Template talk:Creationism

no, schroeder. geocentrism is not a mode of creationism -- geocentrism was proposed by Ptolemy, a greek and a pagan. it had its day when the christians accepted greek philosophy as truth (similar to recent attempts to incorporate evolution) but is NOT a creationist idea, because the position of the earth in the universe has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was created or not. it is accepted by absolutely NONE of the creationist organizations referenced in the creationism articles. it has no place here except in your continued efforts to force your ignorance on others by ascribing everything stupid to creationists. by the way, why aren't you editing the creation biology page you were so concerned about protecting? do you really think we don't see through your games? Ungtss 05:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modern geocentrism is a form of creationism
First, modern geocentrism is not Ptolemaic geocentrism. They believe that there is biblical and scientific evidence to support the view that the Earth is the center of the universe. Yes, there are those who reject modern geocentrism within the creationist movement. However, these people are clearly creationist and just because you don't believe they aren't doesn't make them not.

The groups associated with modern geocentrism including Biblical Astronomy and Catholic Apologetics International both claim impeccible creationist credentials (you can read their statements of faith) and they definitely deserve to be included.

As to your comment that "the position of the earth in the universe has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was created or not," this is heartily rejected by geocentrists. They believe that the Bible has the evidence that the Earth was created at the center. This is similar to inclusion of flood geology since the existence of a Global flood has nothing to do with whether the Earth was created or not. In actuality, it has more claim to being creationist than flood geology because it is talking about a framework for understanding the context of the creation event.

You can read an interesting letter arguing that this is creationism here:

Therefore, the edit stands. Joshuaschroeder 23:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * wrongo, bongo. you never get tired of being completely and utterly wrong, do you?  your argument that it's creationism because their beliefs stem from the bible falls flat -- many ideas stem from a reading of the bible, but have absolutely nothing to do with creationism.  would you say that "The Trinity" is Creationism?  Or perhaps "The 10 Commandments" are creationism?  creationism by definition a view of HOW THE UNIVERSE, EARTH, and LIFE originated.  that has absolutely NOTHING to do with where the earth is in the universe.  the edit is BULLSHIT, schroeder.  why don't you go kick a puppy or something?  Ungtss 00:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * creationism by definition a view of HOW THE UNIVERSE...originated -- This is explicitly talked about in the Modern geocentrism article. I'm not seeing what your point is. Joshuaschroeder 00:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * you never do. you just revert and manipulate the system to support your own ignorance, and for that, you're a discredit to your profession.
 * 1) by DEFINITION, creationism is about CREATION -- the mode and mechanism by which things came to be by the act of a creator. geocentrism has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the earth come to be, but only where the earth IS.
 * Modern geocentrism is about the creation of the Earth at the center of the universe. Read the linked letter above. It is explicitly supported because it is about how the Earth came to be at the center of the universe. Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * NO, it is NOT. it is about the earth BEING at the center of the universe.  to say that a letter by a geocentrist arguing that geocentrism is the only theologically correct mode of creationism means it's creationism is like saying that a creationist arguing that creation is the only theologically correct mode of SCIENCE makes it SCIENCE.  Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That it is a "creationist belief" is not up for debate here. I don't see how you are arguing differently. It's not a belief based on UFOs, it's not a belief based on solipsism, it is a belief based on creationism, and that's why I included it in the template. Joshuaschroeder 22:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * listen, genius. EVERYTHING is up for debate.  just because you can't understand thoughts other than your own does not authorize you to bully your way to your pov on this page.  it is a belief based on the BIBLE, but NOT a belief based on creationism, because one need not be a geocentrist to be a creationist, and need not be a creationist to be a geocentrist.  since when is yours the only opinion of any consequence on this WIKIPEDIA, a COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, and how long is it going to take before you recognize that yours is only one opinion of SEVERAL, and you have to COMPROMISE with those who DISAGREE with you in this forum?  if you'd like to brainwash your own family and friends, or right your own bullshit books, that's fine.  but there's no room for it on wikipedia.  none.  wikipedia is NPOV, and that requires NEGOTIATION and COMPROMISE.  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is based on creationism as defined on the creationism page. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no it's not. creationism is the idea that God CREATED the Earth -- geocentrism is an idea about where the earth is in the universe.  where on the creationism page does it provide a definition including geocentrism?  Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern geocentrism is an effort to understand how the Earth and the universe came to be. Specifically, modern geocentrists argue that it had to come to be as a geocentric universe. It is a matter of keeping God involved in nature for them. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * once again, that is strictly incorrect. you are a creationist AND a modern geocentrist, because being a modern geocentrist does NOT necessarily mean you're a creationist -- those are two separate issues, not one.  i find it interesting that you're so concerned about making sure geocentrists are represented here.  where are the geocentrists to fight for themselves?  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is my contention that there are no modern geocentrists who would agree with you assessment of the strict separation of the two concepts. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) a geocentrist could be a young earth creationist, an old-earth creationis, a day-age creationist, or even an evolutionary creationist, because the POSITION OF THE EARTH IS IRRELEVENT TO THE MODE BY WHICH IT WAS CREATED.
 * Please find a Modern geocentrist who is not a creationist. The position of the Earth is not irrelevent to the mode by which it was created according to modern geocentrists. That's their take on creationism. Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * please find me a secular humanist who is not an evolutionist. you're conflating two disparate and unrelated concepts to suit your own ends.  Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If there was an "evolution" template I'm sure "secular humanism" would be a topic included in it. Joshuaschroeder 22:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * ha:). that's hilarious:).  you really think secular humanism is relevent to evolution?  should christianity be on there too, because many christians believe in evolution?  what about "republican party," because many republicans are evolutionists?  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The secular humanism, even admitted to (if described poorly by) Phil Johnson as being derived from evolution isn't relevent to evolution? Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevent to evolution, because you can be a theistic evolutionist or an atheist evolutionist -- there is no reference to atheism on the page, because that's a wholly different and largely unrelated idea. evolution is a scientific theory -- secular humanism is a religion.  many theists also accept evolution.  there's no link between the ideas.  Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * there are certainly creationists that reject modern geocentrism just as there are creationists that reject the argument that evolution is wrong because it's "only a theory and not a fact." (c.f. AiG). If you think that there is a problem with including alternative views of creationism by people who are avowed creationists, I'm not sure I follow your logic. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * you're simply evading my argument repeatedly, because you know there's no response. look at all the other forms of creationism -- do ANY of them make a claim as to the shape of the universe?  no!  they ALL make claims as to the AGE of the Earth and universe, and the MEANS by which God brought it into existence.  Shall we have another link called "Modern astronomy" to represent the 98% of creationists that REJECT geocentrism?  this is sheer non-sequitur, your specialty i'm afraid.  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * White hole cosmology makes a claim to the shape of the universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 3) you argued that it is creationism because the belief is based on the bible. that's non-sequitur.  things aren't creationism simply by virtue of coming out of the bible.  many things, like the story of jesus, come out of the bible.  that does NOT make them creationism.
 * It is creationism because, as creationism is described, "Creationism is generally the belief that the universe was created by a deity, or alternatively by one or more powerful and intelligent beings." This is a fundamental tenet of Modern geocentrism (not geocentrism in general, but modern geocentrism). Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * NO, geocentrism is about where the earth IS, not about its creation, and geocentrists select the different versions of creationism based on their beliefs about creation because GEOCENTRISM says NOTHING of CREATION. Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern geocentrism talks a lot about how creation had to have occurred. Joshuaschroeder 22:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no, it does not. absolutely not.  it talks about the nature of the universe, which can take place in a creationistic or atomistic framework.  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article that is linked?Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, that's written by a geocentrist trying to prove his relevence. find me a "mainstream creationist" who thinks they are relevent.  Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Proving one's relevence" is what it's all about, isn't it? Modern geocentrism is an article because there are people that believe in it. It is a POV, and it is an explicitly creationist one according to those that believe in it. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * such a vast capacity for hypocracy. modern geocentrism is CERTAINLY less "notable" than creation geology -- it's certainly more pseudoscientific -- but you put creation geology up for VfD, but will fight to the DEATH to make sure modern geocentrism is on the template.  how can you look at yourself in the mirror?  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * All rhetoric aside, if you want to put modern geocentrism up for VfD, be my guest. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 4) absolutely NONE of the creationist organizations cited and referenced on the creationist pages are geocentrist. geocentrism has its OWN movements, which push their OWN agenda.
