Talk:Creation

Edit

Why is it possible to edit the creation page but not the evolution page? due to the controversy surrounding these topics I think both articles should have the same rules...

A-MEN!!! They say that if creation is a "theory" (which it is not mind you it is truth) and evolution is a theory we should at least have the same rights!!!! A-men?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.17.4 (talk • contribs) 16:37, May 21, 2007 UTC (UTC)

The text about the Big Bang Theory and other scientific explanations for the "origins" of the universe should either 1) be moved to another page, such as Creationism versus Naturalism or 2) summarized in a paragraph that states that most scientists do not believe that the Universe was the result of "creation."

As the "Creation" page now reads, the text about the Big Bang Theory is irrelevant to the subject of "creation"--since the Big Bang Theory says nothing about something creating something else. Rednblu 18:38, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Acccording to the Big Bang Theory the universe was created by the Big Bang. - Patrick 21:20, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? As I read the physics books, the "Big Bang" was just another manifestation of the natural phenomena. Where do you get the "created by" dogma? Rednblu 14:59, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article suggests that the concept of "creation" does not necessarily imply the involvement of any supernatural intervention, the existence of a god or demiurge, or belief in the God of the Bible. It also suggests that religious views of creation do not necessarily exclude evolution. There are tell-tale artifacts of Mormonism (or similar non-traditional "judeo-christian" view) throughout this article; but not so strong as to call into question the sincere attempt to be neutral. I think that the article intends to set the terms under which all ideas of "Origins" are discussed, elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Mkmcconn 21:44, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Surely there must be a Creator if there is a Creation. That would seem to be a result of the English language. Can you give me an example of a "Creation" without a "Creator"? For example, would you speak of the "Creation of the Grand Canyon"? You might, but it would be metaphorical and not scientific--something like "The Language of the Grand Canyon." That is neither the "language" nor the "creation" of the Grand Canyon would be of scientific interest.

Therefore, it seems to me that the following statement is wrong.

<<The creation of the Universe is a subject of scientific . . . interest.>> Rednblu 15:28, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not scientific in a technical sense, but it's the way that English works, I think. The "creation of the Grand Canyon" is only a shade more colorful than "formation of the Grand Canyon". But, I'm just trying to be as conciliatory as I can; speaking my personal opinion, if you are trying to avoid giving the glory of the one Creator to any of His creatures, you have my whole-hearted blessing. Edit boldly! :-) Mkmcconn 16:31, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm thinking--digesting your thoughts. Rednblu 19:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is the word "creation". The definition given in the article is vague : "Creation is the process of making something new". What level of thing are we talking about ? Are we talking about new structures of matter formed from pre-existing matter (as we commonly understand it), or entire objects popping out of nothing (as Christians believe) ? Perhaps it means to encompass both definitions, but to me they are completely different, and only sow confusion when conflated, as I think this discussion demonstrates. Franc28 08:15, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

this isnt a theory it is true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Creation article by a creationist?

I've heard of scientific creation theories (as opposed to evolutionary origins theories discussed under that topic here), which I hoped to find some coverage on by someone with related credentials who represents those theories or ideas. How can we get such contrbutions? The article falls short of expectations. There's other topics where I could expect to find the same facts and point of view given in the article.

There is no such thing as "scientific creation", let alone "scientific creation theories". I would humbly suggest that you do not know what "scientific" or "theory" actually mean. Franc28

== Let A Creationist Answer! ==

Allow me first to disassociate myself hurriedly from Scientific Creationism, Creation Science, and just about every creationist position argued over the Internet. Call me a commonsense creationist. Wikipedia is really Aethipedia, and reflects the aethistic evolutionary viewpoint throughout. Because all pages are a mixture of everybody's views, there is no point in me contributing a page on creation, only to have it edited/mucked up by somebody else. I'll give you a creation page, if you immediately lock it, and show conflicting viewpoints underneath. Wikipedia fails to teach the controversy effectively in any controversial issue, and sometimes makes a controversy where there is none. There are many controversial points in creation, and much ignorant faith to be injured. If wikipedia comes up with a formula for controlled editing where a license, or password is required to edit sections of viewpoint pages then it will progress. Each such page should have an "Opposition to this view" section, which might be more open. (User: Business.kid)

merge?

why is this article separate from Creation belief? Ungtss 19:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from existing matter ?

