Talk:Creationism

You people ruined this fucking article. It used to kick ass. Creationism is bullshit. This article should be about how it is logical conjecture based on evidence.

=

Lies! -User:68.146.58.237 00:35 CDT 3 Aug 2005

Where is your sense of humor? BTW why is this comment posted before your comment? Time machine? Please check out Evolution and New Intelligent Design -Orion Blastar 20:59 CDT 2 Aug 2005

Plain truth. Simple logic. Obvious fact. That is all Uncyclopedia deals in. If you don't like what you read, 68.146.58.237, close your eyes. ;) ~~OEJ

The answersingenesis web site is truly hilarious. And terrifying. --KP 23:35, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia does not deal in facts or logic, but in farse. Stop claiming what is false! Answersingenesis is terrifying to you, because you are afraid of it. The Great Cremationist Monster is at work again! Help! 4.159.5.179 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This sucks.

I like this version best: [1]. As someone else said, this is not wikipedia. This also Not Funny(TM). It reminds me a lot of a shaggy dog story, except less funny.

I reverted to a decent version. Being a long time fan of this uncyclopedia article, I couldn't believe my own eyes when I revisited it and saw how it was. I looked to the address bar at least 2 times because I couldn't believe this was uncyclopedia instead of wikipedia! 87.196.33.61 14:11, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm refraining from reverting it because a) I don't want to be an asshole and b) I'd probably get banned or some such nonsense.

Yep, it sucks

This articile would work much better if it were turned into a parody pro-creationist page.

Now it is like that, but unfortunately you can't beat the creationists at their own game. The only difference between a parody of them and the real thing is that they're not joking, and that makes them doubly funny. How can you compete against that? Playing a different game, I guess..

Actually, one thing that supports the fact this article suits Uncyclopedia is the fact that, apart from the laws of thermodynamics, this article is completely devoid of any factual information, and the fact the writer thinks their so clever, and know everything about evolution, when the fact is, they clearly dont have a clue about anything. So you can laugh at his lack of knowledge and general idiocy.

Feature?

I was wondering... Is this featured article material? --207.161.61.92 13:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Total change

I've totally fucked up this article. I've pasted some text over from the wikipedia entry, and removed parts critical of the theory and added some absurd advocacy. I think it would work better if it were simply an article that firstly describes accurately what creationism is (that is, actually explaining what it REALLY is... not just writing stuff like 'creationism is a theory that the world was made by she ra and he manLOLOLOLOLOLROFL!!!!111!!'), alongside absurd pieces of advocacy such as the monkey stuff I just wrote. I personally think it's better this way. Who else is with me? Aaarrrggh 13:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not me. PTHBTHBTHB. 4.158.60.217 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Remember, kids, this article is a joke. 4.158.60.217 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And remember: reasoned discussion with a creationist may actually cause intelligence! (gasp) what a horrible word! Beezwax 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientist - "Look at the mountain of evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, pointing to an old universe and evolution..."

Creationist - (presents Bible) "Boom!"

Scientist - "See here...geology, astronomy, astrophysics, archeology, biology..."

Creationist - "Hello! Genesis one and two."

Scientist - "But that's just one book. One based on oral history. One based on mideast fables and superstitions..."

Creationist - "No. It's God's inerrant Word. Writ by His own hand. Anyone who doesn't believe this is obviously corrupted by facts."

A strawman, granted. A conversation, not so much.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it homourous those people think God has a printing press. Also, I added the Oscar Wilde quotes, but I think I might have gone too far. -Doug 3:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

creation wiki says we are the part of Evil Atheist Conspiracy

Just check their article on Uncyclopedia

Rewriting the article

oh well, its not a complete rewrite, but I might be changing quite a lot of content here. I already re-wrote the introduction to look more formal (Which I hope effectively made a mockery of both Wikipedia and Creationism). More to come.Chadley Krakka 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Funny

The only thing funny that I found in this article was that "no to knowledge" picture. I think this needs a serious re-writing. Falconfly 09:03, 22 August 2008

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 08:04, Aug 22

Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs died out 3000 years ago, not around 1000 like this article states.

Don't you think that you're being a little picky when both numbers are approximately 65 million years off target anyway?--DougalthePanda 09:43, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Sunday - Wednesday: Concept and development

During the four days from Sunday, 7 February 2010, to Wednesday, 10 February 2010, ideas for the current colonization, which is

CREATIONISM

can be hashed out here. The discussion below should be geared towards what sort of concept the article will have. All colonizers are welcome to participate in the discussion.

On early Thursday, 11 February 2010, a general outline from these ideas will be compiled and posted on the main Colonization page. Other things that could happen during this planning phase include deciding which participants will be working on which sections, although that is optional.

Post your opinions and ideas for CREATIONISM below.

Resources to guide discussions

Through the history of colonization, some things have been found to work well. You might want to check User:SysRq/Example_Colonization and see Talk:God#Imperial_Colonization_Project and the sections that follow it for ideas on how to begin. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 18:54, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Some good stuff in the history

I've checked through much (not all) of the history of Creationism. It started as a line or two, and to me got pretty silly. At one point someone apparently took Wikipedia's article in an apparent attempt to make a spork (or to muck with the article), but that was reverted. Personally, I think there's some good stuff in version 156912 of 14:03, August 26, 2005, and version 1390086 of 22:39, December 26, 2006, stuff that we could use in our colonization. What think? WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 05:32, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Just my thought, I like 1390086 more. That would probably be better. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 01:45, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like most of that version says Creationism is science and Evolution is religion, although that version drifts and wanders in places. I think presenting Creationism as hard science vs. the religious fundamentalism of Evolution is a possible concept, and would let us use much of what's there. What think, colonizers? WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 02:26, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to turn this into a good article. Also, with this version, we at least have some images to work with. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 02:28, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

And if we find images we like in earlier versions or anywhere else on this site (or possibly off), we can use them if we fit them to the article. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 03:23, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could use parts of the August version in quotes like somebody said that. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 02:10, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I mean quotes in the article not at the top unless they're really good like what we did with God. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 02:15, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

If we do this as an encyclopedic article, which seems to be what people are leaning towards, I think non-encyclopedic parts could work as internal quotes. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 03:22, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I rather like using the Evolution as Religion and Creationism as Science concept. sausage lol 13:29, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Images

I just looked through the original page of Creationism and personally, I thought that most of the images and pictures on the page were good. If anything, the text does need to be fixed more than the images do. GDBD Keyraqueboane

By "original page," do you mean the current version? WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 02:15, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the first two with dinosaurs are good and also the "Say NO to knowledge" comic and the "POOF!" one. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:21, 8 February 2010

Yeah, I meant the current version. All of the images are relevant and most are funny, except maybe the poorly-hand-drawn one ("Duh - Where's the truth?"). Thats the only one I really think could be done without. GDBD Keyraqueboane"10:50, Feb 9, 2010"

Concept

What's the concept or angle going to be of the article? I guess that needs nailing down. I'm always amused by the fact that anything mentioned in the Bible that doesn't match science is mostly blamed on the Great Flood. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:32, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

The concept of the article is the major thing we want to hash out between now and Wednesday. Feel free to post your ideas. And if you have some ideas about tying in the Great Flood to creationism, cool. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 01:32, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Eh

Not sure why my previous comments were deleted. I'm looking at you Why. Random ideas: '"Creationism" is the science that posits that the world was created by a supernatural man whose marriage had just broken down.' or something about how Creationism being a science for blaming everything on floods. mAttlobster. (hello) 08:24, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

He probably did it by mistake. Still though, that doesn't explain why you removed all the other comments. Anyway, I restored the section in question. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:16, 8 February 2010

Thanks for catching my mistake--the removal was completely unintentional. I suspect what happened was I had two versions of the page opened at the same time and worked on the earlier version instead of the later version. Sorry about that, and thanks to the two of you for catching it and fixing it. Perhaps Matt made a mistake similar to mine. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 19:07, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I did incompetently remove some comments which makes me a hypocrite as well, so I'm worse. Apologies. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:48, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

God

We colonized the God article so that Moses and Muhammad and Jesus all have to do with gambling. Its good for articles to work together so can we connect these colonized articles? DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 02:43, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

The idea of having common elements in articles is a prime part of Uncyclopedia, so maybe there could be a tie-in--certainly the two articles are on similar topics. Maybe relate to the universe being created as the result of a bet. However, I think we'd probably want to avoid having too many gambling references to avoid repeating the nice work IC did in God. What think, colonizers? WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:02, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Creationism as a bet, possibly along the lines of "I bet you can't create something which ends up producing <inset name of vacuous celebrity here>, sounds like a good concept & ties in. Could also discuss the relevant tweaks each betting party made to the overall creation to win/lose the bet. Gives plenty of scope for original material whilst also having tie-in to God. Good Old Ted - LOB - What ho! 11:19, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Math

Working on a similar concept, but a different aspect of it. I'd love to have this working along a similar line, where the theory keeps changing along the ay until at the end it finally becomes self-contradictory. (Yes, I'm back and active in IC). Pup 05:24, 9/02/2010

I think that's a definite possibility, and a tie-in between the two articles seems like a workable idea to me. We'd have to be careful, though, not to let Creationism become a pale shadow of a very fine article. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 03:59, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

An alternate view of history

I've also been looking through the history here. I agree that rev 1390086 is probably the best of the bunch. I also have noted that the previous versions all run along the same lines.

1. Creationism is a theory of how the world was made
2. It is strongly advocated by Christians
3. Christians/creationists are dumb
4. You mom! ROFLCOPTER!

Where they all seem to fall apart for the most part is in point 3, there is no reason or logic behind it. And point 4 is... well, what we're trying to avoid. Pup 20:32, 9/02/2010

Well said, there's no point in covering old ground. The term 'Creationism' is usually used to denote people who believe that every part of the bible is literally true. Could we play with this and instead say that Creationists believe that every piece of literature ever written about God and Jesus and Christianity in general is literally true? For example, because of the Pink song, they believe that 'God is a DJ'. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:17, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think we could consider bringing other elements in, as long as we keep that limited--one article can't cover every piece of literature, of course. For example, the concept that was long held by the church of spontaneous generation, where life came from non-life, could possibly be used--that came from the writings of Aristotle (I still find it ironic that the Christian Church insisted people follow the teachings of someone who wasn't a Christian or a Jew). We could probably use abiogenesis, sometimes called biogenesis, as well. Creationists often mistake evolution, which deals with the changes in already existing species, with abiogenesis, which deals with life coming from non-life. (And if a colonizer doesn't know what those terms are, look them up--they may well be things we'll want to touch on. You might also want to check Aristotelian view of a god). Also there's a couple videos we might be able to use--one about the banana being the atheist's nightmare, and the other using a jar of peanut butter to disprove evolution. If someone has the links, please post them--if not, I'll look for them. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:22, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Somone really clever posted them here Pup 05:29, 10/02/2010

As the banana is the enemy of evolutionists, could it be a prophit in the bible? The New Testament could be written to tell the story of the banana. I need to lied down. mAttlobster. (hello) 09:20, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else we agree on, I believe that Why?'s comment following this should be an integral part of what we are doing here. Pup 10:31, 10/02/2010

I agree with Puppy. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:08, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Another Idea for a Concept

Just another idea to maybe consider: The title ‘Creationism’ is most usually aimed at describing people who believe every word of the Bible to be inerrant. The most well known group who refer to themselves as Creationists are right-wing Americans. What I find interesting about this is that instead of them conforming their morality and lifestyle to the literal words of the Bible, they interpret the words of the Bible to their right-wing morality and lifestyle. So the concept of the article could be the inerrancy to the views and actions of right-wing, hard-line Republicans rather than the Bible itself. For example ‘He who casts the first stone should be without sin.’ could be seen as ‘You do not have the mandate to launch unprovoked military action unless you are a citizen of the United States of America’. mAttlobster. (hello) 15:15, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot; The most famous version of Creationism is almost pushed almost entirely by right-wing Americans. Opens a massive seam of potential - and ties in with all sorts of other articles herein. I think I prefer this to the whole gambling thing. Good Old Ted - LOB - What ho!

