Changes

::(As an aside: While I'm not an expert, it appears to me as if a partial shift to a more precise term has already happened: I saw the term "Creation Scientist" more often lately, but that (obviously) only applies to, you know, scientists and not the average John Doe. It also doesn't solve the potential confusion about "a creation".)

::(As an aside: While I'm not an expert, it appears to me as if a partial shift to a more precise term has already happened: I saw the term "Creation Scientist" more often lately, but that (obviously) only applies to, you know, scientists and not the average John Doe. It also doesn't solve the potential confusion about "a creation".)

::Fact is that the opposition has to call them ''something''. "Creationism" and "Creationist" seem to be the most widely recognized terms, officially used (for example) by the Northwest Creation Network.

::Fact is that the opposition has to call them ''something''. "Creationism" and "Creationist" seem to be the most widely recognized terms, officially used (for example) by the Northwest Creation Network.

::Speaking from personal experience, nobody in these parts of the world thinks that a "Creationist" believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief some other] story. However, if you want to be precise, then those articles could be edited to specify "Young Earth Creationist" (or "Old Earth Creationist") where applicable. It would be more precise, but on this site, it would strike me as somewhat redundant. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:47, 26 December 2007 (EST)

::Speaking from personal experience, nobody in these parts of the world thinks that a "Creationist" believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief some other] story. However, if you want to be precise, then those articles could be edited to specify "Young Earth Creationist" (or "Old Earth Creationist") where applicable. It would be more precise, but on this site, it would strike me as somewhat redundant. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:47, 26 December 2007 (EST)

I can fully appreciate your concern over the pejorative connotation that the term has acquired since it is looked on with disdain by many in the intelligentsia. I guess I prefer to continue to use the term in its denotative sense, and on the occasions when it is used in a pejorative connotation, show that that usage is unreasonable and uncharitable.  [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 08:01, 27 December 2007 (EST)

I can fully appreciate your concern over the pejorative connotation that the term has acquired since it is looked on with disdain by many in the intelligentsia. I guess I prefer to continue to use the term in its denotative sense, and on the occasions when it is used in a pejorative connotation, show that that usage is unreasonable and uncharitable.  [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 08:01, 27 December 2007 (EST)

* 1. The fossil record is entirely contrary to the theory of evolution, as shown by the development of Punctuated Equilibrium. The famous paper by Gould and Eldredge on Punctuated Equilibrium acknowledges that, "Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the rarity of transitional series remains as our persistent bugbear. From the reputable claims of a Cuvier or Agassiz to the jibes of modern cranks and fundamentalists, it has stood as the bulwark of anti-evolution arguments: 'For evolution to be true there had to be thousands, millions of transitional forms making an unbroken chain' (Anon., 1967-From a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet)."<ref>http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp</ref> Evolutionary theory, in short, is unable to explain the complete lack of transitional forms. Rather than showing constant, gradual transitions between species, instead it shows only microevolution but not macro, with very minimal evolution within species where they do not change controversially at the Genus level, and then suddenly, poof - whole new complexity in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibrium sought to explain away the evidence of the fossil record by suggesting evolution went too rapidly during short periods (punctuated) and very slowly the rest of the time (equilibrium).<ref>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml</ref>  

* 1. The fossil record is entirely contrary to the theory of evolution, as shown by the development of Punctuated Equilibrium. The famous paper by Gould and Eldredge on Punctuated Equilibrium acknowledges that, "Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the rarity of transitional series remains as our persistent bugbear. From the reputable claims of a Cuvier or Agassiz to the jibes of modern cranks and fundamentalists, it has stood as the bulwark of anti-evolution arguments: 'For evolution to be true there had to be thousands, millions of transitional forms making an unbroken chain' (Anon., 1967-From a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet)."<ref>http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp</ref> Evolutionary theory, in short, is unable to explain the complete lack of transitional forms. Rather than showing constant, gradual transitions between species, instead it shows only microevolution but not macro, with very minimal evolution within species where they do not change controversially at the Genus level, and then suddenly, poof - whole new complexity in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibrium sought to explain away the evidence of the fossil record by suggesting evolution went too rapidly during short periods (punctuated) and very slowly the rest of the time (equilibrium).<ref>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml</ref>  

* 2. Numerous fossils discovered in recent years are contrary to conventional evolutionary theory, showing unusual complexity or that previously supposed descendants coexisted and thus could not be evolved from one another. E.g., Ardi, Sahelanthropus, and Orrorin Tungenensis show signs of bipedality and complexity, even though they are dated radiometrically as millions of years older than the alleged human-ape split around 3-4 million years ago. Erectus and Habilis coexisted. Ramidus and Afarensis (Lucy) coexisted. I wrote the page, "Recent Controversy in Hominid Ancestry" providing numerous sources regarding these finds.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Recent_controversy_in_hominid_ancestry</ref> As a result of them, the human evolutionary tree is now being called a "messy bush".<ref>http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/07/the-human-family-shrub.html<br>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26ance.html?pagewanted=all<br>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html<br>http://discovermagazine.com/2011/may/25-homo-sapiens-meet-new-astounding-family/article_view?b_start:int=3&-C=<br>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-03-22/news/0103220207_1_early-species-direct-human-ancestor-human-ancestry<br>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/09fossil.html</ref> According to Encyclopaedia Britannica's current dating of Australopiths, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44115/Australopithecus</ref>

* 2. Numerous fossils discovered in recent years are contrary to conventional evolutionary theory, showing unusual complexity or that previously supposed descendants coexisted and thus could not be evolved from one another. E.g., Ardi, Sahelanthropus, and Orrorin Tungenensis show signs of bipedality and complexity, even though they are dated radiometrically as millions of years older than the alleged human-ape split around 3-4 million years ago. Erectus and Habilis coexisted. Ramidus and Afarensis (Lucy) coexisted. I wrote the page, "Recent Controversy in Hominid Ancestry" providing numerous sources regarding these finds.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Recent_controversy_in_hominid_ancestry</ref> As a result of them, the human evolutionary tree is now being called a "messy bush".<ref>http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/07/the-human-family-shrub.html<br>https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26ance.html?pagewanted=all<br>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html<br>http://discovermagazine.com/2011/may/25-homo-sapiens-meet-new-astounding-family/article_view?b_start:int=3&-C=<br>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-03-22/news/0103220207_1_early-species-direct-human-ancestor-human-ancestry<br>https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/09fossil.html</ref> According to Encyclopaedia Britannica's current dating of Australopiths, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well.<ref>https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44115/Australopithecus</ref>

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 20:17, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 20:17, 20 July 2012 (EDT)