Talk:Creation Ministries International

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Slatersteven in topic Unsubstantiated claim by wiki

"Fundamentalist" edit

The pejorative label "fundamentalist" should be removed from the infobox. According to MOS:LABEL, such a value-laden label is best avoided, unless it's "widely used by reliable sources". This does not seem to be the case. –St.nerol (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

True, lets have some sources for the lable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
The label should be "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". The subject is the organisation CMI. The source added is about creationism in general, but does not relate to CMI at all. (Perhaps it can be used to support the label at Young Earth creationism. However, that page seems to take a slightly more nuanced view.) -St.nerol (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Most scientists" edit

The percentage of scientists who reject YEC (many, most, or whatever) does not matter. 100% of all competent scientists reject it, and therefore we write that it is pseudoscience.

Every scientist who does not reject it is either a very, very specialized specialist who knows nothing about the science outside his specialty, or a moron, or a liar, or an ideologically blinkered religious fundamentalist loon who lets his beliefs win over his knowledge. The opinion of none of those people matters.

The wording "most scientists reject" is incompatible with Wikipedia's rules. We do not use it in articles about beliefs as crazy as this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Unsubstantiated claim by wiki edit

This wiki page about this group indicates its pseudoscience without explaining how they arrive at that conclusion; on the groups website there are many credentialed scientists involved with the group; Remember evolution is a theory which can not be proven since it takes billions of years to do so. 2601:547:C97E:3E70:54FE:965:AED7:48C4 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Science is based on theories. Gravity is a theory. As for billions of years, how old do you think the world is? In any case, evolution can and does at times take place, see Experimental evolution. Don't waste your time arguing, this is a mainstream science based encyclopedia and that won't change. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The link you sent me to indicates adaptation is evolution, its quite plausible species adapt within themselves but not necessarily evolve into a new species; honest and openminded observation does not lead one to draw an immediate conclusion that life is the result of micro positive mutations occurring from an ever moving reverse infinitum; mainstream science has silenced any idea that challenges its dogma; professor lose tenure and are shunned or fired; we live in a regressive time where gatekeepers prevent ideas from entering the arenas of science and academia mainly due to money. Wikipedia is an open source forum that should be careful about caving to societal mainstream pressure to shun those with whom you disagree. 2601:547:C97E:3E70:548F:BD10:BD61:EBAB (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia bases content on published reliable sources, and not on the ignorant ramblings of random contributors. And Wikipedia is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
And who are you? You sound arrogant and have not responded to my “ramblings”. you prove my points. 2601:547:C97E:3E70:DDE7:9BE7:E230:ACD3 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Who am I? A contributor who understands how Wikipedia works - which as a matter of core policy, established over many years, with the overwhelming support of the editing community, is to reflect scientific consensus on scientific matters. As for your ramblings, I'm under no obligation to respond, and since this is not a forum, as you have already been told, it would be a misuse of this talk page to do so. I can assure you however that were it appropriate to respond, any response wouldn't involve 'arrogance' - just a little knowledge of relevant facts, due in part at least to having studied human evolution at university. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well its is sourced, so not a lot we can do. Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

We may need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply