Talk:Young Earth creationism

— Preceding unsigned comment added by

Note on the Gallup poll that gives % of "scientists" that believe in forms of creationism

I brought this up ages ago but it seems that in that time the change we agreed on was reverted. If you bother reading the sentence below the table that gives the number of "scientists" that hold those opinions you would see that "scientist" is defined as "someone with a professional degree in science". This is an important distinction because some would define a scientist as someone with a pHd in science, or someone whose employeed to actively research some aspect of science. To avoid confusion and allegations of intentionally misleading readers the poll's definition of scientist should be emphasised. Eccentricned (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I say get rid of the poll altogether. An opinion poll, of people from a certain country with a certain degree, has nothing to do with scientific criticism of YEC. Opinion polls are only an illustration of a subject's level of support or belief. With respect, scientists are not generally valued for their beliefs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the description of the poll in the article does not agree with the description of the poll in the reference [63]. The correct description for the group is not "US adults with professional degrees in science" but rather should be "scientists" in order to accurately describe the poll. Regardless, as noted above, this opinion poll is not really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article describing this subject and should simply be removed from he article. Mkwelborn (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —

Are polls or "voting" permitted for both sides or only one side? Comments such as "our side" has more scientists than "your side" seem to be permitted by Ec5618 for an anti YEC viewpoint, but what about a poll such as Gallup? I didn't read the poll, but they do have a long history for poll-taking. Kristinwt (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Non neutral point of view

"The lack of support given by these professional journals and organizations reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that YEC claims have no scientific validity"

This may very well be true but it is a non-neutral statement in direct rebuttal of the YEC opinion in the prior sentence. I suggest this as a replacement: "Opponents of YEC explain the lack of support given by these professional journals and organizations reflects the overwhelming..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.19.6.125 (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version is an accurate characterisation that gives WP:DUE weight to the scientific consensus which is overwhelmingly against YEC. Your version appears to be an attempt to obscure that consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUE is policy -- this is not the forum for discussing its merits (to which I note that no viable alternative has been raised in any case)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"WP:DUE weight" is another way to misrepresent the YEC view by appealing to the flawed logical argument of [Argumentum ad numerum]. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) No Christian Skeptic, it is not "argumentum ad numerum", it is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of qualified experts -- as opposed to the YEC side which has just a motley bunch of unqualified and misqualified inexpert cranks backing it up. HrafnTalkStalk 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC) No it's not an argument ad numerum, it's an appeal to authority, and appeals to authority are pefectly valid if the authority has knowledge of that field. For example, if I reasoned that all crows are black beacause George Bush says so, that would be an invalid appeal to authority, but if I said that all crows were black because an ornothlogist said so, that would be perfectly valid.--Serviam (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Serviam: Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to authority) The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. The argument in the article is not an appeal to a famous person as an authority, but to the number of those who support a single POV. So it is not an appeal to authority. See web page noted below for flawed logic arguments. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) The fact that you are incapable of recognizing this as 'argumentum ad numerum' say volumes! And now you add [Argumentum ad hominem] on top of it. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Hopefully the new text addresses these concerns. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Saying that there is overwhelming scientific consensus that YEC has no scientific validity is perfectly true and perfectly neutral. If we said that it has no scientific validity, that would be non-neutral, but we don't, we say what the scientific community thinks, and if you have a problem with what they think you should discuss it with them, not us.--Serviam (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, while YEC may not be accepted by the majority of scientific community, I believe this article is patently biased--through and through. In order to make this article (and the others like it) more neutral, then why don't you research the credentials of prominent YEC scientists and founders? There is no reason to give YEC the "short shrift" when this is an informative encyclopedic article about YEC, and NOT it's opposition.198.209.32.200 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with their qualifications -- they tend to range from no scientific qualifications whatsoever (e.g. George McCready Price, John C. Whitcomb and Kent Hovind) to vestigial (e.g. Ken Ham) to largely irrelevant (e.g. Henry M. Morris). A small minority do have relevant qualifications (e.g. Kurt Wise) -- but these tend to get overshadowed by the ignorant and unqualified bloviators. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The page specifically states that YEC is of the opinion that any scientific theory at odds with the Bible is incorrect. A rebuttal is absolutely in order, lest it appear that their claims actually hold weight. Please read through WP:DUE. The subject of the article is YEC, yes. But the PURPOSE of the article is portray YEC correctly, not positively. You'll notice that the various articles on crop circles and UFO sightings don't omit such rebuttals. --King ♣ Talk 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The concern of an wikipedia is not that people perceive an argument to "hold weight", but to see that they have the facts available to them to draw their own conclusion. That means that, though the validity of the claims they support may be disputed, it is only fact that (ex:) "Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth is such-and-such years old." There is no room here for refutation because refutation is inherently biased. That is not to say there cannot be an article on "The Conflict of Young Earth Creationism and Science (or Darwinism, or Fluid Dynamics)" that could certainly house all of the anti-YEC arguments made here, but it is most certainly not the goal of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.73.123 (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is both relevant and required (per WP:DUE) to give due weight to the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that the YEC claims are WP:Complete bollocks with no scientific basis. Please read WP:FRINGE for guidance on the treatment of fringe topics. It states "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Which, for the record, is none. --King Öomie 04:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, first off; King, that was never in question. Back to the point at hand, it feels like these "complete bollocks" articles are too often treated as of less importance than articles on, say, Planck's constant, and this runs contrary the whole idea of neutrality. Here is an article which, on reading, does appear painfully biased and reads with a tone hauntingly similar to what one might expect to find in the counter article "Why Science Sucks" on Conservapedia. It creates the impression that we, as the Wikipedia editing community, are not comfortable enough with our own ideas to present those of others without feeling the need to slip in a few of our own beliefs. This is rather similar to the passive-aggressive teen who follows up every apologetic comment with an under-the-breath insult. In this article particularly, there are moments when the reader feels as though they are reading more about why Science is better than YEC than they are about YEC. I'll be frank, that's not the point of the article and we're better than that. However, on a closer reading of Undue Weight it does appear that the general consensus of the editors demands an article of this style. Thanks for the chat, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.73.123 (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My conscience precludes me from presenting complete garbage (according to scientific consensus, not my opinion) as anything close to fact. There's no problem with presenting it as believed by however many people, but to not point out that most, if not all of the foundation of YEC has been completely disproven... --King Öomie 13:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole page was very obviously edited by someone that does not want YEC view to be expressed. It should be neutral and explains what YEC's really believe (which objectively cannot be done by an evolutionist, just like a YEC person has no business editing evolution's page). I don't mind putting at the end that Evolutionists disagree with everything here, but this isn't the place for a debate, it should just be a statement of the beliefs, this is the most disappointing wiki article I have ever read and I have read many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.1.81 (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective, but Wikipedia's policies disagree with you. This article is not here for the sole purpose of letting YEC adherents describe themselves without critical commentary. See WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (including WP:MNA, WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, etc.). Gabbe (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But it is neutral. It is absolutely neutral, as YEC itself is contrary to many known facts. That is an objective statement, as is everything in the article. Presenting YEC as even possibly true with known facts would be misleading to readers. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Capital "C" or lowercase "c"

I'm just wondering if creation should have a capital "C" in it or a lowercase "c". There seems to be no reason to regard it as a proper noun. I see some logic, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendation, in using a capital letter for the Creator, as this is a proper name. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no responses, shall I conclude that the event of "creation" should indeed have a lowercase "c" since it is not a proper noun, whereas "Creator" should have an upper case "C"? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that "creationism" should be lc; "creator" should only be UC when it refers to a particular (supposed) deity. TheresaWilson (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the supposed event of "creation". I note that, whereas here the term is nearly always lower case, at Dating Creation it is everywhere uppercase in seeming defiance of the Manual of Style. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Same applies, if a deity is involved then, I suppose, it should be capped. If not then no. (As it's all rather silly (IMHO) it really doesn't matter but no need to needlessly offend the believers.) TheresaWilson (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think only "God" (when talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian god, in a similar manner to Allah, its Muslim equivalent) should be capitalised. If we capitalise "creator" and "creation", then where do we stop? "Redeemer"/"Redemption"? "Saviour"/"Salvation"? "Messiah"? If you capitalise one function/byname of godhood, surely you'd have to capitalise them all. Better to only capitalise the god's proper name (be it the Judeo-Christian "God", the Judaic "Yahweh", the Islamic "Allah" or the Norse "Odin"), and leave creator, saviour, old-one-eye, etc in lower case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! TheresaWilson (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the MoS recommendation:

Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah.

