This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • Cosmogony Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:Cosmogony

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Science This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Philosophy: Metaphysics / Science This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Philosophy of science

Does this actually have ANYTHING to do with science or physics? Looks like a pile of poppycock to me. Fatalis 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The word cosmogenesis is in common use as a scientific term, but instead we have a couple of random examples of people using it a century ago as some metaphysical opinion. Bobathon ( talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply