Talk:Creation Ministries International

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation Ministries International article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism: Young Earth creationism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

"Fundamentalist"

The pejorative label "fundamentalist" should be removed from the infobox. According to MOS:LABEL, such a value-laden label is best avoided, unless it's "widely used by reliable sources". This does not seem to be the case. –St.nerol (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, lets have some sources for the lable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The label should be "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". The subject is the organisation CMI. The source added is about creationism in general, but does not relate to CMI at all. (Perhaps it can be used to support the label at Young Earth creationism. However, that page seems to take a slightly more nuanced view.) -St.nerol (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Most scientists"

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The percentage of scientists who reject YEC (many, most, or whatever) does not matter. 100% of all competent scientists reject it, and therefore we write that it is pseudoscience.

Every scientist who does not reject it is either a very, very specialized specialist who knows nothing about the science outside his specialty, or a moron, or a liar, or an ideologically blinkered religious fundamentalist loon who lets his beliefs win over his knowledge. The opinion of none of those people matters.

The wording "most scientists reject" is incompatible with Wikipedia's rules. We do not use it in articles about beliefs as crazy as this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many very competent scientists affirm YEC, including Dr John Sanford, who co-invented the "gene gun", not to mention intellectual giants such as Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler. There is a list of more than 200 creation scientists possessing at least a PhD, not including the fact that most scientists would prefer to keep silent on their view in this matter, for fear of being ostracized or even fired, until reaching the age of retirement. The full list of known creation scientists can be seen here. JacksonS24 (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Competence in one field does not imply competence in other fields. YEC is idiotically contradictory to all the relevant facts, and Sanford is an ignorant layman regarding the relevant fields. Lists of narrow specialist, generally ignorant scientists are not helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may say the same for evolutionists, too. I suggest you check out creation.com first. JacksonS24 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason why "evolutionists" do not use the kind of crappy reasoning you used above (many very competent scientists), but use solid evidence instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or they are silent as they consider it too silly for words, see we can all do OR. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read one of the articles creation.com has about evolution and then reply. JacksonS24 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with tired old creationist bullshit. See An Index to Creationist Claims for refutations.

This is not a forum. Unless you have reliable sources, stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have my own reasoning; think about it. I posted some of the creation arguments in the "Unsubstantiated claim by wiki" section. I know you think creation is stupid; but I beg you to at least carefully consider both sides of the argument and decide for yourself which side has the stronger arguments. Just to mention, even evolutionists admit the odds of the first ever cell forming by chance is worse than 1 in 10^41,000! To put that into perspective, there are "only" about 10^80 atoms in the universe. Even if every atom in the universe became another universe, that would only be 10^80 * 10^80 = 10^160 atoms. With that unfavourable estimations, shouldn't you at least consider other explanations that are a bit more likely? Please, consider the creation side of the argument carefully; at the worst, you would waste about an hour of your life doing that; at best, it would affect your destiny, since where we come from affects where we are going. JacksonS24 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated claim by wiki

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This wiki page about this group indicates its pseudoscience without explaining how they arrive at that conclusion; on the groups website there are many credentialed scientists involved with the group; Remember evolution is a theory which can not be proven since it takes billions of years to do so. 2601:547:C97E:3E70:54FE:965:AED7:48C4 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science is based on theories. Gravity is a theory. As for billions of years, how old do you think the world is? In any case, evolution can and does at times take place, see Experimental evolution. Don't waste your time arguing, this is a mainstream science based encyclopedia and that won't change. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link you sent me to indicates adaptation is evolution, its quite plausible species adapt within themselves but not necessarily evolve into a new species; honest and openminded observation does not lead one to draw an immediate conclusion that life is the result of micro positive mutations occurring from an ever moving reverse infinitum; mainstream science has silenced any idea that challenges its dogma; professor lose tenure and are shunned or fired; we live in a regressive time where gatekeepers prevent ideas from entering the arenas of science and academia mainly due to money. Wikipedia is an open source forum that should be careful about caving to societal mainstream pressure to shun those with whom you disagree. 2601:547:C97E:3E70:548F:BD10:BD61:EBAB (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia bases content on published reliable sources, and not on the ignorant ramblings of random contributors. And Wikipedia is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you? You sound arrogant and have not responded to my “ramblings”. you prove my points. 2601:547:C97E:3E70:DDE7:9BE7:E230:ACD3 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I? A contributor who understands how Wikipedia works - which as a matter of core policy, established over many years, with the overwhelming support of the editing community, is to reflect scientific consensus on scientific matters. As for your ramblings, I'm under no obligation to respond, and since this is not a forum, as you have already been told, it would be a misuse of this talk page to do so. I can assure you however that were it appropriate to respond, any response wouldn't involve 'arrogance' - just a little knowledge of relevant facts, due in part at least to having studied human evolution at university. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check out creation.com and you'll be surprised. JacksonS24 (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No we would not be, its not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Says evolutionists. I strongly suggest you read one of the articles there and see for yourself. JacksonS24 (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, says the Wikipedia rules. We will not violate them, full stop. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you're an evolutionist? If so, I would ask that you think about these things carefully and objectively:

JacksonS24 (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two methods that evolution uses are natural selection and mutation, right? But think about this. Natural selection never adds somthing: consider beetles on a windy island. The beetles with wings are blown away from the island, and from natural selection, the wingless beetles remain and reproduce. But nothing was added; in fact, the genes to code wings was removed from the population on that island. Natural selection never creates the fit; it culls the unfit. It is a culling force, not a creative force. In fact, natural selection implies it as such. You could select preexisting cards from a card deck, but where could you get a "1 of spades" if it wasn't in the deck already? JacksonS24 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for mutation. Mutation is basically a copying error in our genes, a typo of sorts. But you edit Wikipedia. When does a typo ever improve an article? We can use this analogy: in a battle, an army sends this information to their ally: "the enemy is now attacking." But in the process, there are inevitably typos. Most of them would be relatively innocuous: "tha enemy is now attacking" does not change the meaning much. But if these changes were allowed to build up, to "ta ename es now attarckang", for example, it would make the message significantly harder to understand. Sometimes, however, mutations can be negative from the outset. "The enemy is not attacking" only changes one letter, but can have disastrous effects. The estimated rate of beneficial vs harmful mutations are always overwhelmingly non-positive. Also, for mutations to change a species gradually, natural selection would need to efficiently select out negative mutations and favor beneficial ones. But keep in mind it is not individual genes that are being selected, but creatures that carry these genes, and in most cases, these individual corruptions of the genome are to small and insignificant to be selected, allowing them to build up gradually in a species. JacksonS24 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it might be jarring to change your worldview. I used to believe in evolution, too. If you have any specific questions, you can always ask me here, or search for it in creation.com. They provide satisfactory answers to all sorts of questions, from "How can dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark?" to "Doesn't the majority of scientists believe in evolution? How can they all be wrong?" to "Doesn't the fossil record support evolution?" JacksonS24 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well its is sourced, so not a lot we can do. Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]