User talk:JacksonS24

September 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Creation Ministries International appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FifthFive (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FifthFive. It appears that the starting sentence of the article on Creation Ministries International, "Creation Ministries International (CMI) is a nonprofit organisation that promotes the pseudoscience of young Earth creationism", only has a reference to CMI's article on creation.com, "Should Genesis be taken literally?" and that alone is not enough to call it a "psuedoscience", without significant evidence that it uses propaganda masquerading as science. In fact, the website contains some 15 thousand articles and almost a thousand videos, all scientifically written and argued. I would suggest you go to the website and search for a particular topic, and listen to their view. With that said, I acknowledge that I have only recently started editing on Wikipedia, and you have better knowledge of editing criteria than I do, and I'm open to your expert opinions, of course. JacksonS24 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's another citation further down that links to a journal ([1]), which backs up the statement. Creation.com isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia (from consensus) - Wikipedia:Fringe theories has more guidance on this. FifthFive (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you're an evolutionist? JacksonS24 (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I would ask that you think about these things carefully and objectively:

The two methods that evolution uses are natural selection and mutation, right? But think about this. Natural selection never adds somthing: consider beetles on a windy island. The beetles with wings are blown away from the island, and from natural selection, the wingless beetles remain and reproduce. But nothing was added; in fact, the genes to code wings was removed from the population on that island. Natural selection never creates the fit; it culls the unfit. It is a culling force, not a creative force. JacksonS24 (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for mutation. Mutation is basically a copying error in our genes, a typo of sorts. But you edit Wikipedia. When does a typo ever improve an article? We can use this analogy: in a battle, an army sends this information to their ally: "the enemy is now attacking." But in the process, there are inevitably typos. Most of them would be relatively innocuous: "tha enemy is now attacking" does not change the meaning much. But if these changes were allowed to build up, to "ta ename es now attarckang", for example, it would make the message significantly harder to understand. Sometimes, however, mutations can be negative from the outset. "The enemy is not attacking" only changes one letter, but can have disastrous effects. The estimated rate of beneficial vs harmful mutations are always overwhelmingly non-positive. Also, for mutations to change a species gradually, natural selection would need to efficiently select out negative mutations and favor beneficial ones. But keep in mind it is not individual genes that are being selected, but creatures that carry these genes, and in most cases, these individual corruptions of the genome are to small and insignificant to be selected, allowing them to build up gradually in a species. JacksonS24 (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it might be jarring to change your worldview. I used to believe in evolution, too. If you have any specific questions, you can always ask me here, or search for it in creation.com. They provide satisfactory answers to all sorts of questions, from "How can dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark?" to "Doesn't the majority of scientists believe in evolution? How can they all be wrong?" to "Doesn't the fossil record support evolution?" JacksonS24 (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for raising visibility of agendas, and isn't the place to go to convince others with what you believe in (WP:PODIUM). We need reliable sources, and creation.com isn't considered one. Your edits violated Wikipedia's guidelines, which has been elaborated both here and on the talk page, by me and others. If you believe you haven't broken said guidelines (or that some part of your edits don't), we can discuss constructively from there. FifthFive (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to at least consider the creation side of the argument. It is vitally important to be sure you're standing on the right side, as where we come from affects where we are going. How sure are you that evolution is true? Consider this. Even evolutionists admit that the odds of the first cell (LUCA) arising by chance is extremely low, worse than 1 in 10^41,000, and there are "only" 10^80 atoms in the entire universe. Even if there were 10^80 universes, then all the atoms in these universes combined would only be 10^80 * 10^80 = 10^160 atoms. Please, I urge you to think about both sides of the argument and decide for yourself which is the best one. JacksonS24 (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to swallow everything creation.com says; you can see their arguments and logically deduce whether they are trustworthy. JacksonS24 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if I consider the source trustworthy or not - what matters is whether the source follows the guidelines at WP:RS. I, and the other editors who have discussed with this you, believe it doesn't. Please read the guidelines. Once you've read them, if you still believe creation.com is reliable, you can head to WP:RSN. Have a nice day, FifthFive (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the edits - I mean that if creation.com is reliable, shouldn't you listen to what they have to say about creation, intelligent design, and our fate? If creation is true, and the God of Christianity exists, then we would be held accountable to him, which would affect our eternal destiny. Wouldn't it be worth it, then, to spend maybe 1 or 2 hours thinking over this matter, if it could affect your eternal destination? JacksonS24 (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:RGW. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote your own worldview. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to make the page a bit more neutral. "Promote" sounds too negative, so I changed it to "advocate". JacksonS24 (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that change yesterday. You've added it back, not addressing my and other editor's concerns. To further elaborate -

WP:FRINGE: Young Earth creationism is described as pseudoscience by reliable sources, and as such, "advocate" gives undue weight to the ministry's claims. (also see: guidelines specifically for the word "pseudoscience".

WP:RGW: Further up this talk page, instead of discussing the edits you wanted to make, you were trying to convince me of your belief in what the ministry promotes. I think we can agree that the ministry's ideas aren't accepted by the wider scientific community, and since Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, it isn't the place for these types of edits.

Please stop. FifthFive (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I will leave it there for now. However, I will add that truth isn't determined by majority agreement, and Wikipedia is commited to truth, is it not? JacksonS24 (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. FifthFive (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will still advise you to consider CMI's claims, though. I know you don't like it when I try to convince you of my views, so I'm not. Please, try investigating for yourself Creation and Evolution's claims, and see if they stand up to scrutiny. I used to believe in evolution, too, but not anymore, after reading a copy of CMI's Creation magazine. So please, see for yourself whether evolution/creation is true - after all, where we come from determines our worldview, and where we're going. And where are you going? JacksonS24 (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your recent edit to Creation Ministries International for neutral point of view issues and unexplained removal of content. If there are more specific changes you want to make that don't violate this policy, or if you think I've made a mistake, raise it on the article's talk page. FifthFive (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article does include biased statements - CMI has published many books on the forefront of the creation/evolution controversy, and surely they deserve a section in the ministry's page? JacksonS24 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page again and made a minor edit concerning CMI's published books. I made sure that the information is as unbiased as possible; you can check if you want to be sure. Have a good day, JacksonS24 (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ixocactus. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Creation Ministries International, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ixocactus. I added information on some of CMI's published books, and I don't think any citation is needed... I mean, it's not like it's disputable information. All a reader have to do is to search it in Google. Having said that, feel free to correct me. Have a good day, JacksonS24 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Matthew

Some people do not understand that Wikipedia isn't a WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOX for aggrandizing their religion or atheism. It is supposed to have university-level information about religion, especially from mainstream universities. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not promoting my religion. The original page does not actually reflect the doctrine of Christianity on the Messiah, and I simply corrected it to fit more with the Christian faith. Have a good day, JacksonS24 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is neither pro-Christian, nor anti-Christian. Wikipedia articles should reflect the sort of knowledge about religion that gets taught at the Ivy League. It is not for affirming Christian creeds in the voice of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not affirming Christian creeds - I am stating the truth claims of Christianity as accurately as I can. JacksonS24 (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]