1848:
simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. âNo, youâre wrong.â The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by
Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please
498:
816:
413:
386:
766:
519:
603:
286:
296:
265:
190:
1516:
656:
234:
1293:
1689:. The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge."
1847:
The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesnât explain why. Itâs simply states that
Whitehole cosmology doesnât correspond to observed evidence. Iâd like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just
1705:
MOS:CLAIM doesn't say that we disregard what sources say. If the
Creation scientists are CLAIMING that their arguments are scientific when those arguments are not, than the word claim is appropriate. If they are trying to find real scientific arguments that support their beliefs, than you would be
1670:
The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced
1380:
section to drastically alter the meaning of the paragraph. I reverted that edit, and added some refs, citing publications already used as sources in other parts of the article. I didn't review the entire list of references, and may have missed some good ones, though. Any help will be appreciated!
1340:
I feel like the lead section should be broken up. It's way too long, and can be split up into headings describing the history, the fact that modern science proves it false, etc. What information should we move "down below" or omit from the lead section? The first paragraph seems like a keeper for
1799:
To be clear, I am not stating that creationist reasoning is good, that is truly not my point. My #1 point, is that the sentence as it currently stands is inaccurate. Creation
Science itself is not a claim. Creationism is a claim. Creation Science is an activity trying to prove the claim with
1814:
I see your point, but to change to "endeavor" would also then require rewording the rest of the sentence. They don't endeavor to offer SCIENTIFIC arguments, they endeavor to create and offer scientific SOUNDING or scientific APPEARING
1431:
long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the
Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion.
1675:. Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for
1723:
I want to be clear that my contention has ZERO to do with whether creation science is a valid field of study (its not). Can you point to a source that uses the word "claim"? I'm dubious that's what the sources actually say.
1563:
Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Knowledge (XXG) aspires to be such a respected
703:
Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Knowledge (XXG) aspires to be such a respected
1781:. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See
153:
1446:
Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the
Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus.
1984:
1550:, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to
690:, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to
475:
396:
1818:
I think that there is sometimes a balance between explicit, 100% accurate statements and concise statements, and for the first sentence of the lead, is is better to lean toward concision. ---
1954:
480:
1057:
1607:
1594:
1581:
1568:
1558:
1542:
1534:
747:
734:
721:
708:
698:
682:
674:
622:
147:
1771:
We do not even know whether they really endeavor to do that. We do know that they claim to do it. For all we know, they are fully aware that all their reasoning is bogus.
1949:
1405:
Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.
957:
463:
581:
1356:
Agreed. I moved the other paragraphs down to history which now probably means that section needs to be cleaned up as there is a little bit of redundancy there.
79:
1974:
1944:
1590:, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
730:, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
571:
453:
368:
322:
210:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
1002:
1929:
1169:
358:
1919:
1611:: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
751:: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
1964:
1959:
429:
197:
1979:
44:
547:
85:
330:
1934:
1939:
1885:
for anything but short mention. Those are the rules here. Our content is based on reliable sources, not on fringe and unreliable sources. --
1530:
791:
670:
1969:
30:
1603:, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
743:, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
420:
391:
1092:
526:
503:
326:
1924:
1462:
1547:
783:
687:
213:
201:
99:
1409:
334:
310:
270:
104:
20:
1240:
1190:
1176:
1071:
1064:
1009:
995:
988:
944:
939:
934:
927:
922:
917:
910:
905:
900:
893:
888:
883:
74:
1989:
1222:
1204:
1162:
1155:
1141:
1127:
1120:
1113:
1106:
1099:
1085:
1078:
1037:
1030:
1016:
876:
871:
866:
859:
854:
849:
842:
837:
832:
168:
641:
610:
245:
135:
1738:
I'm not familiar with the sources in this article; but if you want to change this, you should find what the sources say. ---
65:
637:
546:
related articles on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1878:
1276:
962:
1361:
777:
1631:
219:
129:
109:
1437:
1682:. "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see
1255:
629:
1877:? Have you read the sources in the article where White hole is mentioned? We can't do your work for you. As a
1476:
251:
125:
1863:
1855:
1882:
1413:
1466:
1318:
1357:
640:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
633:
55:
1859:
1851:
1790:
1654:
1627:
1452:
428:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
175:
1346:
70:
1779:
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question
1641:
That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience.
