Changes

::: If you are going to have the category of Creationists, then it should be reserved for individuals who have expressed more than a belief in a creator (and thus a creation) but that they are advocates of creation and write about it or have spoken about it.  Otherwise, every single biography here would likely have such a category which would make it nearly identical to the union of "Creationist" and "Atheist", and that isn't that helpful at all. It would make more sense to add the category of Creationist to [[Zach Johnson]], [[St. Augustine]] and [[Martin Luther]] who has said more about creation than James Maxwell has. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: If you are going to have the category of Creationists, then it should be reserved for individuals who have expressed more than a belief in a creator (and thus a creation) but that they are advocates of creation and write about it or have spoken about it.  Otherwise, every single biography here would likely have such a category which would make it nearly identical to the union of "Creationist" and "Atheist", and that isn't that helpful at all. It would make more sense to add the category of Creationist to [[Zach Johnson]], [[St. Augustine]] and [[Martin Luther]] who has said more about creation than James Maxwell has. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sounds like you've got a handle on this. Would you like to take charge of [[:Category:Creationists]] then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sounds like you've got a handle on this. Would you like to take charge of <nowiki>[[:Category:Creationists]]</nowiki> then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Nope.  I don't know the where abouts to find out the philosophical leanings of various Christian writers (or Jewish writers? or Islamic writers (they've got essentially the same creation story)?).  It is much easier to find the negation - "this person wrote nothing about creation" than trying to dig through everything published about [[Zach Johnson]] to see if he did say anything about creation.  This is much better left up to the experts on the various fields who is writing about the person. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Nope.  I don't know the where abouts to find out the philosophical leanings of various Christian writers (or Jewish writers? or Islamic writers (they've got essentially the same creation story)?).  It is much easier to find the negation - "this person wrote nothing about creation" than trying to dig through everything published about [[Zach Johnson]] to see if he did say anything about creation.  This is much better left up to the experts on the various fields who is writing about the person. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you can't be an anti-evolutionist or a creationist before the two distinctions existed, especially not on incidental evidence.  That's like saying that George Washington would've been a Republican, because he loves America & favors a strong army.  The correlation is tenuous, and it's just guesswork anyways.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''_{[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]} 23:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you can't be an anti-evolutionist or a creationist before the two distinctions existed, especially not on incidental evidence.  That's like saying that George Washington would've been a Republican, because he loves America & favors a strong army.  The correlation is tenuous, and it's just guesswork anyways.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''_{[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]} 23:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, Andy <i>never said anything</i> about the <nowki>{{category:creationist}}</nowiki> tag.  He spoke about the quote, which is still there.  Ed Poor added the creationist tag originally and then tried to remove it, but you keep reverting it based on a misunderstanding of what Andy was talking about. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, Andy <i>never said anything</i> about the <nowiki>{{category:creationist}}</nowiki> tag.  He spoke about the quote, which is still there.  Ed Poor added the creationist tag originally and then tried to remove it, but you keep reverting it based on a misunderstanding of what Andy was talking about. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I think whenever any Sysop decides upon his own, or in consultation with users, to reverse any action by another Sysop, there isn't any misunderstanding, other than a total lack of respect.  I think whenever any small group of users decides, on their own, to move categories or disambiguation pages, it shows an elitist and disrespectful attitude, as well.  Such actions are no different, logically, than the high-handed attitude some of you complain about, in talking of the actions of a "certain Sysop", in my humble opinion.  You gentlemen cannot have your cake, and eat it to, you know.  Either the little clique of technocrats school the rest of us, or stop your unilateral actions without discussing it fully, and in public. Yes, this means whatever is considered "housekeeping" chores as well.  Otherwise we are indeed acting elitist and self-centered, no?  --~ [[User:TK|TK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 23:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I think whenever any Sysop decides upon his own, or in consultation with users, to reverse any action by another Sysop, there isn't any misunderstanding, other than a total lack of respect.  I think whenever any small group of users decides, on their own, to move categories or disambiguation pages, it shows an elitist and disrespectful attitude, as well.  Such actions are no different, logically, than the high-handed attitude some of you complain about, in talking of the actions of a "certain Sysop", in my humble opinion.  You gentlemen cannot have your cake, and eat it to, you know.  Either the little clique of technocrats school the rest of us, or stop your unilateral actions without discussing it fully, and in public. Yes, this means whatever is considered "housekeeping" chores as well.  Otherwise we are indeed acting elitist and self-centered, no?  --~ [[User:TK|TK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 23:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Ahhh, I see.....nothing useful on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Ahhh, I see.....nothing useful on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you have any indication that he did not believe in biological evolution?  He only mentions molecules in the quote.  Do you have any work that shows he believed in Creation as specified in the Bible?  If not, then almost every single biography should be labeled as a Creationist at which point it becomes meaningless.  I would be happy to add 150+ Category:Creationist tags to every single one of the biographies that is not a person who is an atheist.  The level of evidence for adding such a tag should be more than just saying "creation" or "a theory of evolution cannot be applied to <nowiki>{something not biological}</nowiki>".  Lacking this, it is devoid of any educational value. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you have any indication that he did not believe in biological evolution?  He only mentions molecules in the quote.  Do you have any work that shows he believed in Creation as specified in the Bible?  If not, then almost every single biography should be labeled as a Creationist at which point it becomes meaningless.  I would be happy to add 150+ <nowiki>Category:Creationist</nowiki> tags to every single one of the biographies that is not a person who is an atheist.  The level of evidence for adding such a tag should be more than just saying "creation" or "a theory of evolution cannot be applied to <nowiki>{something not biological}</nowiki>".  Lacking this, it is devoid of any educational value. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Odd, according to whom?  Oh, yes, YOU!  Andy and I disagree.  But I can understand your insistence that you and Jtl are the ones seeing it "correctly", and perhaps you think Andy and I are merely "confused"?  Thinking clouded out of some Bible-thumping zeal? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 16:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Odd, according to whom?  Oh, yes, YOU!  Andy and I disagree.  But I can understand your insistence that you and Jtl are the ones seeing it "correctly", and perhaps you think Andy and I are merely "confused"?  Thinking clouded out of some Bible-thumping zeal? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 16:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)