"Some believe God organized worlds from existing matter" I have NEVER heard such a thing. What religion or what sect proposes this ? Franc28 01:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

If no one can answer this question, then I'll have to edit it back for being a completely spurious claim. Franc28 09:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

As a devout Christian and Creationist, I can find no Biblical text that says anything except "God created the Earth". He made the Earth from nothing.Twobytwo 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find no biblical text? Well you don't look very hard. Gen. 1:1-2a "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. AND THE EARTH WAS WITH OUT FORM AND VOID" That sounds like nothing to me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoloverizme (talk • contribs) 16:19, May 22, 2007 UTC (UTC)

So, Twobytwo, you were there? If not, who are you to limit God to only one form of life? I can neither argue on a supreme truth level with either Creation or Evolution, so I will argue what I believe, Evolution.The open mind 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAAARGH....Use a little simple logic here, please!!

THE EARTH WAS WITHOUT FORM AND VOID - this statement comes AFTER the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the statement "THE EARTH WAS" means that "the earth existed", so your conclusion that "VOID" means that there was "nothing" is the main reason why Creationists can't accept simple facts like "matter cannot be created nor destroyed"(a scientific LAW).

Let's do a little English lesson so you can be a devout Christian and understand how matter could exist before God created the world:

Create (verb) - To produce something as a result, or make something happen. Void (adjective)- Having no incumbant, occupant, or holder.

When we consider the meaning of these words, you can clearly see that God produced the world, He made it happen, and that after He created the Earth it had no occupants. If "void" were used as a NOUN and not an ADJECTIVE we could assume that the earth was a vaccum, but then it wouldn't be the Earth and the statement would hold no meaning. In other words the statement "THE EARTH WAS WITHOUT FORM AND [a] VOID" would mean "the earth, which God created, did not exist". This simply doesn't make sense.

Plus, God is an eternal being, so he could not have sprung into existence by Himself. By accepting the argument that major Christian sects have presented on this argument without considering common sense when reading your Bible, you cannot understand Christ or God the Father as They would want you to. Plus, if you want to know what religion proposes this, it is the Mormons. So basically, this idea was given by a PROPHET who could actually SEE this stuff so you don't have to rest on a blind priest's confused interpretation of scripture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swiftabulous (talk • contribs) 00:16:12, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Creation (theology) reference?

The article says: Creation (theology), the act by a God or gods of bringing the universe into existence from unlimited energy, e.g (Isaiah 40:26) rather than from "nothing".

Isaiah 40:26 is a spurious reference here - that verse is simply showing how God calls out the starry host, i.e. makes them appear at night as far as people living on the earth are concerned. I assume that what is meant by "unlimited energy" must be energy separate and distinct from God - the Bible only says that God created from his strength, not from existing energy separate from himself! Purple Banana 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge with create

I propose a merger with create since "create" is the root word of "creation". -Eep² 09:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We don't need both articles and they could easily be merged.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. A "See also" link works just fine here, and this page is a bit long anyway. The words are distinct if related; I can see merging in some cases where the difference is really minor like "Foo" and "The Foo," but even then, they sometimes keep different pages (like The Tempest (disambiguation) and Tempest). SnowFire 08:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Per the article on intelligent design, I do not think that ID should be listed under the "science" heading. That article indicates that intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis, and that it arises primarily from religious antecedents. I have thus moved it up into the philosophy section. I leave it to other editors to decide whether it belongs here at all. Silly rabbit 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction was that ID doesn't belong here at all, since this is a disambiguation page [1]. When this edit was reverted, I then moved intelligent design into the correct category (creationism). First of all, it is not a scientific theory, as the new editor is keen on suggesting: the Dover trial establishes that, as do all references over at the main article intelligent design. Secondly, on more pragmatic grounds, the only way ID could conceivably be disambiguated from "creation" is as a subset of creationism. Then the creationist editor inexplicably put intelligent design in two categories. (Remember, this is supposed to be a disambiguation page for creation, not an advertisement for intelligent design.) I've finally had enough. I'm removing it completely based on WP:DAB. If anyone wants to argue for its inclusion, bring it here and talk about it. Silly rabbit 12:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation myth vs. Creation account

