CreationWiki

[tyreth]

Greetings,

We are seeking creationists willing to contribute to the development of the CreationWiki. TheCreationWiki is a free online encyclopedia that is being built through a collaborative effort ofthe community. Virtually every page of the encyclopedia can be edited by clicking the link titled "Edit this Page". You will currently find many links in the Wiki that refer to a blank page thatis still waiting for initial content. In time the CreationWiki will grow to be a truly valuable resource for creation science. Please help the CreationWiki grow through a contribution of some of your knowledge.

CreationWiki
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/

There are also guidelines for contributions here:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Guidelines

Thanks

[Minnesota]

Am I understanding this correctly, you are trying to assemble a serious information source using contributions provided by anyone able to put together a coherent two-sentence paragraph? Credentials and qualifications unnecessary?

[tyreth]

Am I understanding this correctly, you are trying to assemble a serious information source using contributions provided by anyone able to put together a coherent two sentence paragraph? Credentials and qualifications unnecessary?

Correct. In exactly the same way that the wikipedia has been built - http://www.wikipedia.org

[Minnesota]

I'll be darned! While I've come across wikipedia from time to time, if I remember correctly I've never had reason to rely on it--thankfully, in retrospect.

[tyreth]

I'll be darned! While I've come across wikipedia from time to time, if I remember correctly I've never had reason to rely on it--thankfully, in retrospect.

If I understand correctly, you have now decided not to ever trust the wikipedia based on our CreationWiki following the same model?

You are missing out on a truly useful resource.

[Sheepdog]

I'll be darned! While I've come across wikipedia from time to time, if I remember correctly I've never had reason to rely on it--thankfully, in retrospect.

i dunno, wikipedia does have it's moments. i wouldn't rely on it as a primary source, but helpful if you are just looking up a factoid which isn't critical to whatever you are working on.

if only they'd use more citations :sigh2:

[apostate]

I'll be darned! While I've come across wikipedia from time to time, if I remember correctly I've never had reason to rely on it--thankfully, in retrospect.
Just wondering, Minnesota, what is wrong with Wikipedia?

[tyreth]

Well, if the articles are written by people no better informed on the subjects than the casual Discovery magazine reader, they can hardly be relied on for veracity. Pieces in true encyclopedias are written by authorities in the relevant field.

Here's how I view the wikipedia, which may help you appreciate it for what it is:
1. Many of the articles will be written by people who have a clue about the topic.
2. Some articles will be written by misinformed, mistaken, or clueless people
Those are taken for granted. Now, like every other resource on the internet, you must analyse it to ve sure of the veracity of the claims. This is no different from a dead tree publication - whether written by an authority or not, because both types have been mistaken at time.

So, I see the wikipedia as a useful central location for information, that also provides the first stepping stone for further exploration. If I want to find out when person A is born, then the wikipedia can tell me. If it is very important that I am absolutely certain of A's birth date, then I can examine other resources in conjunction with the wikipedia to see if they agree.

It also follows an evolutionary progression - in theory, and hopefully in practice. One person writes an article with poor grammar, childish reasoning, or incorrect information. A few months pass and Professor Bob sees that this person's dissertation on the methods of modulation in a modem are incorrect. He edits the article, updates it with correct information, and includes some references. Further on Professor Jay sees a mistake with P. Bob's update - a common flaw in the industry - so he again updates and may include references.

That's how wikipedia is supposed to work, and that's how you should take it. As an incredibly useful reference, but not sole authority on matters it presents.

[Minnesota]

If I understand correctly, you have now decided not to ever trust the wikipedia based on our CreationWiki following the same model?
Unfortunately, yes. There's just too much misinformation floating around, even from "authoritative sources," to rely on a non-authoritative one. (Sorry about the repost. I screwed up when I added your remark)



Just wondering, Minnesota, what is wrong with Wikipedia?
Well, if the articles are written by people no better informed on the subjects than the casual Discovery magazine reader, they can hardly be relied on for veracity. Pieces in true encyclopedias are written by authorities in the relevant field.