Yup, let's do this one. And maybe a couple of that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation stuff Why suggested earlier, just to show how little creationists understand of basic biology. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:52, 10 February 2010

Maybe we could show the parts of the Bible they don't follow? Like polygamy. But that might not fit. Maybe about Adam and Eve being brother and sister like that was God's plan for creation. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 20:06, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pious Christians Against Shellfish? Anyone? Pup 21:18, 10/02/2010

Deuteronomy is packed full of stuff we Christians ignore - I'm fairly sure there's something about not wearing certain types of cloth at the same time, among others - I'll get some quotes together! Good Old Ted - LOB - What ho!

GUIDELINE FOR CREATING CREATIONISM

We have a direction created by imperial consensus rather than by empirical vote. We should work to follow this guideline. However, it's not carved in stone from Mt. Sinai. The critical factor is that we work together. Suggestions on this are welcome, but let's begin writing.

The article should sound pseudo-encyclopedic and pseudo-scientific. From the point of view of this article, creationism is based on science and the will of God, as opposed to evolution which is non-scientific deception (possibly based on the will of the deceiver Satan/the anti-Christ). Through the logic of creationism we can see that God's will is in line with conservative Christian fundamentalism. Creationism ultimately points toward Godly people having world-wide spiritual and political control. The Bible is the infallible word of God, and Godly men are able to intrepret how it applies to the modern world.

The article can move from a scientific-sounding beginning, touch on the creation story/stories in Genesis (the seven days of creation and the story of Adam and Eve), abiogenesis and possibly spontaneous generation. By the end of the article we've scientifically shown that Creationists should rule the world.

We will use many of the images found in the current version, and will use the "good stuff" from version 1390086. It would also be good if we had something, perhaps a small element, that would connect this article to God and to Intelligent Mathematics, and possibly to Pious Christians Against Shellfish.

There's a collection of possible images at Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/Gallery/Creationism.

Go forth and colonize!  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  04:04, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

It's a beginning

So, maybe not the best start, but a start nonetheless. (By the way you edit conflicted me three times! *pphptptphppthhh!*)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  11 Feb 2010 ~ 04:52 (UTC)

Anything posted may be edited, of course, but thanks for getting it started quickly! (Also I made this a new section as per the super secret hidden note above you'll see only when you edit.) WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 05:57, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this at the moment. Thinking if we rely on escalation of stoopid science the start should be straightish creationist science, and slowly degenerate into stoopid pseudo science. How do people feel about the watchmaker approach? Pup 09:24, 11/02/2010

I don't think we should make statements about Creationists being stupid, or being crap at maths. The entry should be of a reporting non-judgemental tone where the lack of logic of the position is demonstrated not told. mAttlobster. (hello) 14:37, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... I wasn't actually talking about saying they're stoopid, but rather demonstrating. So in essence, we agree. Pup 20:37, 11/02/2010

I know im abit late with the idea, but we could borrow a few ideas from science of the discworld 3, a god of evolution? or maybe a section on society if darwin had written a pro ID book? If not its worth a read anyway for anyone editing who doesnt know much about evolution.--DougalthePanda 15:18, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read it, but I've read the stuff he wrote in relation to the God of evolution in... one of the discworld books. Either way, I'd avoid it. It's like reading the Brian of Nazareth article. Funny, but it's been done, and that makes it a poor reflection. Pup 20:37, 11/02/2010

What Matt Lobster said. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:04, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Puppy, I'd love to have a reference to the watchmaker. I'm assuming you mean look at a watch, it's complex so was obviously created by a watchmaker, therefore a tree was obviously created by a tree maker. Which works just fine until you ask who made the tree maker? However, I would like to avoid how the logic devolved in Intelligent Mathematics primarily because that's already been well done in that article. The general consensus seems to be this supports moving into Creationists justifying their social and political policies, i.e. they should be in charge of the world. I think it would be nice if that were done as an ending twist, possibly with the video made by EMC (see discussion in God). WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:09, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The vids good I guess but I really dont feel its funny. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 17:23, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize we had a concept...

