A fact from Creation Evidence Museum appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 6,800 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 18:27, August 14, 2008, User:We66er merged Creation Evidence Museum to Carl Baugh with the comment: (not separable from Baughn and much of this is redundant).
I would like to revert that merge, at least temporarily. I had only been writing this article for a few hours when it was merged, and would like the opportunity to see if it really can stand on its own. We66er, you may turn out right in the end, and in that case I won't object to a merge, but I would like the opportunity to see. Give the article a reasonable chance, a week or so, OK? Thanks, GRuban ( talk) 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A naive young person, reading this article, would find in it no material questioning 'creationism' as a valid field of scientific activity. But 'creationists' are not looking for evidence capable of disproving their theories, they are only looking for evidence supporting them. Real scientific investigation is different. A real scientist looks at evidence that seems to contradict his previous view of the world and attempts to form a theory that expands previous theory so as to accomodate the new evidence. Or, (very rarely) as an alternative, the old theory is completely replaced. After that, for the real scientist, comes the difficult and elaborate effort to verify or disprove the new theory, which, of couse, leads to new theories, etc.
After Isaac Newton rvelutionized scientific thought, several centuries were spent in working out detailed explanations of the world around us. As time went on, it became evident that, in some areas, Newton's explanations came up short. In the twentieth century relativity and quantom mechanics filled in the holes in Newton's theories, but did not disprove them in general. Engineers, to this day, use Newton's 'Laws' to design such things as bridges and aircraft, even though other ideas are necessary in the design of modern computers, radios, television, etc.
For creationists (in contrast) no evidence would ever be sufficient to modify their convictions about the age of the universe, or the history of organic life. For a scientist, something in apparent contradiction to accepted theory usually becomes the basis for new research, with a view of expanding or modifying the theory. By contrast, creationists view contradictory evidence as fraudulent.
We have an obligation, in Wikipedia. of ensuring that conflicting ideas be represented at every level. That has not been done here.
Too Old ( talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Looks like Baugh did, in fact go to Israel for archaelogical expeditions several times. Here is someone who really doesn't like Baugh, and other "self proclaimed archaeologists" being really upset about it. [7] [8] Just a blog, but as long as you're worried about whether the paper was deceived, it looks like they weren't. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not advocating for or against evolution or creationism -- personally, I believe the theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity and the theory of large numbers, but my beliefs have no place in an encyclopedia. My issues are with with MOS problems in the article, especially some Words to Watch falling under Expressions of Doubt along with several rhetorical fallacies.
I'll leave this posted for a week or so for comment before making any changes. If you object to the suggestions above, please either explain why the existing wording really does fit within the MOS or recommend an alternative. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
His work is discussed in this Cambridge University Press book:Tracking Dinosaurs: A New Look at an Ancient World [11]. Another university press book pointing to his website. [12] National Center for Science Education [13]. Another Oxford book. [14]. There are of course more, but I can't see a good reason not to use Kuban. Dougweller ( talk) 14:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Creation Evidence Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=24{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/local/local_story_224120721.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I made a chance removing the statement that the director doesn't have a degree from an accredited university. That is misleading and prejudicial because several Christian universities are refused accreditation. That statement should be removed LordFluffington454 ( talk) 23:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
A fact from Creation Evidence Museum appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 6,800 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 18:27, August 14, 2008, User:We66er merged Creation Evidence Museum to Carl Baugh with the comment: (not separable from Baughn and much of this is redundant).
I would like to revert that merge, at least temporarily. I had only been writing this article for a few hours when it was merged, and would like the opportunity to see if it really can stand on its own. We66er, you may turn out right in the end, and in that case I won't object to a merge, but I would like the opportunity to see. Give the article a reasonable chance, a week or so, OK? Thanks, GRuban ( talk) 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A naive young person, reading this article, would find in it no material questioning 'creationism' as a valid field of scientific activity. But 'creationists' are not looking for evidence capable of disproving their theories, they are only looking for evidence supporting them. Real scientific investigation is different. A real scientist looks at evidence that seems to contradict his previous view of the world and attempts to form a theory that expands previous theory so as to accomodate the new evidence. Or, (very rarely) as an alternative, the old theory is completely replaced. After that, for the real scientist, comes the difficult and elaborate effort to verify or disprove the new theory, which, of couse, leads to new theories, etc.
After Isaac Newton rvelutionized scientific thought, several centuries were spent in working out detailed explanations of the world around us. As time went on, it became evident that, in some areas, Newton's explanations came up short. In the twentieth century relativity and quantom mechanics filled in the holes in Newton's theories, but did not disprove them in general. Engineers, to this day, use Newton's 'Laws' to design such things as bridges and aircraft, even though other ideas are necessary in the design of modern computers, radios, television, etc.
For creationists (in contrast) no evidence would ever be sufficient to modify their convictions about the age of the universe, or the history of organic life. For a scientist, something in apparent contradiction to accepted theory usually becomes the basis for new research, with a view of expanding or modifying the theory. By contrast, creationists view contradictory evidence as fraudulent.
We have an obligation, in Wikipedia. of ensuring that conflicting ideas be represented at every level. That has not been done here.
Too Old ( talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Looks like Baugh did, in fact go to Israel for archaelogical expeditions several times. Here is someone who really doesn't like Baugh, and other "self proclaimed archaeologists" being really upset about it. [7] [8] Just a blog, but as long as you're worried about whether the paper was deceived, it looks like they weren't. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not advocating for or against evolution or creationism -- personally, I believe the theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity and the theory of large numbers, but my beliefs have no place in an encyclopedia. My issues are with with MOS problems in the article, especially some Words to Watch falling under Expressions of Doubt along with several rhetorical fallacies.
I'll leave this posted for a week or so for comment before making any changes. If you object to the suggestions above, please either explain why the existing wording really does fit within the MOS or recommend an alternative. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
His work is discussed in this Cambridge University Press book:Tracking Dinosaurs: A New Look at an Ancient World [11]. Another university press book pointing to his website. [12] National Center for Science Education [13]. Another Oxford book. [14]. There are of course more, but I can't see a good reason not to use Kuban. Dougweller ( talk) 14:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Creation Evidence Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=24{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/local/local_story_224120721.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I made a chance removing the statement that the director doesn't have a degree from an accredited university. That is misleading and prejudicial because several Christian universities are refused accreditation. That statement should be removed LordFluffington454 ( talk) 23:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)