[tyreth]

Well, that's wierd. My response to your comment appears before you wrote it! Guess because you deleted your post and rewrote it.


Unfortunately, yes. There's just too much misinformation floating around, even from "authoritative sources," to rely on a non-authoritative one.

Two things:
1. The CreationWiki is a resource for Christians and Creationists primarily, so it is no worry for me if you don't like it. I still think, though, CreationWiki aside, your attitude is disappointing.
2. CreationWiki will, hopefully, include many references to authoritative sources, and be a single location for beginning to learn more about certain Creation topics.

[Minnesota]

tyreth:
Here's how I view the wikipedia, which may help you appreciate it for what it is:
1. Many of the articles will be written by people who have a clue about the topic.
and how do you know which ones?
2. Some articles will be written by misinformed, mistaken, or clueless people
This should be a real red flag
Those are taken for granted. Now, like every other resource on the internet, you must analyse it to ve sure of the veracity of the claims.
I guess I'd prefer not having to go to the trouble, and find an authoritative source at the outset This is no different from a dead tree publication - whether written by an authority or not, because both types have been mistaken at time.
Not familiar with the publication

So, I see the wikipedia as a useful central location for information, that also provides the first stepping stone for further exploration. If I want to find out when person A is born, then the wikipedia can tell me. If it is very important that I am absolutely certain of A's birth date, then I can examine other resources in conjunction with the wikipedia to see if they agree.

It also follows an evolutionary progression - in theory, and hopefully in practice. One person writes an article with poor grammar, childish reasoning, or incorrect information. A few months pass and Professor Bob sees that this person's dissertation on the methods of modulation in a modem are incorrect. He edits the article, updates it with correct information, and includes some references. Further on Professor Jay sees a mistake with P. Bob's update - a common flaw in the industry - so he again updates and may include references.
If you've been around Tweb long enough and seen the ongoing disputes over the simplest subjects by reasonable, fairly well informed people, I would think it would dissuade you that the a correction is necessarily correct or even better than the statement it claims to correct.

[tyreth]

Not familiar with the publication


Heh, a 'dead tree book' is simply another way of referring to a book published on paper, as opposed to a book published digitally. I meant by 'dead tree publication' something that is published on paper.



If you've been around Tweb long enough and seen the ongoing disputes over the simplest subjects by reasonable, fairly well informed people, I would think it would dissuade you that the a correction is necessarily correct or even better than the statement it claims to correct.

I'm no stranger to debating. I'm aware that there will be disagreements. I just think that despite these problems, overall it will work. And I need to point no further than the wikipedia.
I suppose a scientific way to test your claims vs mine would be to get a random sampling of wikipedia entries and determine the ratio of errors compared to a random sampling of articles from a published encyclopedia by respected authorities. Until then we're just stating opinion.

Though, as I said earlier, I find the wikipedia a useful resource for simple facts and a stepping stone to further research. Heck, you can even get an introduction to a programming language there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_programming_language

[jason]

We are seeking creationists willing to contribute to the development of the CreationWiki.
Can you define the word Creationist. Do you mean YEC, or do you actually mean "person who believes that the natural world is created by YHWH" ?

Edited to add Oh I see YEC's only :ahem:

Jason

[tyreth]

Can you define the word Creationist. Do you mean YEC, or do you actually mean "person who believes that the natural world is created by YHWH" ?

Edited to add Oh I see YEC's only :ahem:

Jason

Yes :) Good question, it's probably worth me specifying from now on that we refer to YEC's.

[jason]

Yes :) Good question, it's probably worth me specifying from now on that we refer to YEC's.
Yeah, you got my hopes up about it being a good thing.

I wish we could all put the animosity aside and build a resource that is actually useful for christians.

Jason

[tyreth]

Yeah, you got my hopes up about it being a good thing.

Jason

I'm a little confused. A YEC by definition rejects old earth answers. So, why would a YEC consider it a 'good thing' to create a wiki dedicated to promulgating the views of things they disagree with?

Obviously, this is your opinion - but you stated it as fact, which sounds a bit more provocative.

[jason]

A YEC by definition rejects old earth answers. So, why would a YEC consider it a 'good thing' to create a wiki dedicated to promulgating the views of things they disagree with?
Because there are actually real battles to be fought that can make a difference in the real world, rather than continually insisting on fighting battles that do nothing more than divide the church and disgrace the gospel.

This resource only does the second and ignores the first.

We really need to take the fight to the materialists and put our stupid differences aside, agree to disagree, rather than waste time arguing about an irrelevancy like the age of the earth/universe. All doing the second does is divide the bretheren and as The Lord Jesus Christ himself said, "A house divide against itself cannot stand".

Jason

[chickenman]

aaah, the counterattack to evowiki

[Roy]

Some extracts from the current content to give Twebbers a feel for the nature of creationwiki:

Another important detail for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupials and placentals that are identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in reproductive systems.* It is suspected that the overwhelming number of marsupials on one continent may instead be the result of the convergent evolution of numerous mammals to a marsupial mode of reproduction.

* This is simply false.

Sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is the process by which acoustic energy is turned into light. This is done by introducing a frequency to water while a air bubble is present. The light produced actually comes from this bubble. You can read about this here: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~swebb/ach.htm http://popularmechanics.com/science/research/1998/2/hot_sounds/print.phtml

You see, in God's word, the earth was just a sphere of water before land appeared. When God commanded the light to appear, this could have been how it was done. this would also solve some problems for creation. Because God created light and plants, before He created the sun. Things would have frooze. But this process produces enough heat to melt metal. Which would explain where the heat came from to keep plants alive. Also since the land appeared shortly after this process would mean that the heat from this was locked inside the earth which would explain our hot molten core.

Archaeology is an important creation science discipline. It substantiates the Bible as a valid historical document, and the Biblical chronology as accurate time-line.

and my favorite (emphasis mine)
Intelligent design is a science perspective which infers that natural laws and chance alone are not adequate to explain all natural phenomena. Intelligent design is closely synonymous to creation science. It may only be distinguished by the fact that it makes no claims about who the creator was, nor does it use references from religious texts when forming theories about the history of the world. ID simply postulates that the universe possesses evidence that it was intelligently designed.

However, there is one good point - they have a page for bad arguments:
On occasion creationists will be acused of making poor arguments, or will be likened to others that the accuser has heard make poor arguments. This page is a collection of myths and arguments that are attributed to creationists that should not be used.

* Men have less ribs than women...


When I looked there was only one bad argument listed. However, I couldn't find any mention elsewhere of the flawed genetic information argument so I added it in this section.

[tyreth]

When I looked there was only one bad argument listed. However, I couldn't find any mention elsewhere of the flawed genetic information argument so I added it in this section.

I will ban your IP if you make edits like these again. If you look in the guidelines you will see that evolutionists are not permitted to modify the articles, partly because of what you did. If you disagree with the content of a page, it is not the place of an evolutionist to edit it. You will notice that every page has a 'discussion' link where you can post faults and criticisms. It is inappropraite for you to place responses to an article in the article itself (I refer to your changes in the Carbon-14 dating link). It is not a forum, nor is it a thread. It is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature.

Another point I would like to make is that this wiki is at its very earliest. There is content there I personally consider inaccurate also, and not well written. In time it will come to be a good repository. For now our request was for creationists to contribute, not for evolutionists to criticise. It is, I would say, unready for public consumption. Come back and judge later. If you have faults, use the 'discussion' link which is specifically for that sort of thing. I will add a note to the guidelines on this topic.

[$cirisme]

The title is wrong, it's not a wiki on creationism but on young earth creationism.

There is a difference. And you really should do something else if you don't want anyone to edit the wiki as that is generally the whole point of a wiki.

