LimpSpider

Welcome!

Hello, LimpSpider, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! . dave souza, talk 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages

To reply in article talk pages, do as you did on my user talk page: click on the section edit button, and add your response at the bottom of the section, or if appropriate, with a new line immediately below the signature ending the comment you're replying to, and remember to sign your comment.
To make the thread clear, add one more colon (:) at the start of the line than the number of colons at the start of the preceding comment: this indents your comment one step further than the comment you're responding to. Thus:

One colon,

Two colons, and so on.

The main thing to remember is that talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not general debate about the topic. There is some leeway, but essentially comments have to relate to article improvement. See WP:TALK for more detailed guidance. . . dave souza, talk 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Creation science

Thanks for the enquiry, in this discussion the point was that creation science originated with attempts to get creationism taught in U.S. school science classes, and so is a subset of creationism, but it is fair to say that the label was subsequently used in places where the U.S. constitutional requirements are not relevant. Thus proponents of "creation science" do not necessarily have school teaching of their beliefs as a priority.

As for Creation Ministries International saying on their website, "We would actually be opposed to any legislation to make the teaching of creation compulsory in public schools", their website is not a reliable source and their statement may be misleading. For an example involving other creationists, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#Decision noted that the ID proponents involved "vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' .... We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching". . . dave souza, talk 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read that case up quite extensively, thanks anyway. Why is Creation Ministries unreliable?LimpSpider (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a colon before your response to indent it. Generally editors should not alter talk page comments by others, but some minor formatting like that is ok in moderation.

Verifiability policy requires that we base articles on reliable third party sources with a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. For anything questionable or disputed we should use secondary sources as explained in WP:PSTS : Creation Ministries International are a primary source for their own views, but other expert opinion is needed to check the accuracy or validity of these views. For example, Review: The Voyage that Shook the World | NCSE shows expert opinion discussing misrepresentations made by CMI in a film. . dave souza, talk 06:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I understand. Thanks!LimpSpider (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a few question. It is a fairly good review, and I have watched the film, critically. I do think that the evidence presented is indeed selective. I have one question. What do you mean by "expert"? From what I can find of the authors, they don't seem to be as "high ranking" as some others.

One of the deceptions that NSCE writes about is that "Emil Silvestru is identified by his PhD and as a “geologist and speleologist,” but not revealed is that he works full-time for CMI"

I don't know if I'm really understanding this correctly, but from what I've researched on this guy, he was quite a respected speleologist (and from what I have read in his CMI bio, he was the head scientist at a speleological institute) until he embraced Creation Science. Am I correct? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks)

So from his past experience, he would be correctly identified as such, though it is not current?

What I have not seen in the review is how it is unreliable. It's creationist, I know, but creationists do make reliable claims, from time to time.

The segment on the Galápagos is really about the lack of evidence. While I agree with the review of the Galápagos segment, I cannot but see this. This assertion is based on the silence of the historical records, which means, actually, that as long as it has no contradictory evidence, I can even assert a green horse sits in front of me. (Which can only be proved through opposing evidence, and, uhh... I think biases has something to do with a rejection of that as well.)

I do hope you can point out any errors in my thinking, as I wish to improve my thinking skills, not to mention my other mental capabilities.

Sincerely LimpSpider (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)