Please try to sign your post even if you don't have an account.
(Type ~~~~ at the end of your post.) v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion , a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion -related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Note on the Gallup poll that gives % of "scientists" that believe in forms of creationism
I brought this up ages ago but it seems that in that time the change we agreed on was reverted. If you bother reading the sentence below the table that gives the number of "scientists" that hold those opinions you would see that "scientist" is defined as "someone with a professional degree in science". This is an important distinction because some would define a scientist as someone with a pHd in science, or someone whose employeed to actively research some aspect of science. To avoid confusion and allegations of intentionally misleading readers the poll's definition of scientist should be emphasised. Eccentricned (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that the description of the poll in the article does not agree with the description of the poll in the reference . The correct description for the group is not "US adults with professional degrees in science" but rather should be "scientists" in order to accurately describe the poll. Regardless, as noted above, this opinion poll is not really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article describing this subject and should simply be removed from he article. Mkwelborn (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —
Non neutral point of view
"The lack of support given by these professional journals and organizations reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that YEC claims have no scientific validity"
This may very well be true but it is a non-neutral statement in direct rebuttal of the YEC opinion in the prior sentence. I suggest this as a replacement: "Opponents of YEC explain the lack of support given by these professional journals and organizations reflects the overwhelming..."
You know, while YEC may not be accepted by the majority of scientific community, I believe this article is patently biased--through and through. In order to make this article (and the others like it) more neutral, then why don't you research the credentials of prominent YEC scientists and founders? There is no reason to give YEC the "short shrift" when this is an informative encyclopedic article about YEC, and NOT it's opposition.198.209.32.200 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Capital "C" or lowercase "c"
I'm just wondering if creation should have a capital "C" in it or a lowercase "c". There seems to be no reason to regard it as a proper noun. I see some logic, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendation, in using a capital letter for the Creator, as this is a proper name. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk ) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there have been no responses, shall I conclude that the event of "creation" should indeed have a lowercase "c" since it is not a proper noun, whereas "Creator" should have an upper case "C"? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk ) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Why hasn't this article been condensed and merged with Creation Science?
While I'm sure that serious students of the topic enjoy the differences between YEC and Creation Science, I don't think that the two topics are, on their face, distinct enough to warrant separate articles. This entry is far too long and the authors have spent far too much time relating useless detail after useless detail (as well as the obligatory criticism of those details). Call a spade a spade: while YEC might mean the world to some editors, it's really just another footnote of creation science which, in turn, is just a footnote of theology. Let's strive for clarity, Wikipedians, and stop clogging the tubes with this overwrought prose. 98.219.34.116 (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this previous entry belongs to me. I see that I'm still unable to edit this article, but as soon as I'm able to do so I will suggest that it be condensed and merged with the creation science article. If the stewards of this verbose article care to address that same verbosity then I would be happy to hear their arguments. EDITED TO INCLUDE SIGNATURE Highmind89 (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Christian Skeptic's claims are fallacious:
- Methodological naturalism is not a "religious belief" (and in fact even metaphysical naturalism could be argued not to be a religious belief, merely a contra-religious one)
- Creation science is not "science done within the paradigm of YEC" -- as (i) it does not attempt to do anything beyond trying to find 'evidence' to support its own original premise of YEC ('YEC therefore YEC' -- hardly profound) -- so is valueless for anything other than YEC Christian apologetics and (ii) it's 'research' is largely mere quote mining of legitimate scientific research.
Whether separate articles are needed for YEC and pseudoscientific apologetics for YEC (i.e. 'Creation Science') is another matter. My impression is that there is insufficient overlap to warrant merging and more than sufficient RS information to support the two separate articles . Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Public opinion on YEC
After looking through the article, I was surprised to see that public opinion on YEC was only mentioned twice and a somewhat passing-- out of place way. Would it be a good idea to create its own section for it? The Squicks (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
A Big Change
With Hrafn retired, please see MsTopeka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Article Introduction
I believe that Muslims also believe in the creation of the earth by God, and that there are some of them who hold to the Young Earth creationist view. Would it not be prudent to include them in the trio of the three religious groups that show at least some support for this view?
Image copyright problem with Image:Zuiyo Maru.jpg
The image Image:Zuiyo Maru.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Where is the evidence?
There isnt any evidence for creationism here. I think a new article should be created called "Scientific evidence for Creationism". Refreshed...Refreshments (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The approach to teaching "creation science" and "evolution-science" found in Act 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.
The two model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science "evidence" in support of Section 4(a). dave souza, talk 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably interpreted by evolutionists and atheists/naturalists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creati
Miracle Dance Theatre, Cincinnati Ohio - Classes in ballet, tap, jazz ...
Miracle Dance Theatre is centrally located in Greater Cincinnati. Offering performance and non-performance classes for dancers from ... pom, acro, ballroom and belly dance ...
Anaya Gypsy Dance :: Tribal Belly Dance
Tribal Belly Dance school located in Cincinnati Ohio. ... It all started back in 1997 when Katy took her first belly dance class at Habeeba's.
Sahara Dance | Hip Talk Belly Dance Blog
Years ago I was taking ballet at a local studio and the class before mine was a belly dance class. ... part of a youth summer employment program that helped to promote Cincinnati ...
Anaya Gypsy Dance :: Tribal Belly Dance
Dance company in Cincinnati, Ohio. Includes class and performance information, testimonials, shopping and photo gallery.
Habeeba's Dance of the Arts
Classes at THE PLACE, 6005 Vine St, Cincy OH 45216 ... Click here for more info on belly dancing at Habeeba's. ... mail to: Habeeba's at The Place, 6005 Vine Street, Cincinnati ...
Belly dance classes in Ohio
Find belly dance classes in Ohio with a directory of belly dance classes and start bellydancing ... Cincinnati Circleville Clarington: Clarksburg Clarksville Clay Center Clayton Cleveland
Belly Dance Classes and Workshops « Zahara's Tangled Web
Belly Dance Classes and Workshops by Zahara of Cincinnati
Tribal Belly Dance class offers an exotic world of coordination ...
Editor's note: This is the second installment of a three-part serieshighlighting dance classes offered around town. ,Dance
Belly Dance Cincinnati, OH Classes, Lessons and Instructors
Read student reviews, Find the best Belly Dance Classes, Lessons and Instructors in Cincinnati, OH. Master the moves and learn how to belly dance!
Belly Dance « Zahara's Tangled Web
Belly Dance Classes and Workshops by Zahara of Cincinnati. Oct-Dec 2009 Class Schedule NEW offerings from Zahara! The Kula Center in Newport, Ky www.kulacenterky.com