[Roy]

I will ban your IP if you make edits like these again. If you look in the guidelines you will see that evolutionists are not permitted to modify the articles, partly because of what you did.

I added correct information, with references, mainly where the existing articles contained errors (and I fixed a few typos). I thought that was the whole point of the venture.

You gave as an exampleOne person writes an article with poor grammar, childish reasoning, or incorrect information. A few months pass and Professor Bob sees that this person's dissertation on the methods of modulation in a modem are incorrect. He edits the article, updates it with correct information, and includes some references.

Replace Bob with Roy and modulation in a modem with marsupials or C-14 dating and that was what I did.

If any of the information I added was wrong, or offensive, then you might have a legitimate objection, but you seem to be saying that people who don't share your views are not welcome to correct factual inaccuracies.


If you disagree with the content of a page, it is not the place of an evolutionist to edit it. You will notice that every page has a 'discussion' link where you can post faults and criticisms. It is inappropraite for you to place responses to an article in the article itself (I refer to your changes in the Carbon-14 dating link). It is not a forum, nor is it a thread. It is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature.

Yes, I could have worded that bit to read more like an article than a response.



Another point I would like to make is that this wiki is at its very earliest. There is content there I personally consider inaccurate also, and not well written. In time it will come to be a good repository. For now our request was for creationists to contribute, not for evolutionists to criticise.

I was contributing, not just criticising. If you think the information I added should have been formatted differently, or replaced rather than appended to the false information I found, that's ok, but you seem to be saying that you don't actually want errors corrected - in which case your venture is doomed from the start.

Roy

[Faramir]

Seeing as this is not so much a discusion about biology as a discussion about a site about biology (among other things) I have moved this to the Student Lounge.

[tyreth]

I was contributing, not just criticising. If you think the information I added should have been formatted differently, or replaced rather than appended to the false information I found, that's ok, but you seem to be saying that you don't actually want errors corrected - in which case your venture is doomed from the start.


It was the way that you edited that made me defensive. You posted your edits and criticisms as such within the article after the old information. You did not remove the parts in error and replace them with fact to produce a genuine article. If I'm coming to learn more about the creationist argument I don't want to read "A is true. Actually, A is not true." It sounds like we are divided against ourselves. I just want to read "A is not true".

Now it is my preference (though I am not the sole authority over this site) that YEC's are the ones to contribute data. Mostly because in my experience I have not yet met a single evolutionist that understands the creationist position. Not one. So, I simply don't trust their understanding enough to make useful contributions.
That is a gross generalisation, because there will be areas where they can contribute helpfully. Unfortunately it's not easy to draw the line, so I have to make a general ruling for the benefit of the wiki as a whole.

Now I also understand (as another pointed out) that a wiki's nature is that anyone can edit it. However, I as a creationist would not feel welcome to edit EvoWiki, nor do I think they would be happy. It's simply not useful for me to work on that website for which I disagree on a fundamental level.

Lastly, on the topic of using the title CreationWiki when we don't support old earth creation theories, I have little to say other than I don't think it matters. We chose a name that was descriptive and not cumbersome (unlike, YECWiki, or YoungEarthWiki, etc). Perhaps there is a better name we could have chosen, but we haven't.

I don't really want to get into extensive debating here. The wiki is there for people to make contributions to explain the young earth creationist position. We're looking for help filling in all the data. The name is chosen, so is the bias.

[$cirisme]

Now I also understand (as another pointed out) that a wiki's nature is that anyone can edit it. However, I as a creationist would not feel welcome to edit EvoWiki, nor do I think they would be happy. It's simply not useful for me to work on that website for which I disagree on a fundamental level.
EvoWiki is irrelevant. My point is and was that a wiki does not, by it's very nature, lend itself to the model you're seeking.


Lastly, on the topic of using the title CreationWiki when we don't support old earth creation theories, I have little to say other than I don't think it matters.
Unless you want to claim that non-YEC's aren't creationists, it matters greatly, because the title and site projects that very message... "non-YEC's are heathen compromisers that aren't creationists."