1484:
1433:
787:
233:
207:
1825:
1745:
1713:
1326:
161:
1896:
1805:
1758:
1729:
1694:
1461:
Knowledge (XXG) is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
1261:
1890:
1325:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
1317:] The anchor (#Naturalization vs. supernaturalization) is no longer available because it was
141:
51:
1786:
1642:
1448:
1342:
1305:
1257:
815:
518:
497:
24:
1753:
you wrote: "We should use what the sources describe this." That's what I was referring to
786:
at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
1480:
1424:
1382:
1072:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Creation
Science advocates disagree whether CS is science
301:
1107:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 3#Creation science is not natural science or social science
1820:
1740:
1708:
1600:
740:
618:
412:
385:
1913:
1801:
1754:
1725:
1690:
1551:
691:
614:
539:
535:
1199:
that since evolution is not heavily criticised in its article, neither should CS be;
1170:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Request for comments: What's in a name? POV or SPOV?
602:
1886:
1874:
1573:
Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as
1058:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#'Creation science is not science'; Fact or View
713:
Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as
425:
295:
996:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#CS does not argue that
Creation is observable
543:
291:
1774:
1683:
1587:
1574:
1259:
727:
714:
285:
264:
1800:
pseudoscience. Creation Science is more accurately worded as an endeavor.
222:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
1904:
1867:
1828:
1809:
1794:
1762:
1748:
1733:
1716:
1698:
1659:
1635:
1488:
1470:
1456:
1441:
1417:
1392:
1365:
1350:
1065:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Yet another vague interpretation of NPOV?
976:
The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.
321:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
317:
1782:
1676:
1577:, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
1533:
ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in
1313:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
1048:
717:, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
673:
ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in
531:
1100:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 3#Science and empiricism - Pseudoscience
1185:
that criticism should be relegated to a seperate article or section;
989:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#CS assumes Creation is observable
1686:). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Knowledge (XXG).
1479:: for Knowledge (XXG) it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority.
1706:
correct. We should use what the sources describe this as. ---
1510:
1495:
Which of these six categories does creation science belong to?
1287:
1262:
1191:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Separate Page for Criticisms?
1086:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 5#What is the story of creation?
1038:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Creation Science as propaganda
809:
760:
650:
597:
227:
184:
15:
1376:
Someone removed enough text from the second paragraph of the
1003:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Dan's unexplained reversions
983:
that creation science claims creation is directly observable;
1514:
654:
782:, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
1777:
does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says,
1128:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Creationism is not science
628:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
1985:
Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
1402:"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"
613:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
1177:
Talk:Creation science/Archive 11#Non-science disclaimer
799:
1535:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
675:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
160:
1666:
Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors"
1599:
Theories which have a substantial following, such as
739:
Theories which have a substantial following, such as
315:, a project to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s articles on
1525:
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
665:
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
530:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
424:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1150:
that the title is POV, as it suggests CS is science
958:
Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Creation science
174:
1427:. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's
1093:Talk:Creation science/Archive 4#Creation 'science'
1955:High-importance Young Earth creationism articles
1156:Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Incorrect title?
1017:Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Fallacy in intro
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1025:that creation science is not a creationist ploy
1136:that science cannot allow for the supernatural
1270:This page has archives. Sections older than
1163:Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Oh Puleeeeze!
1114:Talk:Creation science/Archive 2#Pseudoscience
1079:Talk:Creation science/Archive 8#another entry
8:
1241:Talk:Creation science/Archive 13#Peer_review
1142:Talk:Creation science/Archive 5#supernatural
1543:Neutral point of view as applied to science
683:Neutral point of view as applied to science
1498:
1121:Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Disbelieve
970:It has been suggested in these archives...
492:
380:
259:
1586:Theories which have a following, such as
1010:Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#observed
726:Theories which have a following, such as
1950:B-Class Young Earth creationism articles
1626:Which does creation science belong to?
494:
438:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Creationism
382:
261:
231:
1778:
1280:when more than 5 sections are present.
556:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Skepticism
476:the Young Earth creationism task force
1548:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
1537:. The final decision was as follows:
1217:, the term does not, should not exist
1213:that since no-one is trained to be a
688:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
677:. The final decision was as follows:
7:
1920:Knowledge (XXG) controversial topics
1608:Alternative theoretical formulations
748:Alternative theoretical formulations
524:This article is within the scope of
418:This article is within the scope of
343:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Religion
307:This article is within the scope of
1975:High-importance Skepticism articles
1945:Mid-importance Creationism articles
250:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1582:Generally considered pseudoscience
722:Generally considered pseudoscience
14:
1930:High-importance Religion articles
1274:may be automatically archived by
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1965:WikiProject Creationism articles
1960:Young Earth creationism articles
1408:More of why I no longer donate.