Sorry everyone I didn't read the rules apparently and just started adding my own flavor to the article. I'm going to move down the Monkey Business section, so we can keep the concept going and maybe keep monkey business towards the end of the article..(?) Sir Claudius CUN VFH (carpe diem) 16:56, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I do agree that the edits are not quite what we had in mind for this particular project, although something like that might work for another. I'll go over the the article. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:10, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

My edits to the article were pretty radical. I don't want colonizers to get the impression that I plan to keep changing everything, because I don't--if I wanted to do that I would simply work on an article by myself instead of doing a colonization. However, in this case I felt it was necessary to get the article started on the track of our consensus. In general, my hope is that other colonizers will do the vast majority of the work here and I'll just tweak a bit here and there, and fill in where needed. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 21:05, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Existing pictures

Several of the existing pictures in the article are good. Keep them? -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 22:41, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yes?  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  13 Feb 2010 ~ 02:12 (UTC)

There's been general agreement to use many if not most of the existing pictures--see previous discussions on this page for details. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 03:21, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yes! (Updated the page this links to.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  13 Feb 2010 ~ 03:57 (UTC)

The Yes link above is to possible images--thanks to Happytimes with a little help from Sockpuppet of an unregistered user. I just added that link to the GUIDELINE FOR CREATING CREATIONISM message above. Thanks, colonizers! WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:02, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shucks!  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  13 Feb 2010 ~ 04:10 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 21:50, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Biblical vs. biblical

A very minor point, but I'm mentioning it because it has involved some reverts. The term "biblical" is technically correct in lower case, but many Christian publications render it capitalized as "Biblical." I'm fine with either one. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 03:23, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with either one too. Capitalized adjectives when appropriate will probably fit in nicely with the overall theme of the article, I guess. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:31, 13 February 2010

I PREFER THE CAPS AS IT GIVES A FEELING OF GRAVITAS WHICH WORKS WELL WITH THE IRONY OF THE CONCEPT. Pup 05:00, 13/02/2010

The concept of ^{A HIGHER POWER?}  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  13 Feb 2010 ~ 05:03 (UTC)

I'm _down with that. Pup 05:27, 13/02/2010

THAT IS SO TOTALLY _wicked !!!  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  13 Feb 2010 ~ 06:09 (UTC)

All right. It's Biblical. So be it. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 18:43, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be capitalized, considering it means something pertaining to the Bible, which is a proper noun? It doesn't matter how much significance you place into the subject matter itself, it's like capitalizing the beginning of Shakespearean. sausage lol 16:51, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're going to make me actually look it up? All right. By both Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary and Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, it's "biblical," uncapitalized. For this article, though, to show the Creationism bias, it's "Biblical," capitalized. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 22:15, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Before and Age of

Major additions. Are we still on track? Pup 08:06, 13/02/2010

Yes. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 18:42, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes?

Yes or No to lead-in quotes? Against. as it just means that we have to delete them later. Pup 01:53, 16/02/2010

Preferably not. Unless someone comes up with a very good one. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:04, 16 February 2010

Lead in quotes make me cry. I like the encyclopaedic tone being spooned here - I think quotes make it dusty. mAttlobster. (hello) 23:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever the consensus is on this. Sometimes I think lead-in quotes work really well. But most of the time not. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 01:03, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

DEADLINE: Coming Soon

I really appreciate the work that's been done so far on Creationism. My hope from the beginning was that I could help get it moving and then step back and watch it happen, only stepping in when necessary. Thanks for making that possible.

But here's a reminder that the preliminary deadline for working on this article is Saturday, 20 February. If, however, Her Majesty's Representative or a general consensus of colonizers feel it needs more work before being submitted for Pee Review, then the deadline will be extended to Saturday, 27 February. If we don't feel it's ready for Pee Review by then, which I don't forsee happening, it will be moved from colonization to someone's user space. But based on what I've seen so far, I think we'll have a solid article.

As we approach the end of the week, I would like to see more revisions to get it into ship shape. I plan to more actively edit the article come Thursday or Friday, but of course editing is always open to all colonizers. In the meantime, go forth and colonize! WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 02:06, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen in other discussions, people here generally have no problem with internal quotes, or quotes in the middle of an article, just with quotes introducing an article, simply because that's been done to death. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 02:38, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Deadline of February 27

• Nom and For. People here have some great ideas and we don't have an ending yet. I feel we should give it the extra week before we send it to Pee Review. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 16:59, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Has been extended--see note below. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 01:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Aw! You're killing me!!