OEC's are creationists whether you want to admit it or not.(I'm not OEC nor evolutionist, btw) You want to be a source of accurate information? How am I supposed to believe your articles when you can't get something so simple as a name correct?


I don't really want to get into extensive debating here.
This is a debate site, not a advertising forum so you really got what you should have been expecting.

[yxboom]

I added correct information, with references, mainly where the existing articles contained errors (and I fixed a few typos). I thought that was the whole point of the venture.

You gave as an exampleOne person writes an article with poor grammar, childish reasoning, or incorrect information. A few months pass and Professor Bob sees that this person's dissertation on the methods of modulation in a modem are incorrect. He edits the article, updates it with correct information, and includes some references.

Replace Bob with Roy and modulation in a modem with marsupials or C-14 dating and that was what I did.

If any of the information I added was wrong, or offensive, then you might have a legitimate objection, but you seem to be saying that people who don't share your views are not welcome to correct factual inaccuracies.



Yes, I could have worded that bit to read more like an article than a response.



I was contributing, not just criticising. If you think the information I added should have been formatted differently, or replaced rather than appended to the false information I found, that's ok, but you seem to be saying that you don't actually want errors corrected - in which case your venture is doomed from the start.

Roy
Out of curiosity could you post the changes you made here?

[Roy]

It was the way that you edited that made me defensive. You posted your edits and criticisms as such within the article after the old information. You did not remove the parts in error and replace them with fact to produce a genuine article. If I'm coming to learn more about the creationist argument I don't want to read "A is true. Actually, A is not true." It sounds like we are divided against ourselves. I just want to read "A is not true".

Reasonable. I'd be happy to reword them. I wasn't sure what the reaction would be if I started excising chunks of text.



Now it is my preference (though I am not the sole authority over this site) that YEC's are the ones to contribute data. Mostly because in my experience I have not yet met a single evolutionist that understands the creationist position. Not one. So, I simply don't trust their understanding enough to make useful contributions.

I'm confident that I understand the various creationist positions. However, I can't see the connection between understanding a position and correcting factual errors.*



Lastly, on the topic of using the title CreationWiki when we don't support old earth creation theories, I have little to say other than I don't think it matters. We chose a name that was descriptive and not cumbersome (unlike, YECWiki, or YoungEarthWiki, etc). Perhaps there is a better name we could have chosen, but we haven't.

TrikiWiki has a nice ring to it :smile:



I don't really want to get into extensive debating here. The wiki is there for people to make contributions to explain the young earth creationist position. We're looking for help filling in all the data. The name is chosen, so is the bias.

What do you intend to do about cases where major YEC organisations adopt the position of concealing or misrepresenting the data (such as the claim that some marsupials and placental mammals are identical except for their reproductive systems)? Do you want the data or the young earth creationist position?

I've always been in favour of providing information to YECs - the more correct information that they have access to, the less chance there is that they will fall prey to deceptions and misrepresentations.

Roy

*Except for a few cases where the position involves propagating factual errors, but I hope you are as against those as I am.

[tyreth]

EvoWiki is irrelevant. My point is and was that a wiki does not, by it's very nature, lend itself to the model you're seeking.

I disagree, but if you're right then time will make a fool of me.



Unless you want to claim that non-YEC's aren't creationists, it matters greatly, because the title and site projects that very message... "non-YEC's are heathen compromisers that aren't creationists."

OEC's are creationists whether you want to admit it or not.(I'm not OEC nor evolutionist, btw) You want to be a source of accurate information? How am I supposed to believe your articles when you can't get something so simple as a name correct?


While I can see what you are saying, I don't agree. There have been numerous times when a particular title technically refers to various subgroups, but one subgroup will claim the title as being their birthright. While I do explain this rather arrogantly, I just don't think the issue is important enough for us to change.



Reasonable. I'd be happy to reword them. I wasn't sure what the reaction would be if I started excising chunks of text.