1372:Metaphysical Assumptions section
1291:
814:
764:
601:
517:
496:
441:Template:WikiProject Creationism
411:
384:
294:
284:
263:
232:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1980:WikiProject Skepticism articles
1223:Talk:Creation science/Archive 9
1205:Talk:Creation science/Archive 9
1031:Talk:Creation science/Archive 8
576:This article has been rated as
559:Template:WikiProject Skepticism
458:This article has been rated as
363:This article has been rated as
212:Content must be written from a
196:The subject of this article is
1783:An Index to Creationist Claims
1679:also uses the word "endeavor".
1644:
965:(article was merged into this)
1:
1935:WikiProject Religion articles
1046:that creation science is not
642:contentious topics procedures
550:and see a list of open tasks.
473:This article is supported by
432:and see a list of open tasks.
346:Template:WikiProject Religion
42:Put new text under old text.
1940:B-Class Creationism articles
1393:17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
1336:The lead section is too long
1970:B-Class Skepticism articles
1671:with "endeavors". Reasons:
1366:13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
1351:22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
963:Talk:Scientific creationism
206:When updating the article,
2006:
1660:05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
1636:21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
1489:11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
1471:10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
1457:06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
630:purpose of Knowledge (XXG)
582:project's importance scale
464:project's importance scale
369:project's importance scale
1925:B-Class Religion articles
1881:, it doesn't have enough
1873:Have you read this about
1829:01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
1442:18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
1418:17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
797:Review: April 27, 2006. (
644:before editing this page.
575:
512:
472:
457:
406:
362:
279:
258:
208:be bold, but not reckless
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1905:22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
1868:20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
1843:Insufficient information
1810:05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
1795:15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1763:11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
1749:23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
1734:23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
1717:22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
1699:02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1529:In December of 2006 the
1378:Metaphysical assumptions
669:In December of 2006 the
638:normal editorial process
333:standards, or visit the
625:as a contentious topic.
421:WikiProject Creationism
397:Young Earth creationism
1990:Delisted good articles
1519:
1277:Lowercase sigmabot III
659:
634:standards of behaviour
527:WikiProject Skepticism
240:This article is rated
200:and content may be in
75:avoid personal attacks
1569:Obvious pseudoscience
1559:Serious encyclopedias
1531:Arbitration Committee
1518:
784:good article criteria
709:Obvious pseudoscience
699:Serious encyclopedias
671:Arbitration Committee
658:
244:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
214:neutral point of view
100:Neutral point of view
1875:White hole cosmology
1595:Questionable science
735:Questionable science
444:Creationism articles
311:WikiProject Religion
105:No original research
1235:is used incorrectly
562:Skepticism articles
1652:
1520:
1215:creation scientist
660:
611:contentious topics
323:assess and improve
246:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1643:
1624:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1333:
1332:
1319:deleted by a user
1308:in most browsers.
1284:
1283:
1243:
1225:
1207:
1193:
1179:
1172:
1165:
1158:
1144:
1130:
1123:
1116:
1109:
1102:
1095:
1088:
1081:
1074:
1067:
1060:
1040:
1033:
1019:
1012:
1005:
998:
991:
977:
950:
949:
808:
807:
804:
790:; it may then be
759:
758:
649:
648:
621:, which has been
596:
595:
592:
591:
588:
587:
491:
490:
487:
486:
379:
378:
375:
374:
349:Religion articles
337:for more details.
