Obvious lie on “rational”wiki

So how about this page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_studying_the_evidence? The list is empty! The linked page is an anti creationist page on a so-called rational site. You can disagree with creationists, but you cannot say there are no creationists who became creationists because of the evidence. Since the page is not editable, it is obvious that this page is a deliberate lie to discredit creationists. There is absolutely no excuse for lies like this. It has consequences. Whoever put it there is responsible.

The "rationalwiki" page, as it looked like on 09 december 2013.

The “rationalwiki” page, as it looked like on 09 december 2013.

Here is a list of some of the people who should be on that list:

Also see:

Update 17 March 2015: the page is editable! I’ve put the list on the rationalwiki page. And it was reverted again 20 minutes later.

Update 29 April 2016: the page has finally been deleted. After being renamed and debunked several more times…


About Geodetective

I am an expert in 3D design/visualizing, programming and data analysis and an amateur scientist who has developed a method for truth investigation. I primarily focus on geophysics, but investigate geology and astronomy as well because they are closely related.
This entry was posted in Creation. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Obvious lie on “rational”wiki

  1. Chris says:

    The RationalWiki page is 100% correct, scientists do not become creationists after studying the evidence, they become creationists by ignoring and misinterpreting the evidence on purpose. They cease to become scientists when they abandon the scientific method and twist the facts and the evidence to suit their preconceived ideology.. You do realize that RationalWiki has satirical elements right?

    • Geodetective says:

      Oh, yes. Sorry. Of course! You know that, because you have spoken with all these people and they all obviously did what you say. Oh wait. You didn’t. You didn’t have to, because you’ve clicked all the links and read their story. Oh wait, you didn’t. Because my website registers clicks and you didn’t click on any of the links. And you didn’t have to because… you just know… beforehand…
      Interesting. Some would call that an oracle. I call that bias.

      I am aware one of the components of RationalWiki is satire. The others are: a reliable looking site, slander, bias and propaganda. Too bad it lacks something despite of the title: reason.

      • Chris says:

        Also a List of scientists who stayed scientists after studying the evidence would be many times larger that the list you propose.

        Happy New Year.

  2. Chris says:

    I neither have the time nor the inclination to look through every crackpot idea and pseudoscience argument put forth by creationists on the internet. That would be a full time job. Just about every link on your page goes straight to creationist websites, Wikipedia and YouTube. Creationist groups like AnswersinGenesis, The Discovery Institute and CMI have the sole purpose of attacking science and not actually discover anything.

    The majority of the claims of every “scientist’ on that list are largely rejected by the scientific community. Some of the names are familiar to me, I have read some of their work. They don’t follow the scientific method (which is at the core of science) in what they do now because they have already made up their minds on what is true base on an ancient book that nobody even knows who wrote that they believe to be literal in every respect despite whatever the evidence says.

    Since I do not have time to comment on all of the names on your list.I will just select a few:
    John Woodmorappe – Wrote Noah’s ark, a feasibility study. For someone who claims to be a biologist he showed clear signs that he does not understand basic biology, physics or science in general.

    Dr. Walt Brown – A mechanical engineer (not a qualified Geologist) who proposed the completely ridiculous Hydroplate ‘theory’ that is completely inconsistent with geology, planet formation and physics. He seems to have problems with basic concepts such as the conservation of angular momentum (the water beneath the Earth creating the comets), density and thermodynamics.

    Dr. D. Russell Humphreys – His work is well known in the scientific community to be sloppy, lazy and incompetent, even other creationists think so. His White hole Cosmolgy, which he claims to be partially based on Einstein’s theory of Relativity but fails to grasp even it’s basic concepts (for example thinking that Einstein’s theory relies on the aether being real).

    And last but not least;

    Barry J. Setterfield – Who proposed the ludicrous c-decay idea to try to solve the ‘starlight problem’ (which can be easily resolved by admitting the Universe is billions of years old). A ‘theory’ that completely contradicts both Einstein’s mass-energy equilivalence (E = mc^2) and Newton’s law of Universal gravitation (F = Gm1m2/r^2).

    As to your claim;

    “Since the page is NOT EDITABLE, it is obvious that this page is a deliberate lie to discredit creationists.”

    This is untrue because I can edit it.

  3. Geodetective says:


    I had deleted your post because it contains ad hominem insults towards people, which I do not tolerate on my website. I’m not going into detail about it. But since you reposted it, let me say one thing: apart for the last sentence, do you realize that none of it is relevant to the blog post, even if it would all be true?

    As for the last sentence: the settings have been changed. I can edit it now too.

  4. David Bump says:

    Chris said: “They cease to become scientists when they abandon the scientific method and twist the facts and the evidence to suit their preconceived ideology.”
    But this is exactly how the idea of evolution began and became established. The preconceived notion that science can explain everything, because everything that has ever happened has happened according to the laws of nature as we observe them, became the dominant ideology, leaving no possible (and plausible) explanation for the existence of the panoply of living things except some form of gradual evolution from raw materials. It also required a universe that was eternal, but that was less obvious and harder to conceive.
    Evolution was accepted even though Darwin had demonstrated nothing more than that natural changes in organisms might match those which had been produced through human efforts in farming and breeding cattle and pets. It was quickly realized that his proposals for the means of inheritance and the major factor in producing biological changes (use over time/generations) were wrong. Nobody else proposed anything better, and Mendel’s experiments showed how a number of variations could be produced by a limited set of factors, without new factors having to be produced. It was only decades later that mutations were put forth as the major element of new change, and it has never been demonstrated that random mutations can produce the kinds of changes needed for the imagined history of evolution from microbes to men. Darwin noted that there must have been vast numbers of intermediate forms, and that the most distinguishing differences in animals (determining the phyla) appear early in the fossil record. The “Cambrian explosion” holds today, and the vast number of intermediates are represented by a very few (compared to all fossils) possible candidates, some of which have “ancestral” fossils dated *after* them (e.g. Velociraptor used to illustrate what Archaeopteryx evolved from). How’s that for “ignoring and misinterpreting the evidence on purpose.”?
    The apparent age of the universe at first seems straightforward, but again, while science originally stuck with evidence that could be studied directly and repeatedly observed (and preferably experimented on), the age of the universe is derived from secondary observations that are interpreted under the assumption of uninterrupted naturalism. It was also interpreted under the assumption of endless nature-as-we-know-it, but the discovery of universal expansion demanded a beginning from conditions very unlike those now in effect. Scientists should have realized that this means “all bets are off” as far as how the universe actually began, but, slavishly immersed in their naturalistic worldview, they generally tried to make it work as far as it was still possible. This turns out to currently require throwing in a period of early hyper-inflation for no known reason that stopped for no known reason, because the universe wouldn’t look as it does without it; plus it turns out that there is supposed to be far more of a substance called “dark matter” than the matter we know, and far more than that of something called “dark energy.” I recall when articles cited the age of the universe as about 20 billion years but now it is under 14.

    There are many more things that show the difference between what we can really be sure of by studying the evidence, and what mainstream scientists believe about the age of the universe and the history of life.

  5. Pingback: Wetenschep | Het fundamenten faillissement van het evolutionisme

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s