 * The two organizations cited call themselves creationist. You can dispute their claim to creationism on the modern geocentrist page. Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * once again, just because an atheist calls himself an evolutionist doesn't mean that atheism is a mode of evolutionism. no, schroeder.  non sequitur.
 * I'm not sure I follow your argument here. Including atheism in a hypothetical "evolution" template would work if we had a section devoted to "beliefs influenced by the theory", for example. Joshuaschroeder 22:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no, it would not, because atheism existed before evolution, and will exist long after darwinism passes the way of spontaneous generation. you're just making arguments you know are bullshit to get what you want here, as usual.  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern geocentrism came into being after creationism. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that's an apples and oranges fallacy. modern geocentrism came into being before MODERN creationism, and ANCIENT geocentrism came into being before ANCIENT geocentrism.  Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you had a typo above here, but if I'm to get your drift, you think that there is a "modern" creationism which came into being after "modern" geocentrism. Modern creationism, in my estimation, began with Morris' book in the 1960s. The modern geocentrists starting writing their bits well after that. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * that's not what you said above. you said modern geocentrism came into being after creationism.  read it.  THAT is false.  the point is that on an article about evolution, "ideas influenced by evolution" are NOT appropriate.  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But modern geocentrism by Sugenis and Bouw was developed well after the 60s. Why is this false? I'm not sure what your second statement means, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 5) your SOLE PURPOSE in forcing geocentrism onto the page is to association creationism with sheer ignorance.
 * I included it because Modern geocentrism is a form of creationism. I'm not trying to guilt-by-association anything.
 * right. truth and light.  i think you lost your credibility with Ungtss vs. mainstream science, schroeder.
 * now, schroeder, YOU are not the status quo -- the status quo is what the template WAS -- you MUST justify your edit before changing it, when it is contested. you are NOT the only editor on board here, despite your delusions.  DISCUSS these things and come to consensus BEFORE you mangle and destroy pages about ideas you haven't the foggiest idea about.  Ungtss 01:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have discussed my points in some detail, which you have ignored.
 * 1) Modern geocentrists believe that true creationism necessarily relies on a geocentric support. Modern geocentrism is a form-arugment within the creationist structure.
 * no, it is not. you are conflating two disparate ideas: creationism and cosmology.  Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, then what about Creationist cosmologies? Should that page be deleted? Joshuaschroeder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * creationist cosmologies relate directly to explaining the AGE and ORIGIN of the universe, not the orientation of the earth within it. they are explicitly about the creation.  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern geocentrism talks explicitly about the origin if not the age. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * modern geocentrists can also be CREATIONISTS, but when they talk of CREATION, they use CREATIONIST arguments. Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When a Modern Geocentrists talks about the "CREATION" of the Earth, they argue that the Earth was created at the center of the universe. Is that a creationist argument then?
 * no. that's the point i'm trying to get through the skull.  it is not a creationist argument to say that the earth is at the center of the universe -- that is an EMPIRICAL statement.  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that creationism isn't empirical? I'm not sure I follow you. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) Modern geocentrists accept geocentrism in the same fashion that creationists accept creation science.
 * that's irrelevent as to placing geocentrism on a creationist page. Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that the connections between the two movements are undeniable. Joshuaschroeder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * naturally you think they're linked, because it serves your purpose to associate creationism with ideas based on raw stupidity. how many geocentrist organizations are cited or referenced on the creationist pages?  huh?  how many?  Ungtss 23:44, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What are the creationist pages? The ones in Wikipedia or the ones that are referenced by Wikipedia? Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the ones on wikipedia. Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this argument. Wikipedia is constantly up for editting. Just because modern geocentrism hasn't found its way into articles on wikipedia doesn't mean that it isn't related to some of those articles. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 3) Modern geocentrists claim to be part of the creation movement.
 * and creationists claim to be part of science. would you like creation science put up on the science page?
 * You can try it out. I think that it would fit better under pseudoscience. Joshuaschroeder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, how do you think your evolutionists would respond to such an act? do you think the evolutionists would approve of such a move, even tho, as you argued, "creationists claim to be science?"  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any "evolutionists". Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * thank god for them. Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted today after reverting to my reversion a few days ago. Please explain. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You have not responded to my query about changing your own reversion. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like you, Ungtss, to stop your offensive messages. Discuss, please, your points politely. --Neigel von Teighen 14:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'd like to. unfortunately, i've been dealing with his persistant vandalism for about a month now, i'm furious with him, and i don't have the self-restraint to pretend that i consider him to be a rational human being.  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Control yourself. You have to stop your attacks whether Mr. Schroeder (as you call him) is agreeing with you or not. He is not vandalizing; he's contributing with stuff you don't like. I don't want you to change your opinion, of course. I only want you to discuss this. --Neigel von Teighen 20:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. I apologize.  I'm going to have to withdraw from this discussion for a while.  I haven't been able to control myself since he stated that it was his intent to Make Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared look ridiculous to aid in his campaign (two VfDs in a week!) to delete it, subsequently created a page entitled Ungtss vs. Mainstream science in geology (which i subsequently had deleted), put Creation geology up for VfD for absolutely no reason, and got Creation biology protected on a version he preferred, only to disappear completely for three days.  Now I find him trying to associate creationism with modern geocentrism (one of the oldest and most groundless tactics in the book used by these people to discredit things they are afraid of) in the absence of any logical reason at all, and i'm afraid i lost my cool.  i can't communicate with him right now without letting him know exactly what i think of him, so i'm going to bow out for the moment.  Ungtss 20:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

demoting extreme minority view geocentrism.)
This is fine by me. If you want to make another category in here calling it "controversial creationism" or something like that, I'd find that reasonable as well. I just think we have to be fair. If someone says that their idea is creationist, even if both you and I disagree with them, we should include their idea under creationism, shouldn't we? Joshuaschroeder 06:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds fine with me. Ungtss 16:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the black background really necessary?
I cannot see anything that's written on the black background. Can we change it? Joshuaschroeder 19:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I really liked the old format...--Neigel von Teighen 19:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I think a horizontal layout is better. The vertical one just distracted to much in my POV. As for colors what do you suggest a grey bg?

will this suit you, I think is too blank and somebody may rise objections that we are trying to make the template less prominent. What about purple again but with grey in the middle?

--LexCorp 00:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the bottom one. I think we might consider removing the picture too. It doesn't really add anything and really isn't creationism at all (Michaelangelo wasn't trying to make a creationist propaganda piece when he made the Sistene Chapel). Joshuaschroeder 01:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This one?
 * yes, Joshuaschroeder 15:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! --Neigel von Teighen 22:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New design: Don't get the point
I can understand why the vertical format was somewhat inconvenient, and why the graphic doesn't work as well in a horizontal format (it's based on having a fixed width and lining up with what's below, but horizontally you can't have a fixed height to the text so nothing lines up), but I do have to say that the new box is exceeding less attractive and much less useful in it's location on the page. Is the partial page layout inconvenience of a vertical box (used on many, many other pages to great effect) really enough of a problem to necessitate changing to this big hulking bland box? DreamGuy 14:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * the vertical template was way to big and distracting. Most of the vertical templates are very thin and plains as to minimise the distraction. Beside the vertical design works better for chronological event lists. As for the template being to plain I agree and I think I have found a solution for the pic in the following,

so I am updating.--LexCorp 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

let's talk format.
