Discussing the evidence that support creationism

dwise1 writes:Evolution, not evolutionism! Why did you just pull a bait-and-switch there? We were talking about evolution, but you switched it to a creationist invention, a manufactured scapegoat. A lie, a deception.

ev·o·lu·tion·ism (v-lsh-nzm, v-)
n.
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

DA writes:You will notice that neither of those definitions is synonymous with "evolution", as you can easily see by substituting either such definition into sentences containing the word "evolution".

dwise1 writes:Not grammatical correctness -- grammar being the structure of a language -- , but rather semantic correctness -- semantics dealing with meaning. Each of those sentences are grammatically correct, but half of them are semanticly wrong and don't make any sense.
Evolutionism is not the same thing as evolution. To try to claim that they are the same thing is both false and misleading.

Many of the CreationWiki authors have expressed frustration with Wikipedia. It is said that while Wikipedia claims to take a "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) position on topics and seems to follow it quite well for most issues, when it comes to creation science and intelligent design, it has a strong negative point of view. Sometimes this bias simply results from contributors who do not like or in some cases show a clear hatred for Creationism, but sadly this sentiment extends to the sysops as well. One example is the fact that they classify Creation science and Intelligent design as pseudosciences which is a standard anti-creation tactic.Wikipedia Main Page
About Wikipedia
An example of the systemic bias in Wikipedia was the vote to delete the article "Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared". Despite Wikipedia's NPOV policy, many voters felt free to vote to delete the article on the grounds that they considered creationism as pseudoscience or worse, rather than on the merits of the article itself. Some of the comments in support of the vote to delete were:The title of the page is inherently wrong, as it suggests that creationism is a scientific view.
...comparing religious doctrine to scientific theory is comparing apples and oranges, and thus non-encyclopedic.
By opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science", the article title suggests that creationism is a scientific POV.
Creationism is not science.
Delete, since creationism is ultimately based on untestable religious beliefs...
Not only did these voters feel free to vote on the basis of their bias, no administrators felt the need to remind the voters that they should be voting on the merits of the article, not their personal opinion of creationism.Furthermore, the contributor who proposed that the article be deleted”after he had vandalised the creationist views listed there”considered the Talk.Origins Archive to be "the most balanced treatment on the web to date"

Percy writes:The topic of this thread is the evidence supporting Creationism.

Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

It estimates the annual growth rate at 1% with approximately 1/3 of the population wiped out every 82 years (these figures are extremely questionable, but I'm just going to apply the math). Plugging in the numbers and starting with 8 individuals 4500 years ago (2500 BC) yields a world population today of 49 billion. Would you say that's just a little off, since the estimate of the world population in 2005 was 6.454 billion?

DA writes:I also like how you think you are doing a favour by setting average growth at 0.1% when it already know that the growth rate from 1CE to 1000CE was around 0.04%!