I believe that "Creator" falls within the scope of this recommendation, although I could be wrong. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the convention would be Creator--creation, Redeemer--redemption, etc. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's a creator in the form of a little green man as possible in some scenarios of course. TheresaWilson (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is in changing it. Both Scientific American and TalkOrigins use it in lower case. I could probably find dozens more sources. The Squicks (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it matters more for other articles like Dating Creation (which seems to take a more apologetics POV than it should), where both "Creator" and "Creation" are capitalized throughout. However, in this article "Creator" at least I can see as conforming to the manual of style (and thus should be capitalized per Wikipedia's conventions) whereas "Creation" should definitely not be capitalized. I just wanted to make sure that this was in accord with the prevailing opinion of editors, but there seems to be no especially coherent opinion on the matter one way or the other. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mean, we should use whatever conventions the reliable sources use, shouldn't we? Our personal preferences-- this looks cleaner, this doesn't-- aren't at issue. The Squicks (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this article been condensed and merged with Creation Science?

While I'm sure that serious students of the topic enjoy the differences between YEC and Creation Science, I don't think that the two topics are, on their face, distinct enough to warrant separate articles. This entry is far too long and the authors have spent far too much time relating useless detail after useless detail (as well as the obligatory criticism of those details). Call a spade a spade: while YEC might mean the world to some editors, it's really just another footnote of creation science which, in turn, is just a footnote of theology. Let's strive for clarity, Wikipedians, and stop clogging the tubes with this overwrought prose. 98.219.34.116 (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this previous entry belongs to me. I see that I'm still unable to edit this article, but as soon as I'm able to do so I will suggest that it be condensed and merged with the creation science article. If the stewards of this verbose article care to address that same verbosity then I would be happy to hear their arguments. EDITED TO INCLUDE SIGNATURE Highmind89 (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will get far in combining this with another page. There is a BIG difference between YEC and Creation Science. If anything Creation Science might be considered just a footnote to or phase of YEC. True, YEC is a religious belief, just the same as Naturalism-- the basis for Abiogenesis and Evolutionism. Creation Science is simply science done within the paradigm of YEC just as Evolutionary science is done within the paradigm of Naturalism. I agree that it may be a bit verbose..... Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic's claims are fallacious:

1. Methodological naturalism is not a "religious belief" (and in fact even metaphysical naturalism could be argued not to be a religious belief, merely a contra-religious one)
2. Creation science is not "science done within the paradigm of YEC" -- as (i) it does not attempt to do anything beyond trying to find 'evidence' to support its own original premise of YEC ('YEC therefore YEC' -- hardly profound) -- so is valueless for anything other than YEC Christian apologetics and (ii) it's 'research' is largely mere quote mining of legitimate scientific research.

Whether separate articles are needed for YEC and pseudoscientific apologetics for YEC (i.e. 'Creation Science') is another matter. My impression is that there is insufficient overlap to warrant merging and more than sufficient RS information to support the two separate articles . Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are many creationists who are scientists that do more than just look for evidence of Creation. Christian Skeptic is right in that Creation science is "science done within the paradigm of YEC". Science does not aim to to prove either creation or evolution. Both of them are beliefs, and both interpret the same evidence differently. Don't bother getting Creation science changed to "pseudoscientific apologetics for YEC", because it's blatant POV pushing, and will never happen. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We're getting off topic, but, yes, there are a small number of creationists who are also scientists. But they do not publish their creationist "research", at least not in the scientific literature. Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm, they work as professional scientists in a range of fields (predominantly the physical sciences), and publish papers in these fields much as other scientists do. But there's a cavernous gulf between this work and their creationism, as evidenced by both their own scientific output and the absence of creationist concepts in science. I don't know how these creationist scientists do it, but one can't but admire their ability to resist cognitive dissonance. But, I guess, when you know you're right ... --PLUMBAGO 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, all of this is completely beside the point. My 2 cents is that since YEC is an intellectual belief and Creation Science is a methodology of action/activies-- they are different enough that they merit seperate articles. See the seperate articles 'Dianetics' and 'Scientology', for example. The Squicks (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion on YEC