I thought I was so clever and cutting edge hi-larry-ous when I tied-in the concept and I groked the link at the end of, "Evolution ... is an ideological and pseudo-scientific fallacy based upon Spontaneous Life." I laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed and had to run to get some milk from the store just to have it shoot out my nose! ... and now it's dead, (along with my God names <ref>^[1] link).... Puppy how could you?!?

Anyway, having said that^[2] let me be serious for a moment and say that I really don't think that Evolution = Reason. (However I LoVE the argument here, that Reason = Defending Superstition.)

It seems to me that if we're dealing with Creationism = science & Evolution = false-science, then Reason should be the false-belief held by Evolutionists to "prove" their "logical belief system" and, ah... um, fuck....

• Maybe we should just make up a list of concept definitions or something???  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  17 Feb 2010 ~ 02:32 (UTC)

(Ack! edit conflict... )

Sorry, but I was trying to use "science" to prove creationism, which will then lead to "the Bible" which will then lead to Biblical justifications. Evolution is "an ideology" based upon "Reason". Part of this is the age of reason being the death knoll for the blind faith expected by the church. I do like "Evolution ... is an ideological and pseudo-scientific fallacy based upon Spontaneous Life." but think it may work in better further into the meat of the article. I've gone through justification for creationism, the age of the Earth, the 6 days followed by one day rest, and a supreme being creating the Earth. I think this is where we should start tying in the Bible, with "All this is of course documented..." so therefore science proves the accuracy of the Bible, therefore the Bible is the ultimate truth, therefore whatever the Bible says is true, therefore eting lobster is bad. Make sense? Pup 03:24, 17/02/2010

I was just writing that I REALLY likes Miley's Evolution = non-scientific Reason, and it fixes it for me.

Cool! DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 16:51, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

God; Earth; Bible; Documentation: Yeah, I saw where you were going with that. I'm kinda drawing a blank for ideas... "This I know because the Bible tells me so"? How about notes from God's private journal...? I got nothin' sorry.

(Also I quite agree with you on having the Spontaneous Life further down, I jumped over here to steal what I wrote before in editing the Creationism vs. Evolution section. Lets see what I come up with.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  18 Feb 2010 ~ 01:54 (UTC)

Creationism / Creationists / Sinners / Evolution / reason / superstition / science / God / watchmaker / Satan / something / nothing / geological evidence / Great Flood / racial memories / logical belief / logic / Cambrian Explosion / God's political outlook / Conservatives / holy / etc.

Okay - time to add in any more biblically based justifications. Anyone know what the justifications for the KKK are from the Bible? Pup 20:50, 17/02/2010

If I remember my post-high school history, the original Ku Klux Klan was formed after the end of the American Civil War/War Between the States largely because the North didn't want to follow the wishes of the recently assassinated President Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to quickly bring the country together. (The new president Andrew Johnson wanted to follow Lincoln's plan, and was impeached partially as a result). So the south essentially received little help with reconstruction and was blamed for everything. (The same mistake was made decades later with the Treaty of Versaille, which made Germany financially and morally responsible for World War I. We know what that led to). The original KKK was fighting, whether rightly or wrongly, for the rights of the South, which of course meant the whites who had been in power. But I don't think the focus became truly anti-non white until later.

I just checked the Wikipedia article--it's sadly in need of some neutrality, so isn't much help. But now that I've made that long speech, I really don't know if this article needs a KKK section, unless it can be tied into the planned conclusion of this article, which is that Creationists should rule the world. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 05:06, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

It was more an example of Biblical justification. Vague memory of a verse that states that God's chosen people are able to blush - black people can't bluch therefore they are not God's chosen people. I'm not thinking KKK specifically - already over-done here as it is - just trying to think of the more outrageous examples of twisting scripture to support a stance. Having said that, I seem to recall something about Samson sleeping with his daughters, and he was a Godly man... Pup 05:17, 18/02/2010