It depends entirely on what you are removing, and if your points are recognised. Hard to say really - that's why I find it far more convenient to do a blanket prohibition for evolutionists. Nevertheless, if you register yourself as a user and we find that your contributions (as a non-YEC) are accurate and valuable, no doubt you will be respected. At least by myself :)



What do you intend to do about cases where major YEC organisations adopt the position of concealing or misrepresenting the data (such as the claim that some marsupials and placental mammals are identical except for their reproductive systems)? Do you want the data or the young earth creationist position?

The truth, every time. But I've often seen claims that major YEC organisations are misrepresenting data when I saw no such misrepresentation present. That's why I'd rather these kind of things reserved for the 'discussion' page.



I've always been in favour of providing information to YECs - the more correct information that they have access to, the less chance there is that they will fall prey to deceptions and misrepresentations.


Your contributions may then turn out to be helpful. This is a new website. As such it will contain inaccuracies, half-explanations, and a LOT of missing data. Time and experience will show us the best way of managing it. For now, I'd prefer using the 'discuss' page.

[Roy]

Out of curiosity could you post the changes you made here?

Don't see why not. The main ones were (italics for original text):


Another important detail for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupials and placentals that are identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in reproductive systems. [NB: this is actually false. From Britannica: "With minor differences the various systems of the body, such as the muscular and skeletal systems, are those of placentals generally. The skull and the brain, however, differ considerably from those of placentals. Differences also exist in the dentition and in the arrangement of the digits of the feet."] It is suspected that the overwhelming number of marsupials on one continent may instead be the result of the convergent evolution of numerous mammals to a marsupial mode of reproduction. [Convergent evolution results in superficial similarities which mask an underlying difference in structure, such as the simiarity of form of placental and marsupial moles, whereas marsupial reproduction systems are minor variations on the same basic structure. Thus convergent evolution cannot account for the marsupials.]

Using radiocarbon for dating is reliant upon the assumption that C-14 production in the atmosphere has been constant during the development of life on earth. ... -'''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.

* Genetic information cannot increase. This argument is invalid unless it includes details of how genetic information can be measured. Unfortunately, not only do few of the proponents of this argument provide such details[1], but for all of the standard methods of measuring information content, including Shannon's, there exist examples in nature where such increases have happened.[2] Further, one of the main originators of the information argument and one of the few who have attempted any quantitative analysis, Lee Spetner, is on record as having stated that genetic information *can* increase.[3]
[1] There's an example at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0709widgets.asp
[2] such as http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v30/n4/abs/ng852.html&dynoptions=doi1089201034 [3] http://members.tripod.com/aslodge/id89.htm and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

A YEC might object to the use of 'true age' in the 2nd one, and the schizophrenic result of retention of the original false statements; otherwise I don't think there's much there to legitimately complain about.

Roy

[jason]

Hmm ... I guess I made to much sense.

Jason

[jason]

Unless you want to claim that non-YEC's aren't creationists, it matters greatly, because the title and site projects that very message... "non-YEC's are heathen compromisers that aren't creationists."
Umm ... unless you've missed it, it does appear that a lot of YEC's do think that OEC's are not really creationists, but evolutionists in disguise.

Jason

[$cirisme]

Umm ... unless you've missed it, it does appear that a lot of YEC's do think that OEC's are not really creationists, but evolutionists in disguise.

Jason
Hence the unless.

[Roy]

Your contributions may then turn out to be helpful. This is a new website. As such it will contain inaccuracies, half-explanations, and a LOT of missing data. Time and experience will show us the best way of managing it. For now, I'd prefer using the 'discuss' page.

Well, I've been back, and have corrected the same inaccuracies (and a couple of new ones tyreth added since my first attempt), this time using the 'discuss' pages.

Will the falsehoods be replaced with correct information, or will my corrections be deleted again? Watch this space.

Roy

[yxboom]

time will tell

[tyreth]

Well, I've been back, and have corrected the same inaccuracies (and a couple of new ones tyreth added since my first attempt), this time using the 'discuss' pages.

Will the falsehoods be replaced with correct information, or will my corrections be deleted again? Watch this space.

Roy

I despise how you:
a. Assume that I (as a creationist) will ignore the truth as a default reaction
b. Assume that your answers are _always_ correct

[Roy]

I despise how you:
a. Assume that I (as a creationist) will ignore the truth as a default reaction


I have absolutely no idea how you read that into what I wrote, particularly since I explicitly included the possibility that you would correct the inaccuracies.



b. Assume that your answers are _always_ correct

I don't. I research them thoroughly, usually consulting multiple independent sources, and provide references. For example, the marsupial comments were the result of checking several web-sites, a book on zoology and Britannica.

If the original author had been even remotely as conscientious, the comment about marsupials and placentals being identical apart from reproductive systems might never have been included in the first place.

Roy

[tyreth]

I have absolutely no idea how you read that into what I wrote, particularly since I explicitly included the possibility that you would correct the inaccuracies.


I have no idea how you can't see why I interpreted it that way. You obviously hold skepticism over my willingness to correct mistakes. *If* you assumed I was a reasonable person you would not have worded it the way you did.

I should also note that I am not the sole author of material there. I write what I think I know, and am willing to admit when I'm wrong. As for your corrections of the peppered moths, I hold a deep skepticism regarding the veracity of the claims - the research I have read claims that the moths only fly at night. One researcher reported that he saw only two moths on the trees during the day in 25 years. This makes me very cautious about accepting the claims that one researcher was so easily able to obtain non-staged photos of the moths during the day (though I did not see mention that the photos were in fact taken during the day, just that they weren't staged). This requires further reading, so no immediate correction.

As for the other suggestions you made, that is up to others since it's outside my knowledge.



I don't. I research them thoroughly, usually consulting multiple independent sources, and provide references. For example, the marsupial comments were the result of checking several web-sites, a book on zoology and Britannica.

If the original author had been even remotely as conscientious, the comment about marsupials and placentals being identical apart from reproductive systems might never have been included in the first place.

Roy

I was referring to your post saying "will the falsehoods be replaced with correct information" indicating that you believe beyond doubt that your corrections are without fault. Perhaps they are - but you should at least leave open the possibility of being mistaken.

[yxboom]

you are disturbingly defensive

[tyreth]

you are disturbingly defensive

Call me "disturbingly defensive" and wonder why I'm defensive? That's a joke.

I'm too tired to debate in this thread. It was a simple advertisement for young earth creationists to contribute to the wiki. It is now a young site with little valuable content, but one day it will hopefully be an accurate resource with valuable content.

The wiki is there for people to contribute and help turn it into a complete wiki for creationists.

Rthearle, I will consider your contributions appropriately, where it is within my purview, if you do point out errors. Please do not be offended if people do not happen to agree with your understanding of the facts. I personally will try to give your suggestions the time they deserve, but it does not mean that I will agree with you. I am interested in the truth, and I am far from pleased of the prospect of having inaccuracies published on the website. I have a strong distaste for the spreading of inaccuracies.

[Roy]

One researcher reported that he saw only two moths on the trees during the day in 25 years. This makes me very cautious about accepting the claims that one researcher was so easily able to obtain non-staged photos of the moths during the day.

One small question: why choose that way round? You could equally say

One researcher was easily able to obtain non-staged photos of the moths during the day. This makes me very cautious about accepting the claims that one researcher saw only two moths on the trees during the day in 25 years.

I'd be equally cautious about both, and start looking for further evidence.

Roy

[tyreth]

One small question: why choose that way round? You could equally say

One researcher was easily able to obtain non-staged photos of the moths during the day. This makes me very cautious about accepting the claims that one researcher saw only two moths on the trees during the day in 25 years.

I'd be equally cautious about both, and start looking for further evidence.

Roy

No good reason. Probably just because I'd heard some comments on the conditions under which the moths were found on trunks during the day that made it sound suspect. Either way, I need to examine it in more detail.