Creation Wiki

[Dracil]

Project 86 posted this in the Creation Science forum. But I think this should be advertised to all in the Origins Theology forum. As the page says, "The only qualification we require for contributors is that they believe the universe and life on earth were created by God," - sounds like pretty much everyone here. Shall we go contribute?

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

 

[Tachocline]

I laughed when I read that too!

 

[Dracil]

Also, for the purposes of their guideline, it seems they see us Theistic Evolutionists as Creationists. We've been thrown in with OECs.

So in other words, despite my disagreement with that grouping, we've been given full authority to contribute like the rest of them.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I laughed when I read that too!

Thanks for laughing. I enjoy it when my serious endeavours invite mockery from others.

As for contributions - yes, OEC's can contribute. Obviously, some pages will have different thoughts for the different groups. eg, while a YEC may comment on the inaccuracies of old earth dating techniques, an OEC will be defending them. So, rather than overwrite the view you disagree with, create a separate heading on that page for your defence for now.

Ultimately I'll think up a standard way for creating sub-pages on a topic to split the YEC, OEC and other groups views so that all can be presented.

 

[Tachocline]

If you were serious in your endeavours then you would get a science education, as would all contributors to that site but I'd wager that is unlikely.

 

[herev]

Thanks for laughing. I enjoy it when my serious endeavours invite mockery from others.

As for contributions - yes, OEC's can contribute. Obviously, some pages will have different thoughts for the different groups. eg, while a YEC may comment on the inaccuracies of old earth dating techniques, an OEC will be defending them. So, rather than overwrite the view you disagree with, create a separate heading on that page for your defence for now.

Ultimately I'll think up a standard way for creating sub-pages on a topic to split the YEC, OEC and other groups views so that all can be presented.

Hi Tyreth .
Forgive me for being slow--but are you saying that this is your site that is listed?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

If you were serious in your endeavours then you would get a science education, as would all contributors to that site but I'd wager that is unlikely.

Whether you agree or not, a lot of the arguments in defence of Darwinism are philosophical in their nature - and therefore open to anyone with a grounding in logic. But let's not get into it here.

Besides, a number of the contributors to wikipedia do have science degrees. And anyone can view it. If you find factual mistakes, then you just click on the "discussion" link on a page and let them know. Anyone can edit the pages. It follows an evolutionary process...initial article created, then improved upon by others, over time as changes are introduced it becomes more accurate and relevant. That's the idea behind it, anyway.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Hi Tyreth .
Forgive me for being slow--but are you saying that this is your site that is listed?

I proposed the idea for it, and someone else offered to host it. I set up the website on his server, and act as the admin for it. I'm not the main contributor.

I was hoping to have more content before announcing it. However, you need contributors to get content, and you get contributors by letting people know it exists So not a problem.

 

[Tachocline]

Radiocarbon dating is reliant upon the assumption that C-14 production in the atmosphere has been constant during the history of life on earth.

Why don't you delete this untruth?

For one thing C-14 dating has nothing to do with dating through the history of life on Earth so that connection is misleading.

C-14 dating is also not reliant on the assumption that C-14 production has been constant either in the last 50,000 years or the history of life on Earth which i commented on above.

In fact you don't even need the C-14 level to be in equilibrium.

You see this is what annoys us about these pseudoscience sites. The lack of scholarship in choosing your material and the errors of science, flat out basic errors you perpetuate. That is ignorance. The only other possibility is, dare I say it, you are deliberately lying.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Why don't you delete this untruth?

For one thing C-14 dating has nothing to do with dating through the history of life on Earth so that connection is misleading.

C-14 dating is also not reliant on the assumption that C-14 production has been constant either in the last 50,000 years or the history of life on Earth which i commented on above.

In fact you don't even need the C-14 level to be in equilibrium.

You see this is what annoys us about these pseudoscience sites. The lack of scholarship in choosing your material and the errors of science, flat out basic errors you perpetuate. That is ignorance. The only other possibility is, dare I say it, you are deliberately lying.

*sigh*

The page is _young_. It hasn't had the time for the content to develop and mature. Treat it as being in an alpha state.

If you think I'm going to defend content on it here, you are mistaken - this is not the place. On each article on the wiki there is a "discussion" link. Go put your disagreements there. Or, if you think you can correct the mistake and still present a creationist perspective (eg, deleting the mistake and resisting saying things like "...creationists who practice pseudo science") then do so. Help make it better rather than forcing me to defend it here.