I'm not sure about Samson. But Eve was Adam's mate and sex-changed cloned sister (that must be true; I read it in an Imperial Colonization). The sons of Adam and Eve impregnanted women, who had to be their mother or their sisters. Noah and his small band of survivers populated the Earth by having incest. God changed the name of Abram (father) to Abraham (father of many nations), as part of God's promise that Abraham would bear children by his half-sister Sarah. Lot, who was one of very, very few men God called righteous, was seduced by and impregnanted his two daughters. Etc. etc. etc. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 05:27, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was Lot I was thinking of. I don't think any of that fits into this article, but it's still fun to think about. Pup 05:40, 18/02/2010

...except maybe the Adam and Eve and Cain, Abel and Seth stuff... Pup 05:41, 18/02/2010

There was definately someone in genesis who slept with their daughters, but ive got no idea who or what chapter it was in...--DougalthePanda 09:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

In Genesis 19:36 KJV "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (although the Bible says the daughters made their father drink wine first. In Genesis 38, Judah, later named Israel, impregnanted his daughter Tamar with twins (although she was disquised as a prostitute). See my note above for more Biblical incest, some blessed and even approved by God. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 00:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

American thingy

The whole "one nation under God" and the stuff about the American constitution being based on biblical belief would help tie this in with the "he who is without sin" stuff which would lead to "conservative Americans should rule the world as a god given right." I don't know enough American political stuff to be able to write this bit myself though... someone want to tackle that bit now? Even just throwing in the justifications as one-liners and quoting from stuff like the constitution and the right to arm bears would be enough to start building that. Pup 01:53, 19/02/2010

Thank to aleister for this addition. Pup 02:00, 19/02/2010

I'll try starting that. My uncle knows lots of that stuff so I'll ask him for ideas. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 17:03, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I, as usual, will fill in where needed. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 01:09, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

FINAL DEADLINE: 27 February 2010 (or very close to it)

I think what we've done so far is very good, and appreciate all the work that's gone into this colonization. But as I don't feel the article's quite ready for Pee Review, I'm using the optional week extension to finish the article. It will be put up for Pee Review on or verly close to 28 February. A new project will begin then, based on votes. Here's what I'd like to see us focus on during this week.

1. Remember, colonizers, to check here before you edit.
2. Images. Start adding those images where they fit. (Check the above link for some you can use).
3. Conclusion: the article should conclude with showing how Creationists should rule the world.
4. Grammar and spell check.
5. Adding appropriate categories.

Keep up the good work, colonizers! WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 01:08, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Slight update to above. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 14:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

You are so right! I feel slighted now.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  23 Feb 2010 ~ 05:06 (UTC)

I honestly feel that we are nearly there. I've added in the phrase "at any cost" which I seem to recall being either a Bush or one of his cronies attitudes towards the war on the heebie-jeebies. If anyone can find a source for that and chuck it into the references I think that would work a little better. Also the biblical quotes should be from KJV - if someone who has a better net connection then I have at work can source the quotes from KJV and replace them (yes, I am looking at you, Why?) then I think this would work a little better. Beyond that I cannot think of anything that can be added to this, although we might want to trim it down by abut 10% by getting rid of any deadwood in it.                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 00:40, 26/02/2010

I think KJV would be best too. I'll work on it. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 01:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Serious cutting

I'm about to do some serious cutting in the article, separating the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, and other Biblical stuff. The reason I'm posting this message here is because I want to clarify that, even though I'm currently "head" of IC, this is still my opinion as head of a collaborative effort. If a clear majority of active colonizers think something I killed should be resurrected, so be it. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 03:30, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Better you then me - I get too attached to my own stuff.                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 03:59, 26/02/2010

I have the same problem. That's actually one of the main reasons I wanted other people to do the vast majority of the writing with me coming in later and editing. Either that or I'm lazy. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:05, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I stopped editing at the beginning of The Cambrian Explosion, but will get back to it in 24 hours or less. I will say that some of the material I cut I found very well written and interesting--unfortunately, it seemed to go through a great deal of complexity before it got to something funny. As IC is dedicated to colonizing articles that have mass appeal, I believe that to keep that mass appeal we have to cut to the punchline. Anyone else is free to keep working on this, of course--definitely feel free to revise my edits--and see my note above about resurrecting anything I cut. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:13, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on that part. :) DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 15:44, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Use this?

