User talk:Refreshments

Scientific Evidence for Creationism

 * User:Refreshments/Draft: Scientific Evidence for Creationism

Comments on your draft
A few comments on User:Refreshments/Draft: Scientific Evidence for Creationism:
 * 1) Many theistic evolutionists believe that "a Creator created the universe and everything in it" but believe that evolution was one of the methods he used to do so, and are thus also explicitly 'anti-creationism'.
 * Thats true. But "pure Creationism" (the oldest belief in Judaism/Christianity) believes in the literal interpretation of the Creation of the Universe exactly how the Bible records it. On the most basic level, this means a Creator created everything, but on the next - Creation took place exactly how it is recorded in the Bible. I might need to include a mention of theistic evolution. Refreshments (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not true--Biblical literalism is actually relatively recent. Many in the early Church argued against an overly-literal reading, and also against attempting to use the Bible as a guide to the physical world.  The claim that "Creationism is the oldest belief" is a distortion.  --BRPierce (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I dare say you will disagree with me on many (all?) of these points. However, all these points rest on solid evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you wish to create an article that states the contrary, Wikipedia would require exceptionally reliable sources to support these exceptional claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 'Missing links' (more correctly known as transitional fossils) have been found in abundance. See List of transitional fossils, Evolution of the horse, Evolution of cetaceans, and Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles for a few of the more prominent examples.
 * If we are talking millions of years, and minor alterations taking place gradually over this time span, there should be a clear transitional record of these alterations. They are too many gaps in the transitional record to base such a theory on. Refreshments (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lunar exploration and evolutionary biology are unrelated fields. A few creationists have attempted to use claims about lunar conditions to make arguments about the age of the Earth (not evolution). From memory, these claims had an erroneous basis and were quickly demolished.
 * I'm talking about Scientific Evidence for Creationsim. Although this mainly refers to the theory of evolution, it will expand out in to other sciences such as geology, oceonography and astrology. Refreshments (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I would question whether there are "many discoveries are being brought to light which the theory of evolution did not predict and have yet to explain", but as you don't list any specific examples, I cannot say any more on the topic.
 * This is my first paragraph and I haven't even added my sources yet. Have patience for them please. Refreshments (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) That macroevolution (evolution above species level) occurs is a confirmed fact (see speciation). The theory of evolution is not the assertion that this happens, it is the explanation of how it happens.
 * Macro evolution is not confirmed fact, has never been observed and is not testable. Thats what the fact is concerning macroevolution. If you want to debate this I would be willing to do so over another discussion user page. Why not create your own for that purpose? Refreshments (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the criticism BTW. It helps me improve. Refreshments (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your comments on Hrafn's and Dave's talk pages and had a look at your draft. I just wanted to remind you that evidence against other theories is not the same as evidence for creationism. It's not like there are only two possible explanations for the universe, so criticisms of one do not amount to evidence for another. And by the way, it's incorrect to say that "Macro evolution is not confirmed fact". It was demonstrated in the lab over 100 years ago. See triticale. Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Refreshments, your assertion about "the oldest belief" conflicts with reliable historical accounts: one useful source comes from the Evangelical Alliance –. A worthwhile read. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Creation/Evolution debate

 * User:Refreshments/Debate:Scientific Evidence for Creationism:

Hi there!
Great to see your work on the creationism. I most certainly believe in young earth creationism, and am glad to see someone else who does. Keep up the good work, and God Bless. By the way, I would be happy to assist on any article about creationism or anything. The Arbiter  ★★★  23:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Arbiter (talk • contribs)

Young-Earth Creationism
Say, it's refreshing to see someone else on Wikipedia who appears to believe in young-earth creationism. I'll be glad to do what I can to help with your draft (unless you'd be opposed to that.) Have a nice day! Invmog (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Refreshments is around. His last edit was April 1 of this year. The Arbiter  ★★★  02:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)