226:
225:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1997:
1899:
1858:) elrondaragorn
1823:
1743:
1711:
1657:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1628:WorldQuestioneer
1517:
1511:
1503:Extended content
1499:
1327:Reporting errors
1295:
1294:
1288:
1279:
1263:
1239:
1221:
1203:
1189:
1175:
1168:
1161:
1154:
1140:
1126:
1119:
1112:
1105:
1098:
1091:
1084:
1077:
1070:
1063:
1056:
1036:
1029:
1015:
1008:
1001:
994:
987:
975:
829:
828:
818:
810:
802:
800:Reviewed version
796:
772:Creation science
768:
767:
761:
657:
651:
605:
598:
564:
563:
560:
557:
554:
521:
514:
513:
508:
500:
493:
446:
445:
442:
439:
436:
415:
408:
407:
402:
399:
388:
381:
351:
350:
347:
344:
341:
335:wikiproject page
304:
299:
298:
288:
281:
280:
275:
267:
260:
243:
237:
236:
228:
192:
191:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
25:Creation science
16:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1910:
1909:
1897:
1845:
1821:
1741:
1709:
1668:
1655:
1648:
1645:
1620:
1615:
1614:
1526:
1515:
1504:
1497:
1434:Just plain Bill
1425:Fallacy fallacy
1400:
1374:
1338:
1329:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1292:
1275:
1264:
1258:
1249:
1248:
971:
823:
798:
765:
755:
754:
666:
655:
632:, any expected
578:High-importance
561:
558:
555:
552:
551:
507:Highâimportance
506:
481:High-importance
443:
440:
437:
434:
433:
400:
394:
365:High-importance
348:
345:
342:
339:
338:
302:Religion portal
300:
293:
274:Highâimportance
273:
241:
189:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2003:
2001:
1993:
1992:
1987:
1982:
1977:
1972:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1952:
1947:
1942:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1912:
1911:
1908:
1907:
1844:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1816:
1772:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1702:
1701:
1687:
1680:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1604:
1601:psychoanalysis
1591:
1578:
1565:
1555:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1521:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1496:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1477:WP:VERECUNDIAM
1473:
1459:
1444:
1399:
1396:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1337:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1306:case-sensitive
1300:
1299:
1298:
1296:
1282:
1281:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1260:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1231:that the term
1228:
1227:
1226:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1173:
1166:
1159:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1124:
1117:
1110:
1103:
1096:
1089:
1082:
1075:
1068:
1061:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1034:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1013:
1006:
999:
992:
979:
978:
972:
969:
968:
967:
966:
960:
952:
951:
948:
947:
942:
937:
931:
930:
925:
920:
914:
913:
908:
903:
897:
896:
891:
886:
880:
879:
874:
869:
863:
862:
857:
852:
846:
845:
840:
835:
825:
824:
819:
813:
806:
805:
795:
769:
757:
756:
753:
752:
744:
741:psychoanalysis
731:
718:
705:
695:
667:
664:
663:
661:
647:
646:
619:fringe science
606:
594:
593:
590:
589:
586:
585:
574:
568:
567:
565:
548:the discussion
522:
510:
509:
501:
489:
488:
485:
484:
471:
468:
467:
460:Mid-importance
456:
450:
449:
447:
430:the discussion
416:
404:
403:
401:Midâimportance
389:
377:
376:
373:
372:
361:
355:
354:
352:
306:
305:
289:
277:
276:
268:
256:
255:
249:
238:
224:
223:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2002:
1991:
1988:
1986:
1983:
1981:
1978:
1976:
1973:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1963:
1961:
1958:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1946:
1943:
1941:
1938:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1928:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1917:
1915:
1906:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1879:fringe theory
1876:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:elrondaragorn
1857:
1853:
1852:elrondaragorn
1849:
1842:
1830:
1827:
1826:
1824:
1817:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1770:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1747:
1746:
1744:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1715:
1714:
1712:
1704:
1703:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1681:
1678:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1665:
1661:
1658:
1653:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1596:
1592:
1589:
1585:
1583:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1560:
1556:
1553:
1552:pseudoscience
1549:
1546:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1536:
1532:
1522:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1501:
1500:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1475:Explained at
1474:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1403:
1397:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1388:
1385:
1379:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1335:
1328:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1307:
1303:
1297:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1267:
1253:
1252:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1234:
1229:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1216:
1211:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1050:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1018:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1000:
997:
993:
990:
986:
985:
984:
981:
980:
974:
973:
964:
961:
959:
956:
955:
954:
953:
946:
943:
941:
938:
936:
933:
932:
929:
926:
924:
921:
919:
916:
915:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
898:
895:
892:
890:
887:
885:
882:
881:
878:
875:
873:
870:
868:
865:
864:
861:
858:
856:
853:
851:
848:
847:
844:
841:
839:
836:
834:
831:
830:
827:
826:
822:
817:
812:
811:
801:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
779:
773:
770:
763:
762:
750:
749:
745:
742:
738:
736:
732:
729:
725:
723:
719:
716:
712:
710:
706:
702:
700:
696:
693:
692:pseudoscience
689:
686:
684:
680:
679:
678:
676:
672:
662:
653:
652:
645:
643:
639:
635:
631:
626:
624:
620:
616:
615:pseudoscience
612:
607:
604:
600:
599:
583:
579:
573:
570:
569:
566:
549:
545:
541:
540:pseudohistory
537:
536:pseudoscience
533:
529:
528:
523:
520:
516:
515:
511:
505:
502:
499:
495:
482:
479:(assessed as
478:
477:
470:
469:
465:
461:
455:
452:
451:
448:
431:
427:
423:
422:
417:
414:
410:
409:
405:
398:
393:
390:
387:
383:
370:
366:
360:
357:
356:
353:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
314:
313:
312:
303:
297:
292:
290:
287:
283:
282:
278:
272:
269:
266:
262:
257:
253:
247:
239:
235:
230:
229:
221:
217:
215:
209:
205:
203:
199:
198:controversial
194:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1895:
1894:
1850:
1846:
1819:
1739:
1707:
1669:
1625:
1606:
1593:
1580:
1567:
1557:
1541:
1528:
1463:47.44.49.171
1428:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1377:
1375:
1339:
1312:
1304:Anchors are
1301:
1285:
1271:
1232:
1230:
1214:
1212:
1198:
1184:
1149:
1135:
1047:
1045:
1024:
982:
820:
778:good article
776:
775:
771:
746:
733:
720:
707:
697:
681:
668:
627:
608:
577:
525:
474:
459:
419:
364:
325:articles to
316:
309:
308:
252:WikiProjects
211:
195:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1787:Hob Gadling
1449:Hob Gadling
1410:98.4.89.168
1233:peer-review
792:renominated
435:Creationism
426:Creationism
392:Creationism
148:free images
31:not a forum
1914:Categories
1883:due weight
1815:arguments.
1481:tgeorgescu
1381:Cheers! â
945:Archive 21
940:Archive 20
935:Archive 19
928:Archive 18
923:Archive 17
918:Archive 16
911:Archive 15
906:Archive 14
901:Archive 13
894:Archive 12
889:Archive 11
884:Archive 10
623:designated
553:Skepticism
544:skepticism
504:Skepticism
1822:Avatar317
1775:MOS:CLAIM
1742:Avatar317
1710:Avatar317
1684:MOS:CLAIM
1588:astrology
1575:Time Cube
877:Archive 9
872:Archive 8
867:Archive 7
860:Archive 6
855:Archive 5
850:Archive 4
843:Archive 3
838:Archive 2
833:Archive 1
788:please do
728:astrology
715:Time Cube
636:, or any
220:citations
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1802:Epachamo
1755:Epachamo
1726:Epachamo
1691:Epachamo
1343:FĂ©lix An
821:Archives
340:Religion
318:Religion
271:Religion
218:Include
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1898:PING me
1887:Valjean
1677:Science
1429:E. coli
1398:Fallacy
1321:before.
1272:90 days
1049:science
580:on the
532:science
462:on the
367:on the
242:B-class
202:dispute
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1656:(talk)
1646:Pepper
1341:sure.
774:was a
248:scale.
126:Google
1649:Beast
1564:work.
1387:Bubba
1384:Uncle
704:work.
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1891:talk
1864:talk
1856:talk
1806:talk
1791:talk
1785:. --
1759:talk
1730:talk
1695:talk
1632:talk
1485:talk
1467:talk
1453:talk
1438:talk
1423:See
1414:talk
1362:talk
1347:talk
1302:Tip:
617:and
609:The
572:High
542:and
359:High
329:and
327:good
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1893:) (
1487:)
1358:jps
454:Mid
331:1.0
176:TWL
1916::
1903:)
1866:)
1808:)
1793:)
1761:)
1732:)
1697:)
1634:)
1469:)
1455:)
1447:--
1440:)
1416:)
1364:)
1349:)
803:).
538:,
534:,
483:).
395::
156:)
54:;
1889:(
1862:(
1854:(
1804:(
1789:(
1757:(
1728:(
1693:(
1630:(
1597::
1584::
1571::
1561::
1554:.
1545::
1483:(
1465:(
1451:(
1436:(
1412:(
1360:(
1345:(
1051:;
794:.
737::
724::
711::
701::
694:.
685::
584:.
466:.
371:.
254::
216:.
204:.
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