why are we horizontal and at the bottom of the page? i think we should be vertical and at the top because:
 * The current template style is the most common for those articles not about history or geography. Compare to the evolution template, for example. Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) it fills up the white space next to the table of contents
 * While this is true, it was also a pretty big distraction and is problematic for the shorter articles. Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're telling me that a template allowing easy navigation between a number of pages on topic is a distraction, schroeder? Ungtss 13:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's easy navigability wasn't the distraction, but its position in the article was distracting because it is such a large template. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * so despite its usefulness, attractiveness, and easy navigability, it was distracting to schroeder because it was too big. you obviously prefer big empty white spaces with no text in them to easy, navigable templates.  i see.  Ungtss 19:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) it's much more easily accessible, allowing people to scan the various articles.
 * I like the accessibility of upstairs templates too, but I think other considerations outweigh it. Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Which considerations? Ungtss 13:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The ones discussed above. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * none were discussed above except for your tasteless assertion that it was "distracting." "from what?" one might ask.  "from the nonsense, of course!"  Ungtss 19:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) it allows for the picture which has been removed
 * I'm not sure I understand the point of the picture since Michaelangelo wasn't trying to make a propaganda piece and I don't think there's any evidence that he agreed with the majority of creationists views. Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * nonsense. it's a picture of the creation of man by God.  propaganda has nothing to do with it.  propaganda is your speciality, not ours.  Ungtss 13:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Invectives aside, there might be better pictures that illustrate creationism. In particular, since much of creationism deals with literal accounts and Michaelangelo enjoyed taking artistic license, it may actually be considered a problematic rendering of the myth. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * i see that when you call creationism propaganda it's okay, but when i return the favor, it's an invective. as to the rest, write this down, folks: the world famous painting, Creation of Adam is not true enough to the text to satisfy schroeder's taste for biblical literalism.
 * I like the Michaelangelo. Pictures usually make things look more professional and appealing, and as artistic interpretations of creationism go it's one of the most dramatic, memorable, and well known.  However I agree that horizontal and at the bottom of the page is the better choice here. -- ciphergoth 13:35, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * I still haven't heard any reasons why, tho. why is it better?  Ungtss 13:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the rest of the talkpage. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing there, schroeder. Ungtss 19:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts, gentlemen? Ungtss 02:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I think it should be horizontal and at the top of the page, like it was. Claims that the "majority" of other examples are horizontal is false in my experience, as I've only seen a couple others elsewhere horizontal while the vast majority of them are vertical. DreamGuy 15:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * From the context, i think you meant "should be vertical." i agree with you, dreamguy.  how would you suggest going about this?  Ungtss 17:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many pages start with images, which is why most nav bars are on the bottom. Nav bars don't contain images because you can not represent all the topics on a nav bar with a single image. Bensaccount 16:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two strange topics
I might by that the principle of relativity is a creationist topic, though I'd like someone to give a good argument as to why. However, I fail to see how heliocentrism is creationist at all. Please respond. Joshuaschroeder 08:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You have determined that geocentrism is a creationist topic, because it is about "a creationist belief about how God created the universe." helicentrism and principle of relativity fit the same criteria -- in fact, they are the majority opinion by a vast margin on the issue of how God created the universe.  most creationists believe God created the Earth to revolve around the sun, and that, because of the principle of relativity, it is both possible and meaningless to say that the Earth is at the center of the universe.  therefore, if geocentrism is a form of creationism, then heliocentrism and relativity are the corresponding majority creationist opinions.  Ungtss 12:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, modern geocentrism (not geocentrism) is the topic and it is included because they contend to be part of the creationist endeavor. I understand that heliocentrism and relativity are the "majority" creationist opinions, but the pages that they link to wouldn't be correctly categorized under creationism (whereas, per the Talk:Modern geocentrism page, modern geocentrism is). Thanks for explaining yourself, Ungtss. I will now revert. Joshuaschroeder 15:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If the majority cosmological opinion of creationists is not relevent for purposes of the template, then the fringe minority views are not either. i will now revert.  Ungtss 15:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The majority views are relevent inasmuch as they represent a unique creationist endeavor. Modern geocentrism is a unique creationist endeavor. Relativity is not.