I'm not sure about using this: Opinions?

WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 19:46, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

The future of Creationism

Great job so far, colonizers! Sometime early Sunday morning, 28 February 2010, I'm going to move this article to Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/Creationism and move the talk with it. So you'll have until early Sunday morning to make edits. Then I'll put it up for Pee Review, and will post the next colonization based on votes. (After a Pee Review, Creationism will get put up for VFH--you colonizers have done too good of a job for it not to be nominated). I probably won't get everybody notified, lists updated, etc. until Monday, so for now this is notification. Happy colonizing! WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 19:59, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Pee Review

Read it HERE. Then make those final edits, and we'll move it to the glory of main space. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 01:48, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Something like this at the start?

more documentation wikipedia:template:infobox

• Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 02:05, 4/03/2010

Sorry, don't understand your question. You're proposing what at the start? WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:02, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

I've been away on holiday... give me about 12 hours and I'll come back in force, but suggest removing God references until after - or maybe during - the watchmaker section.                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 10:13, 5/03/2010

circular reasoning

These will need to be modified to size to keep the animation going - which will also clean up a little speckle, but which one...

                               • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 23:15, 5/03/2010

Puppy, I posted a note on this to the helpful reviewer who suggested it, but not here. It sounded like a good idea, so I did an animation too, and it was virtually impossible to read because it moved so fast. I kept slowing it down, and got it so slow that it took 12 seconds to make a single rotation, and it still literally made my head hurt trying to look at it (and yes, I mean literally--I had to turn it off and do something else). So unless everyone disagrees with me, we'll keep it as non-moving. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 23:24, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

If we really want it to move here is my suggestion: have it static for about five seconds and then have it do a quick little spin all the way around. Repeat every 5 seconds (or however long it take to look good/takes an average reader to get through that particular section.)

That might be nice, but the problem I see is that it could be very distracting to the reader. Every time it moved they would likely have their attention drawn away from the article. Personally, I think it's better as is, unmoving. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 02:21, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Have it spin only once or twice while they are on the page? Eh, It would look good either way to me.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  06 Mar 2010 ~ 03:06 (UTC)

The 1st & 3rd images are awesome BTW.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  06 Mar 2010 ~ 02:01 (UTC)

Actually of the three of them the first is my favourite. The third one bugged me for the same reason as what why was saying re the text moving too quickly. By having larger text in the foreground and smaller text in the back it gives an illusion of moving at different speeds and makes the foreground easier to read. Honestly I preferred the static image anyway as it means the focus is on the text and not on the animation, but as people are probably aware, I'm not adverse to a little animation occasionally.                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 04:11, 6/03/2010

The first one for sure. An idea would be to put it at the bottom of the page, full size, after the external links. If it's way at the bottom only people who get that far will see it. A very good graphic. ~   14:07 6.3.

Moving to main space

MrN9000 (or possibly someone else) will be moving this article to main space at any moment. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 23:27, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Wow

IC has done spectacular. The article was tongue-in-cheek throughout, while seeming to be a legitimate argument for Creationism. Great job guys, this was very funny to read. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} {{SUBST:CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} UTC

My homies kick butt. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 19:17, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Why the history is a little mixed up

The history during the IC period is a little mixed up because I was a pest and really pushed for the IC editing history to be moved here. The problem is that an editor or two didn't get the message at the top that this was an IC colonization, and thus edited what was then the main article. So when the IC history got merged here, edits in between IC editors and editors that edited here got mishmashed so it appears that edits were done by an editor that weren't really. If that sounds completely confusing, exactly--that's the problem. I won't be pushing for it to be done this way in the future, and apologize for any confusion I caused. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 22:13, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think the history before the colonization began should be kept....  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  17 Mar 2010 ~ 03:43 (UTC)

I worked out a compromise with MrN9000--for future colonizations, the article will be edited in IC space then the new version of the article will be moved to main space. The IC history will remain in IC space with a link in both histories to the other history. It's not ideal, but I couldn't come up with something that was ideal. But it will allow anyone who wants to check the entire history of the article, both IC and non-IC, to do so, and both histories will be accurate. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 16:12, March 17, 2010 (UTC)