 

[Tachocline]

OK, but if that made a first cut then it doesn't deserve the moniker alpha. Whoever let that on is not qualified to make such decisions it's that clear cut. Don't tell me they have a science qualification because I'd love to know the school that issued them. I'm sorry if you think this is mean spirited but information like that is just inexcusable and points to an agenda of disinformation not edification. Please don't allow kids on there, we have enough science education problems as it is, I see it every day in the classes I teach.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

OK, but if that made a first cut then it doesn't deserve the moniker alpha. Whoever let that on is not qualified to make such decisions it's that clear cut. Don't tell me they have a science qualification because I'd love to know the school that issued them. I'm sorry if you think this is mean spirited but information like that is just inexcusable and points to an agenda of disinformation not edification. Please don't allow kids on there, we have enough science education problems as it is, I see it every day in the classes I teach.

I don't care what your specific complaint is. As I said, I hadn't intended to announce it to the wider world for consumption yet - just open to contributions. The wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedic reference, yet any Joe can edit and contribute. Does that make it a worthless resource?

Anyone can write an article. You could post one up there saying "The universe began as a giant orange. This orange developed an identity and created the universe in its image." - and it would stay on the Creation Wiki until someone noticed and corrected it. That's how a wiki works.

Now are you telling us that we should lock out contributions from anyone except authorised editors? Are you telling us we aren't allowed to have a wiki in the spirit of a wiki - where anyone can contribute?

 

[Dracil]

That particular section was added by Ashcraft, in the very first entry for Radiometric Dating. There's no way Ashcraft will be kicked out as he *owns* the site.

BTW, I notice Msaward removed this section. I thought no deletions were allowed?

'''Amendment:'''
- The previous paragraph is woefully out of date. It is no longer assumed that C-14 production has been constant throughout geological time; instead, methods of calibrating and validating C-14 ages are being studied. One method involves comparing the C-14 age of tree-rings, ice cores or lake floor sediments with the known age obtained by counting annual layers; an example from Lake Suigetsu in Japan, which includes graphs showing the close correspondence between ages determined by C-14 dating and ages determined by counting annual layers, can be found at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm
-
- It should also be noted that according to the age comparisons C-14 produces ages that are fractionally younger than the true age of the material.

 

[Tachocline]

But you should refrain from allowing any contributions until you have the manpower to edit and fact check. Otherwise it is no resource at all except one for misinformation. And the spirit of a wiki was never for falsehoods.

You know what is bad, that was literally the first page I went to and I found that error about C-14. I'd hate to use a fine tooth comb on the site.

 

[Tachocline]

That particular section was added by Ashcraft, in the very first entry for Radiometric Dating. There's no way Ashcraft will be kicked out as he *owns* the site.

LOL LOL LOL. What a waste of hard disk space and internet bandwidth.

tyreth are you Ashcraft?

If not can you tell me pages you have edited so I can have a gander?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

That particular section was added by Ashcraft, in the very first entry for Radiometric Dating. There's no way Ashcraft will be kicked out as he *owns* the site.

BTW, I notice Msaward removed this section. I thought no deletions were allowed?

That section was deleted because the pages are not forums for discussion and arguments - that's what the discussion page is. You don't open an encyclopedia and see part way down an article "Ammendment: The above is incorrect. Signed, Jack".

I'm Msaward, btw.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Must you guys criticise everything? Why not try and be useful contributors instead? Or stick to EvoWiki, which I have a few choice words about that I'll keep to myself. Please, DON'T cut and paste everything you have issue with into these threads. What's the point? Keep it on the wiki and help that. Posting here does nothing productive except serve as a source of mild entertainment for you, and headaches for me trying to explain every single move.

 

[Tachocline]

Since it went through the editing process by Mr. Ashcraft do you trust his scientific judgement?

 

[Tachocline]

Whoa, you removed a section that was explaining something I was calling you out for not knowing.

In other words you already knew that equilibrium wasn't needed.

Goodnight. You are being fraudulent.

 

[Tachocline]

You know that deletion shows exactly what your site is about. Lying for Creationism pure and simple. You should be ashamed and need to look unto your faith a little harder.