 * That is an empirical claim that hasn't been backed with a cite, but only with internet research. anyone who has been outside the western world knows that's plainly false.  no go.  Ungtss 22:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"current cosmology accepted by virtually all creationists is based on relativity" is the most absurd argument for inclusion on this template I've seen. One might as well argue that math, biology, apologetics, the English language, etc. should all be added because Creationism is based in some part on all of them. Only those topics that are pertinent should be listed here. DreamGuy 15:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ungtss is just upset because modern geocentrism and flat earth are included in the template. They are included because the proponents of these ideas believe that they are strictly inline with creationist thought. Since we really can only go by people's word as to whether they are creationist or not, a fair template includes their ideas. While this argument is obvious to most people who look into the subject, Ungtss thinks this is actually a plot by the evil mainstreamers to sully the good-name of creationists by tacking on outlandish ideas to them. As typical of Ungtss' editorial style, when he doesn't like what consensus has shown to be true, he tries to get his POV inserted in the backdoor. Joshuaschroeder 15:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. the majority view of creationist cosmology fits the criteria you outlined above -- "They are included because the proponents of these ideas believe that they are strictly inline with creationist thought."  you're merely serving your pov of having only nonsense on the template, without allowing anything that actually makes sense.  Ungtss 22:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The proponents of relativity do not believe that they are strictly inline with creationist thought. Neither do those who accept the Copernican Revolution. Creationist may believe that they are inline with relativity or heliocentrism, but as Dreamguy points out, they might also be inline with a whole assortment of other topics that are not pertinent to creationism in and of itself. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * I am a proponent of relativity, and i believe that i am strictly in line with creationist thought. i find it theologically untenable to imagine that a place created by a divine being would be at the center of anything.  i take passages like "the earth is god's footstool" as an indication of our insignificance in the cosmic order of things.  it is my creationist view.  it is also the creationist view of AiG, which promotes it strongly, and finds it "sad" that some creationists reject it.  by your criteria, it's a "type of creationism."  no go.  Ungtss 23:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ungtss, you are a proponent of relativity. But so are many who are not creationists. That is the point--the subject is neutral with respect to creationism. Contrast that to modern geocentrism where every modern geocentrist cited in the article is a creationist. I know you have this chip on your shoulder about "knowing" that there are modern geocentrists out there who are not creationists, but I haven't seen you show that this is the case at all. Joshuaschroeder 01:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The "chip" on my shoulder originates with your assertion that your personal research is somehow superior to mine. you are making an extraordinary empirical claim -- that there are no geocentrists who are not creationists -- without backing it up with a scholar who believes as you do.  you're arguing "well i've found some books published by creationist geocentrists, but none found by non-creationist geocentrists."  it's personal research, and it's based on the false criterion that geocentrists must publish in order to exist.  and further, you are using that personal research argument to justify your inclusion of geocentrism and your exclusion of the majority opinion.  there's no reason in your argument.  period.  Ungtss 12:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, my claim is much weaker than the one you think I'm making. I'm merely stating the claim that all the modern geocentrists referred to in the article about modern geocentrism are creationists. I also notice that you are pretty sloppy with your use of 'geocentrist' vs. 'modern geocentrist'. The article doesn't simply refer to modern geocentrists as people who believe in a geocentric universe today. It is refering to a particular movement that seeks to establish scientific and religious (in particular, Christian) argumentation for a belief in geocentrism. The groups exist, they are well-documented, and they are creationists. They may be in the minority of creationists, but that doesn't make them unworthy of inclusion.
 * As for your claim that there should be a representation of the "majority" opinion in the creationist template, I can only wonder at this. There are creationists who believe in the Big Bang. Should we include that? There are self-described creationists who believe in human evolution. Should we include that? There are creationists who believe in UFOs. Should we include that? Of course not. The template is designed to include things that are strictly related to the topic of creationism. As much as you are angry about modern geocentrists claiming that they are talking about creationism, to be NPOV in the matter, we should include them because they do not deviate from their claim that their arguments are grounded in creationist conceits. This is in contrast to the principle of relativity which makes no mention of creationism whatsoever. Joshuaschroeder 18:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * this demonstrates the absurdity of your argument that geocentrism should be on the template. geocentrism falls in the same category as the above beliefs.  there are creationists who believe God created the universe in the big bang, just as there are those who believe he created the earth in the middle of the universe.  but neither of those topics are relevent to the template.  modern geocentrism is not a type of creationism.  it is a type of cosmology.  but in any event, there's no reason for me to repeat reality to you.  you've chosen to ignore it, and ignore it you will.  carry on.  Ungtss 18:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You continue to bury your head in the sand. All modern geocentrists who we quoted chose their belief in modern geocentrism based on a creationist conceit. Most who buy the Big Bang do it for reasons other than creationism. Joshuaschroeder 18:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * none of the modern geocentrists who we quoted chose their beliefs based on the "creation conceit" (whatever you're defining that as for the moment) -- there's not a reference to genesis in the bunch, nor anything in the bible saying "and God created the Earth in the center of the universe." geocentrists based their beliefs on metaphorical passages in joshua and other nonsense that has nothing to do with creation.  creationism is about creation.  geocentrism is about where the earth is.  just because somebody says "God made things this way" doesn't make their idea creationist.  remarkable how many non-sequiturs such an ostensibly educated individual such as yourself is capable of:(.  Ungtss 18:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ungtss, I understand that you reject Modern Geocentrism and think it's incompatible with creationism. We aren't debating that. However, Buow and Sungenis and others all write about how modern geocentrism is the true creationist ideal. You may claim that creationists should only refer to Genesis and they may disagree. You may claim that their beliefs have "nothing" to do with creation and they may disagree. You may claim that their ideas as not creationist and they may disagree. I'll let the two of you fight it out. In the meantime, we have an encyclopedia to write. Joshuaschroeder 19:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your criteria that "the proponents must think it is relevent to creationism" is absolutely faulty. many racists think racism is the true creationist ideal.  many vegetarians think vegetarianism is the true creationist ideal (as there was no eating of meat before the flood).  the fact that proponents of a topic say they are relevent to creationism is not an acceptable criteria.  for purposes of this encyclopedia you're bent on hindering, we need to come up with a RATIONAL definition of creationism -- beliefs about the manner in which the earth was created fit the bill.  beliefs about the shape or location of the earth do not.  you're wrong, schroeder.  Ungtss 19:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A large number of racists are not creationists. A large number of vegetarians are not creationists. If you want to talk about some sort of ceremonial Seventh Day Adventist vegetarianism that is independent of vegetarianism and whose membership includes only creationists, then that would be the equivalent to Modern Geocentrism. Your idealization of RATIONAL has been shown, quite frankly, to be a bit off on these pages. You're going to have to try to get along with others if you want to play in this playground. Joshuaschroeder 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * and a large number of geocentrists are not creationists. your personal research claim that there are no non-creationist geocentrists in the world today is nonsense, and it's a wonder you don't laugh at yourself for claiming it.  as to your playground crack, take note: i get along with normal, civil, psychologically healthy people on the playground.  it's only bullies i have to fight.  Ungtss 22:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"your personal research claim that there are no non-creationist geocentrists in the world today is nonsense" --> never been claimed by me. Perhaps you're thinking of the strawman you invented. Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Cute. anyone with any interest in reality can read this page and see how bald-faced your latest lie is.  carry on.  Ungtss 19:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this template still needed?
This template appears to be (i) underutilised (only used on a handful of articles) & out of date (many of the articles listed have been renamed or merged). Is it still needed, or does Creationism2 suffice? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In case the history of the template is still useful, I have redirected to Creationism2 instead of deleting it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)