, and answering the questions. Help is appreciated." If you feel some answers are incomplete or whatever, edit it! :) --Tony Sommer 17:46, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Had no idea he wasn't able to edit... Also Roy, if you search this site, you will find answers to most questions more in-depth. --Tony Sommer 03:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Just to leave a commment here in the talk page about biologic distribution issue from Richard Dawkins: "If species were individually created to fit their environment, we should expect islands and continents to have the same animals and plants as similar islands and continents on the other side of the world. But this is exactly what we do NOT find. The distribution of animal and plant species over the islands and continents of the world follows exactly the pattern we should expect if they have evolved, and exactly the pattern we should not expect if they had been created." For the video from Richard Dawkins found on this youtube link
So i guess evolution prediction has turned out to be more accurate than the creation prediction on this issue.
Peace Ryosuke1208 04:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that just goes to show that neither you nor Dawkins understands Biblical creation. In fact, each and every statement Dawkins makes in that quote is completely false, and demonstrably so, besides being completely irrelevant. Dawkins is arguing against a straw man -- and failing even at that! First of all, with an infinitely creative God, there's no reason to expect that similar environments would necessarily have the same inhabitants. Secondly, we actually do find identical or similar creatures filling the same ecological niches in widely-separated places. And finally, post-Flood fossil and living animal distribution is exactly what we'd expect for separate waves of land vertebrate recolonization of the Earth from a central distribution point in the Middle East, such as Mount Ararat, although it does create problems for evolutionists (Why are opossums the only marsupials outside Australasia? If mankind has been reproducing for hundreds of thousands of years, where are all the people? And the bodies?).
- Dawkins is a good story-teller, but he's no logician. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure everyone would be okay with my removing the following from 1.2:
Answer: Many Christians are evolutionists because they have been deceived into believing that science has proved evolutionism to be true. Since evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, they commonly hold that Genesis was not written as true history but as an allegorical account similar to Jesus' parables. However, what makes a person a Christian is faith in Christ, not freedom from error.
This appears to me incorrect, as it does not sufficiently address the question's inherent suggestion, that "most" Christians are Evolutionists. I provided Gallup polling showing this does not appear to be the case, and that most Christians are in fact Creationists. In light of this information, the above material appears unnecessary, distracting, and incorrect. --Jzyehoshua 23:58, 13 May 2012 (PDT)
- Still, we should answer the other implied question, "Why are any, repeat any, Christians evolutionists?" In other words: what makes a Christian buy into the fraud that is evolution?
- I agree that "what makes a Christian is faith in Christ, not freedom from error" is insufficient. But I'd like to see something that treats that other part of the question.TemlakosTalk 06:27, 14 May 2012 (PDT)
- Not only that, but the question is not why most Christians are evolutionists, but why many are. The Gallup Poll information doesn't refute that many are. ("Many" can include a large minority.) Therefore I think the new answer misses the main point (although it's useful additional information), and the answer should begin with explaining why any/many do.
- The now-removed answer was too simplistic, so I'm not suggesting a reversion to that.
- Philip J. Rayment 04:59, 15 May 2012 (PDT)
- Good points by Temlakos and Philip J. Rayment about why any Christians are Evolutionists. The new answer I think does help dispel the question's implication that most Christians are Evolutionsts, as most weekly church attenders are clearly Young Earth Creationists, and a large percentage of those attending almost weekly/monthly are as well. That should be a majority of church attenders, and thus Christians, one would think.
- Additional information is needed to address why any Christians are Evolutionists, however. Points could be made about how scientific evolution has become socially popular and is upheld as fact by the government-subsidized education industry, or how the Scopes Trial swayed public opinion without ever subjecting evolutionary theory to serious scrutiny; only mocking the Bible's claims of the supernatural without ever proving Evolution in any way, shape, or form. One could also point to books like Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God" that argue Big Bang theory actually proves a Creator, and new claims that evolution and the Bible are compatible. Many people are after all afraid to go against what's considered socially popular, which is why so few people vote for 3rd party candidates even though disapproval of both the Republican and Democrat parties are at all-time highs. --Jzyehoshua 11:50, 15 May 2012 (PDT)
- There are so many reasons that I hesitate to try and list them, but as well as "socially popular", there is outright discrimination and intimidation enforcing the evolutionary view. A proper treatment (which this page is probably not the place for) would include a history of how the church first compromised on long ages even before Origin of the Species. Getting political(?) for a moment, voting for a third party in a first-past-the-post system can often be a wasted vote, so there are practical reasons for not doing it. That's why preferential voting, as used here in Oz, is much better. Philip J. Rayment 06:18, 17 May 2012 (PDT)
Missing a key point
This article seems so concerned to meet a challenge put by ignorant critics that it misses even mentioning, let alone highlighting, that it is false to claim these questions as never answered. Even back in 1992, I'd say most of these questions had been answered by creationists, and most if not all of the remaining few that might not have been answered then have been since, yet the article still stands, falsely claiming that they have never been answered. I'd like to see this point highlighted at the beginning, and for each answer a link to where it has long been answered, to drive home that dishonesty involved in listing these questions as "never answered". Philip J. Rayment 06:18, 17 May 2012 (PDT)