4 ms·

http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims responds to arguments by Talk Origins. Is there a simila

http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims responds to arguments by Talk Origins. Is there a similar site that does the same for climate change? Better, is there any site that lists all arguments from all sides and reach a conclusion? If they don't reach a conclusion, do they have a issue tracking system and leave the issue open for anyone to find easily and respond? Debates should have a programming language, have CI for new arguments, have unit tests to check logic, have issues tracked and collaborated on GitHub.

ChuckMcM 11y ago
I would love a site that categorized each argument and the supporting evidence pro and con for a given topic. Would be a wonderful resource.
- jberryman 11y ago
  How would that work? For creationism/evolution would it be one column with facts and another with a lot of bunk? What's the point?
  - kevinskii 11y ago
    Sadly it would probably never work. Your comment is a good illustration of why.
  - tbrownaw 11y ago
    It might give people a good jumping-off point for figuring out which set of arguments is fact and which is bunk.
ue_ 11y ago
Do you know if there exists some response to the Creationwiki responses? I'm having a hard time finding it, if it exists. Or is there anyone who has gone through some of the arguments there? It's hard for me to imagine nobody on the searchable web has made a response to the claims there.
- username3 11y ago
  I have not found responses to CreationWiki's responses. Talk Origins doesn't have to respond to CreationWiki since it's not well known. There's no need to respond if no one knows there are responses. Either that or both sides rest their case. We would need a publicized tracking system for debate arguments to know whether that's the case.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Thank goodness for Creationism, if it didn't exist as a prominent example of the USA's embarrassing pockets of highly organised anti-science propaganda then it would be much easier for people to believe the conspiracy theories that suggest climate change is an elaborate hoax.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I would love a site that categorized each argument and the supporting evidence pro and con for a given topic. Would be a wonderful resource.

jberryman 11y ago
How would that work? For creationism/evolution would it be one column with facts and another with a lot of bunk? What's the point?
- kevinskii 11y ago
  Sadly it would probably never work. Your comment is a good illustration of why.
- tbrownaw 11y ago
  It might give people a good jumping-off point for figuring out which set of arguments is fact and which is bunk.

ue_ 11y ago

Do you know if there exists some response to the Creationwiki responses? I'm having a hard time finding it, if it exists. Or is there anyone who has gone through some of the arguments there? It's hard for me to imagine nobody on the searchable web has made a response to the claims there.

username3 11y ago
I have not found responses to CreationWiki's responses. Talk Origins doesn't have to respond to CreationWiki since it's not well known. There's no need to respond if no one knows there are responses. Either that or both sides rest their case. We would need a publicized tracking system for debate arguments to know whether that's the case.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Thank goodness for Creationism, if it didn't exist as a prominent example of the USA's embarrassing pockets of highly organised anti-science propaganda then it would be much easier for people to believe the conspiracy theories that suggest climate change is an elaborate hoax.