After looking through the article, I was surprised to see that public opinion on YEC was only mentioned twice and a somewhat passing-- out of place way. Would it be a good idea to create its own section for it? The Squicks (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article on the Creation-evolution controversy in which public opinion polls are discussed at length, and in a proper fashion. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A Big Change

With Hrafn retired, please see MsTopeka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Introduction

I believe that Muslims also believe in the creation of the earth by God, and that there are some of them who hold to the Young Earth creationist view. Would it not be prudent to include them in the trio of the three religious groups that show at least some support for this view?

The main Islamic voice, as far as I know, advocating creationism is Harun Yahya, who is explicitly Old Earth. If there are YEC muslims, a source has to be given. It seems unlikely, since the book of genesis is not part of the muslim cannon. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, here is a link to a Muslim scholar who advocates a young earth, Dr. Mohammad N. Wagdi, Ph.D. [1]BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to the above scholars web site, and included some text to the effect that some Muslims also support a young earth.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The source provided appears to be a self-published book. Is there any evidence that YEC views are at all widespread in Islam? It seems that the account of creation in the Qu'ran is not as specific as Genesis, so that a literal interpretation doesn't seem to require a YEC perspective. This is, at least, what the article Islamic creationism says. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to debate how many, or how much Muslims support the young earth thoery, simply that some of them do. If this statement is in error, then it is in error, if it is fact, then it is fact. Even only one Muslim who uses the Qur'an to support or advocate a young earth would make the statement, "Even some Muslims advocate a young earth," true. BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if true, the coverage in the encyclopedia should still meet the requirements set forth in WP:WEIGHT. YEC beliefs are quite widespread among Christians and Jews. At this point, putting Muslims alongside them seems like WP:UNDUE weight, since so far we have a reference that there is one Muslim holding a YEC perspective, not that it is a widespread belief, nor that there is even a small but noticeable group of Muslims that hold this belief. If there are better and more reliable sources, then this can stay here. Otherwise it should go. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K., how many Muslims do I need to find?BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Typically when several individuals believe the same thing, they come together to form a group. Are there any societies devoted to YEC is a Muslim context that we can reference? Have their been any noteworthy controversies over (e.g.) teaching the age of the earth in schools with a significant Muslim population? Is there any mention of YEC creationism in some published books or in the media? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Muslims dont believe in YEC. In fact, Quranic view of creation is very much in line with the Big Bang theory (i.e. Surah Zariyat, 51.47. And the heaven, We have constructed it mightily; and it is surely We Who have vast power, and keep expanding it.). I havent come across a single muslim, or publication by a muslim, in my life, who believes in YEC. We leave the discussion of the young earth to our Jewish and Christian friends... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.80.226 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zuiyo Maru.jpg

The image Image:Zuiyo Maru.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence?

There isnt any evidence for creationism here. I think a new article should be created called "Scientific evidence for Creationism". Refreshed...Refreshments (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's because there is no scientific evidence for creationism. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you proven that for yourself, or are you just taking other people's word for it? ;) T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(ps. in other words, have you run scientific experiments on this claim of yours yourself, or do you just have faith in other people's claims? I agree with Refreshments)