Quartus81, concerning your repeated attempts ([2], [3], [4], and possibly [5] and [6]? ) to replace the phrase "creation myth" with "creation account", please note that an account requires a person or author who was in some way eyewitness to the described events. Since the sequence of events describes The Initial Creation, by definition, there cannot possibly have been someone present to witness, and thus to to provide an account of the events. Hope this helps. DVdm (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, concerning the repeated attempts to replace the phrase "creation account" with "creation myth", kindly note that your definition of the word "account" is incorrect. There are a great many books giving an "account" of events, written by people who were not present. As it happens, the Bible is the inspired Word of God, whether you believe it or not, and as He WAS there at the time, by your own definition the word "account" is correct. The word "myth", however, generally means fable or fiction, and is particularly used in a derogatory sense when discussing creation v evolution. As I said in my email to you, this is not neutral, as it is your opinion that the creation story is a myth. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that supports the Biblical account, and despite repeated requests no evolutionist has provided proof of their THEORY. While there is no absolute proof (yet) either way, I put it to you that the use of the word "myth" is unnecessarily offensive and is in contravention of the neutrality that you claim to adhere to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartus81 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your above sentence "As it happens, the Bible is the inspired Word of God, whether you believe it or not, and as He WAS there at the time, by your own definition the word "account" is correct" (emphasis mine), I can only suggest that, if you would like to contribute to this encyclopedia, you first try to aquaint yourself with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You will find some very valuable pointers on your talk page. Please take your time. Enjoy and good luck. DVdm (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, concerning your phrase "no evolutionist has provided proof of their THEORY", please note that scientific theories (-please read this article-) can never be proven. In order to deserve the predicate scientific (-please read this article-), a theory must lend itself to be disproven by experiment or observation. So, indeed, no evolutionist will even think about trying to "provide proof" of the theory and indeed there will never be "absolute proof". DVdm (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reacting to 92.236.69.30's edit summary of this edit, namely ""Myth" is someone's opinion and not a neutral description, thus contravening Wikipedia's rules". If you have a careful reading of the Creation myth article, you will understand that "Myth" is perfectly neutral. DVdm (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also check the neutrality and "freeness" of judgement of the word in the relevant meanings of "myth" in some notable dictionaries. DVdm (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading those two articles proves my point exactly. As has been stated above, the article on Evolution cannot be edited. If you must insist on Creation being called a myth, then in fairness so must Evolution.Quartus81 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness? What has fairness got to do with any of this? It's simple, what you think, I think, or anyone else here thinks, about terminology has absolutely no bearing on the articles you mentioned. Instead, they all use standard terminology, as prescribed by countless reliable sources. If you don't like that, then take it up with the reliable sources. There has been much discussion of this at the creation myth page, so please browse through the talk page archives there (the link is at the top of the talk page), where I'm sure all of your concerns will have been addressed. As an aside, there is a project called Conservapedia that sympathises with your POV that you might be interested in. Cheers, Ben (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I see where Quartus81 is coming from on this, even if his reasoning style leaves something to be desired. May I suggest the word "story" instead of "myth"?--80.247.80.108 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what could possibly be wrong with the current word. As I explained on User_talk:Quartus81, note that the first meaning we find in the dictionary links I provided, is "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." (empasis mine). We see that this neatly covers all possible viewpoints and that it respects all possible religious and a-religious views, even if one would happen to take the creation of the cosmos in 7 days by one's god as fact.

DVdm (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]