Creation Wiki

[Murray]

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

good articles on creation science and evolution to an extent I suppose

[Canuckster1127]

FYI, from the site 'About" section.

The Creation Point of View (CPOV) is a worldview that is derived from the belief that the cosmos and life on Earth were created by God (creationism). The purpose of the CreationWiki is to provide an encyclopedic archive of information relevant to the study of creation apologetics. Creation science, as preeminent in this field of apologetics, will constitute the primary focus of the site.

NPOV - We are explicitly attempting to move away from the Neutral Point of View policy adopted by Wikipedia, because of the unique purpose of CreationWiki.
CPOV - Articles should be written from the creation point of view (CPOV), which holds that the universe and life on Earth are the result of an act of creation by God.
The young earth Biblical creationism position will remain the principal perspective on the CreationWiki, but non Biblical creation perspectives are welcome. Furthermore, almost any topic or content can find a home on this site provided that it be written from the uniquely creationist point of view.

[Ivellious]

Yeah...I think it's ok to say that this site shows the other side of the coin, per say, but to call it "unbiased" is probably not accurate.

[RickD]

Yeah...I think it's ok to say that this site shows the other side of the coin, per say, but to call it "unbiased" is probably not accurate.

I'm with you on this one, Ivellious. When I clicked on their link, the first thing I noticed was ICR, the young earth site. Then Bart posted their "about" section, and it also says they're YEC. Hardly a "great alternative to bias, false, and misleading information about creation science and evolution." ICR is known as a good source of false, and misleading information about creation science and evolution.

[Canuckster1127]

It does say something when a site calls itself "Creation-Wiki" and says they provide the creationist viewpoint and then state they are Young Earth Creationist but other "non-biblical" positions can be expressed.

The irony is that then they reference to ICR which is run by Young Earth Creationists but most of the science involved comes from Old Earth Creationists.

[RickD]

As I was searching through ICR's site, I came upon an article by John D. Morris, where he says:

As inexcusable as it is to ignore Scripture, what can we say of distorting it to make it say something it clearly does not? For instance, Dr. Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer who has gained a wide hearing among evangelicals, claims that Big Bang and old-Earth ideas come from a "plain and literal" interpretation of Scripture. I challenge anyone to find any "plain" teaching in Scripture which supports these ideas. Nor can unequivical support for these ideas be found in science. Much straightforward scientific evidence supports special creation, a young Earth, and global Flood. Why haven't evangelical theologians soundly denounced such views, which necessarily undermine cardinal doctrines such as the nature of God, the wages of sin, and the atonement of Christ?

Gee, where have we heard that before? We old earthers just love to undermine cardinal doctrines such as the nature of God, the wages of sin, and the atonement of Christ. I'm just so thankful that we have the likes of John D. Morris, to keep us OEC heretics in line.
Here's the article if anyone is interested:http://www.icr.org/article/how-does-old ... iew-scrip/

[Canuckster1127]

Apparently most YECs believe OEC just showed up in the 16th century as a result of scientific changes in view.

The fact is, OEC has been around as long as YEC and in many segments of Church History it's even been the more accepted view.

[Canuckster1127]

This is their lead-in comment to Old Earth Creationism.

Old earth creationism is the belief in religious creationism that stays with the current scientific community's assessment of the Earth's age. The view is accepted by a large number of Christians. Some have made alternate interpretations of the scripture in keeping with the evolutionary time line. Most old earth creationists hold that the flood detailed in Genesis 6-8 was a local or regional flood.

This is just plain deceptive or ignorant and ignores that OEC predates the "current scientific community's assessment" and is first and foremost textually based and derived.

Have to say, I'm not impressed by the overall site and their methodology. It would be a more clear and accurate title if they called themselves Young Earth Creation-Wiki, but as is often the case, apparently only YEC is a Creationist position in their eyes.

[Murray]

Eh, I still enjoy it, read to much on wikipedia anyway, 2nd on my internet list.

But yea, your right, it is very biased when you get into it, I did say that incorrectly (but I still like it)

Wouldn't really classify it as fully YEC though... semi-rebuttal to YEC, and article on OEC there.

I actually found it by googling rich deem and he has his own little bio on there.

[RickD]

Here's another "gem" from ICR:http://www.icr.org/article/belief-young ... christian/

Death before sin implies that death is natural, not the penalty for sin. But if so, what good did the death of Jesus Christ accomplish?

Can someone please tell Mr. Morris that Romans 5 tells us that the penalty for sin, is human death. To make the case that animal death is a result of sin, one must add to scripture. Oh, and Mr. Morris, Romans 5 also tells us what the death of Christ accomplished.
Romans 5:12-17 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

 15 But [j]the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression [k]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions [l]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

[Murray]

Dear oh Dear.

[RickD]

Continuing from the same article in my last post:

Nor does one have to believe in the young earth to be a Christian leader. Many Christian leaders believe and do a lot of things they shouldn't. But belief in the old earth, with the implied concepts of death before sin, the world before Adam not really "very good," an inconsequential fall and curse, a local flood, etc., destroys the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some Christians do believe in both Christianity and the old earth, but this is inconsistent with their professed belief in the Bible.

According to ICR, We as OECs can still be Christians, and even Christian leaders, but we're inconsistent with our belief in the bible. And again, OEC beliefs destroy the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. At least we should be thankful to Mr. Morris, for allowing us to still be Christians.

[Canuckster1127]

It probably would be unkind to note how many people YEC representations of the BIble and Science drive away from Christ, so I won't.

[RickD]

Dear oh Dear.

Live and learn, Murray. It's really unfortunate that the most prominent YEC organizations, like ICR and AIG, stoop to these kinds of misrepresentations of other Christians. Let's not lump all YECs in with the very big bad apples. Unfortunately, naturalistic evolutionists are misrepresented just as badly, or worse than OECs. What kind of witness for Christ are they, when they resort to misrepresenting those that they are claiming a witness to, in the name of Christ?

[Murray]

Keep digging for gems rick.


I read articles on "creation Science" "Wikipedia" "evolution v creationism" "rich deem" and "jesus". Guess maybe I should read more eh?