See scientific method, and feel free to point to peer reviewed publications providing "scientific evidence for creationism" which hasn't been thoroughly debunked. . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence for creation. There is plenty for evolution. Evidence of common descent is a fascinating article which details the evidence we have for evolution, and is extensivly referenced to peer reviewed publications.--Patton123 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Patton, you seem a bit ignorant to the facts. If there is no evidence, you don't have anything to worry about do you? Refreshments (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is a religious belief and as such is exempt from requiring scientific proof. For more, see Faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationism isn't just a belief. If the article has no basis in scientific evidence, then you don't have anything to worry about. The article wouldn't be proposed if there was no evidence supporting the view. Anyway, I'm going to see who I can get on my side for this project. gtg Refreshments (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide some valid scientific evidence, there is nothing to prevent you adding it to the article yourself. Please continue. TheresaWilson (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help me create an article called "Scientific evidence for Creationism"? Refreshments (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a VERY short article!! Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey nice name... How long is a piece of string tea pot? Refreshments (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Before an article is created, I would think there would have to be some indication that the evidence was extensive enough to merit a new article, rather than a section in an existing article. Having read rather extensively in the field of Young Earth apologetics and creation science, I'm simply not convinced that that's the case. A brief outline of the evidence you would like to include might be helpful; too often, people who claim to have "scientific evidence of Creation" actually turn out to be offering the same rehashed arguments from personal incredulity, or thoroughly debunked claims like Kent Hovind's "shrinking sun" argument. --BRPierce (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would love to help you, but I really have no time at least for the next few months. A person can say that creation science arguments have all been defeated, but only if you agree with the presupposition that my professor repeatedly gave in university (and many mindless drones unthinkingly repeat!), "Science doesn't have an answer, but it only means that it doesn't have an answer yet." (Hence one can say that people put faith in science, which for some reason doesn't appear to them as comically ironic). There are a few creation science arguments that certainly fall under that "cover-my-*ss excuse" and would be suitable for an article like this. I agree though, it needs to be built in a sandbox (or at least have some solid structure) prior to being posted or anti-creationists will jump all over it and it will be deleted quickly. Can it be added to this article? Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 20:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This comment is indicative of what I'm concerned might happen with such an article...the idea that "Creation science arguments" boil down to things that science doesn't have an answer for. Far too often, "Arguments for creation science" amount to "Pointing out that science doesn't have an answer for X." That's a false dilemma; the fact that science can't explain something does not automatically mean that it's evidence of a divine creator, and certainly doesn't mean that it's evidence that the God of Abraham created the world in six days. If such an article were built, it would need to be built around documented and verifiable evidence that supports the Creationist account--not around "God of the gaps" arguments. --BRPierce (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

True. You raise a good point. But we allow "Science-of-the-gaps" arguments, do we not? What is the theory of evolution if not that? It is full of gaps, and it certainly cannot prove its starting point. Is it then not a double standard not to allow (what you call) a "God of the gaps" argument? (Most) YEC's do not deny science's proofs -- they see these proofs as discoveries of the rule by which God governs the universe. What they deny are some of these theories and hypothesis if they do not fit in with a Creationists presuppositions. These theories are there because non-Creationists have their own presuppositions (I've stated one already -- "If Science doesn't know the answer, it just means that it doesn't know it yet -- that is a presupposition, it could be called faith. This is why some call Science a religion...).

What is true, is that a YEC will never find proof for the God of the Bible who created a universe in 6 days without appealing to the Bible. I realize this and accept it. Just like a YEC will never accept the big bang theory so will a non-Creationist not accept the Creation theory. However: the non-Creationist is allowed to give his/her perspective by appealing to and interpreting modern day science, and so I think that a YEC can give their perspective also by appealing to and interpreting modern day science.

Now this is what I don't have time to do, but I think would be valuable: To show that YEC's do not ignore, disbelieve, deny scientific proofs. And in fact they are confirmed in their beliefs by scientific proofs. Thus it would be an article looking at the Creationist's use of scientific proofs. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The approach to teaching "creation science" and "evolution-science" found in Act 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.

The two model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science "evidence" in support of Section 4(a).[2] dave souza, talk 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There you go Refreshments, Dave has provided you with a link above to valuable sources, as well as even the quote itself which can be used in a section in the article titled "Critique of Creation Science" (or something like that). Although, to repeat, the article would need to state clearly that its presupposition is the Bible. Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This talk of "getting people to help" and finding "evidence" is all very well, but what this proposed article really needs is reliable sources. Without those, the anti-creationists won't get a look in. The new page patrollers and anti-original research editors will eat it right up. But then, if there is evidence, you don't have anything to worry about do you? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, "faith-based" editing contravenes WP:NOR and evidence is always required. Our materialistic outlook leaves no room for the immaterial. . . dave souza, talk 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean "Where is the scientific evidence" right?

Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably interpreted by evolutionists and atheists/naturalists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

YECs maintain that scientists have collected the evidence for Young earth creationism but drawn the wrong conclusions from it. The shortest possible explanation to the question of 'where is the scientific evidence?' (as opposed to the unscientific evidence of science-of-the-gaps, faith, etc) would be the answer: "Its the same evidence." It is missing the mark to say "There is no scientific evidence for YEC", because the YECs, by the YEC's way of thinking, have precisely the same amount of scientific evidence as the scientists. --Zerothis (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Refreshments wishes scientific proofs for Creationism:

I think a new article should be created called "Scientific evidence for Creationism"

my first reaction is:

1. rename to Argument used for Creationism,
2. if you understand science, really, you should know that all "proofs" are tentative, and shall be scrutinized and checked forever, this is valid for Wikipedia too,
3. you are obliged to erect Creationism a theory, or as creationists tend to say just a theory, and you are obliged to consider evolution an equal theory scrutinized to exactly the same rules as Creationism,
4. you cannot apply religious dogma — religious dogma are not allowed within science, nor within Wikipedia, which means that you cannot apply some literal interpretations of the Bible and believe you will convince the other editors to adjust their opinions to you — especially not Evolutionist Christians like me, who all the time have to confront the troubles all Creationists are creating for persons with true faith (cf. 2 Cor 3:6 and consider!),
5. proofs aren't needed, since Wikipedia doesn't care about "truth", it cares very much about citations and reliable sources, and for such a topic as "Argument used for Creationism", any American selfstyled creation science guy will suffice for such a weird and apart topic,
6. IMHO, arguments against Creationism is very important, such as "Adam didn't have time to name all 10,000,000 species in 1 day", and "men have an even number of ribs, not an odd number",

I would like some enlightenment of the deteriorating Western Culture, but creationism and creationists makes this task virtually impossible. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the creation of an article called "Argument used for Creationism" is a great idea because it would allow creationists to feel like they have their views represented and it would allow macroevolutionists to see what creationists believe and a page where macroevolutionists can send creationists to in order to express their opinions (with reliable resources, of course.)Invmog (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your thought does, of course, propose a WP:POVFORK based on primary sources, and indeed unreliable sources at that. Not acceptable here, you might find another place more amenable. . . dave souza, talk 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Denialism

The situation: An anonymous IP has been placing this category up in the "See also" section. It has been removed at least 3 times that I can tell, and this IP places it right back. Most recently it was then place back by an established User, who criticized the another editor for taking it down, even though it is within Wikipedia guidelines, and even though they left reasonable and instructive comments on the IP's page. Therefore I have moved it here to place it up for discussion to stop the edit war that is brewing.

Question for discussion: Does Denialism belong in the See also section? Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 21:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Denialism article expands upon the philosophy inherent in the movement. Why do you think it's irrelevant? Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it fits. But that's not the point here. I am not going to rail-road my opinion through without discussion. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 21:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are edit warring to make a point? And the first time it was put in you called it "vandalism." So something doesn't fit here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is Denialism. The first sentence of the article on Denialism says: 'Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists.'

Young Earthers say the earth isn't any more than 10,000 years old, (when science has shown it to be over 4 billion years old) and that the reason nobody believes this is due to 'censorship'. That's flat-out denialism (...'rejecting propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists'). HalfShadow 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we put the link back in now? Or is the POINT still being made? Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Aunt E., stop being so arrogant. Why do you have to be so? I have put a comment on Smage's talk page telling him/her about this and I think that he/she should be given time to respond why he thinks that this should not be here -- you've barely allowed an hour. Believe it or not, this article has survived a long time without that wiki-link and I'm sure it can last another day out of common courtesy to other editors. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, arrogant? Please be civil as you violate WP:POINT. This is the most obvious example of denialism. Vsmith (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Tjbergsma, calling Auntie "arrogant" is a personal attack, please withdraw that statement and accept that in good faith you seem to be edit warring out of WP:POINT rather than on the merits of the edit. Of course you may have an explanation you didn't bother giving in response to the earlier enquiry. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I was trying to solve a conflict between two other editors in a simple manner. I have seen it moved to talk pages before and it has worked, and so I was doing the same. I had only good intentions (see here, and here) - which was to allow the anonymous IP's edit to stand without having a User keep deleting it and calling it vandalism (as was happening). It is also true, I initially called it vandalism several days ago (AuntE. only gave 1 side of the story and spread this half truth around: Here), but I apologized for it to the IP (I was hasty in my vandalism patrol), and this was my attempt to make it up to that IP:

When I noticed that it kept being labeled as vandalism, I moved it here in order to form a consensus, so that it could stand in the article. I did it this way, because I wanted to assume good faith with the User who deleted it, which is what I hadn't done originally with the IP who added it. Unlike others who came here for the sole purpose of being "cantankerous" and looking to create an edit war (see here), I was trying my best not to step on toes in a very, very minor occurrence that has been blown out of the water by some who otherwise have no interest in this article. However, it's done. Let's leave it alone. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This will not be dropped until you retract your false statements against me. I did not call in outside editors. That is a lie. I asked Orange Marlin to comment on the talk page, which is exactly what you asked him to do, but in an edit summary. It's better to contact the person directly instead of arguing per edit summary, so that is what I did. And for that I get all these accusations of gaming the system.

I spread no "half-truths". You pushed the idea that the edit was vandalism repeatedly because it was put in after being reverted. Well I looked at the history and noted the first time it was put in you called it "vandalism" which pretty much put a whole in your original claim. And just because someone may have followed your lead in calling it vandalism doesn't make it so. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

T-berg, if you are able to tell time, you will note that I reverted you at 14:21. Aunt Entropy asked me to review your edits at 14:40. That's your first problem. Secondly, YEC is a form of denialism, and if you care to actually read the denialism article, you would note that it is. Otherwise, the rest of the article is a religious discussion of the faith-based understanding of the geology and the natural world. As long as YEC doesn't claim any science, you can write whatever else you want, up to and including that sasquatch was saved by Noah. But if you say, there's geologic evidence that it happened, well that's POV, and frankly not true. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin: Problem one is no problem -- she told you I thought it was vandalism (she was wrong and not AGF) and asked you to come here. The problem is that you came (in your own words) "in a very cantankerous mood" and in order to "right the attitude of some creationist POV pushing editor." Problem two is also not a real problem (are you actually reading what I've written??) because I supported the addition of the wiki-link to Denialism. I was making my first ever attempt at getting two other editors to agree nicely, and then it blew up when the whole neighborhood showed up (the one kept deleting the other one). What is wrong with what I've done? I was only trying to build a quick consensus so that the one editor would not keep deleting the anonymous IP's edit. And stop spreading half-truths about me please, Tjbergsma (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 03:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TLDR, I was kind of done at "problem one is no problem". You should look up the word "succinct." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how's this: You are (in your own words) "in a very cantankerous mood" and you came here in order to "right the attitude of some creationist POV pushing editor." And now you are just plain rude. Tjbergsma (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At no time did you imply you considered the edit in question anything other than vandalism, and you did mark it vandalism the first time you reverted it. That is a fact. Do not again say I failed to show you good faith. That is a personal attack. I've asked you repeatedly to stop with your false accusations. You need to focus on the edit, and not what you think are my, Orange Marlin's or anyone else's private motivations. This has been a big waste of time and has gone on long enough. Aunt Entropy (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, I don't want any part of this. I made a mistaken edit. The consensus seems to be keep. I have my own views on the subject, and I no interest in editing this article any further. --smadge1 (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone is in agreement about the content issue, it looks like the article has been improved, and in the interests of a harmonious editing environment, can we close this thread? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the re-addition. Have a look at the 2nd line of the Denialism defintition. "... rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none". YECs are *not* using rhetorical tactics, and *are* involved in legitimate debate. ^rossnixon 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate debate my foot. All YEC has for it is religious texts and flat denial of scientific evidence and consensus. I'm pretty sure denying the consensus and the evidence is denialism, according to its own page. As for them not using rhetorical tactics: Of course they do. Alongside logical fallacies, half-truths, and outright lies. 69.109.184.226 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm 69.109.184.226 and the other anon IPs that were adding Denialism to the see also. I got tired of using anon IP so I made an account. Mkemper331 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

YEC involves the denial of wide swathes of science -- evolutionary biology, palaeontology, geology, nuclear physics (underlying much of geochronology), astrophysics and cosmology immediately come to mind. The category would therefore seem to be accurate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that whether YEC *is* denialism is the point: I think everyone here would agree that explicitly calling it denialism in the body of the article is non-NPOV, so if the "see also" link is supposed to be a passive-aggressive way of saying it implicitly then it's definitely a bad idea. And even if that's not the goal, it's not unreasonable to think that the presence of the link with no commentary may be taken to be saying that YECs *are* denialists. I do think the Denialism article is relevant, however. I think the best solution would be to note within the body of the article that YECs are often accused of engaging in Denialism, with the cite and link and whatever context there. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

YEC is "generally considered" denialism, so categorising it as such is congruent with WP:ARB/PS's ruling on calling things pseudoscience. GoogleBooks give a number of hits on the juxtaposition of the two terms, including "Fundamentalist Christians staked a great deal on a young earth and a denial of evolutionary development of species, especially of humanity"[3], "Creationism is the religiously based denial of evolution"[4], "The denial of common ancestry is unsurprising in creation science"[5] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was mainly responding to the "see also" link to the Denialism article, which is the one I think keeps being added and reverted. I didn't see anyone adding the category, but it doesn't necessarily seem like a bad idea. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware there was a denialism category. It would fit. Denialism is defined, in the article, as the denial, by a group of individuals or an interest group or other body, of something on which there is a scientific or scholarly consensus. Young Earth creationism is certainly an example of that. They deny biology (evolution), cosmology (big bang), physics and chemistry (age of the earth), geology (plate tectonics)... Mkemper331 (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it's very name is an explicit and unambiguous denial of the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, so it probably ranks as "obvious" denialism (using WP:ARB/PS's hierarchy), so both category and see-also would, prima facie, be acceptable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary theory denies the scholarly consensus of Bible literalists. So Cat:Denialism would be a "obvious" fit for the Evolution article too! ^rossnixon 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bible literalists have no evidence backing them up except for the Bible itself (which is about as reliable as the Odyssey or the Iliad, really). Scientists have mountains of evidence supporting evolution and flatly contradicting the literalist biblical view. Therefore, you're wrong. Mkemper331 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A whole range of science (not just "Evolutionary theory"), along with a large body of genuinely scholarly research on the Bible, contradicts the religiously-motivated axiom of biblical literalism. Are you finished playing spurious word-games that are in violation of WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity" rossnixon? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolution has evidence and young Earth creationism ignores evidence that contradicts it, so the denialism link is fine for this page but not the one for evolution. --Evice (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources, Tor proxies, and disruptive editing

The issue of whether the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are admissible as sources for the beliefs of creationists has already been discussed in the archives at /Archive 5#Unreliable sources, where it was determined that there was nothing wrong with the sources. An anonymous IP, who is running under a Tor proxy (see [6], [7]) continues to remove these sources. Another (?) anonymous editor behind a Tor proxy has already disruptively and tendentiously attempted to stir up trouble here some time ago. If edit-warring continues, I will have the page semiprotected so that only established users can edit it. In the mean time, I suggest that the IP editor consider that the topic ban against Tor users who try to remove sources from this article remains in effect. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you were looking for Tor (anonymity network). I don't happen to agree with that consensus, by the way, but I offer my support anyway. My reasoning is that while it does INVOLVE a religious belief, the content being supported is not. For example, rather than saying that the opponents are prejudiced, why not simply accept that the see things differently... that THEIR faith conflicts with the YEC faith. I will look at the text, and see if I can offer a bit of help, if the war lets me.sinneed (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording, as its previous state would seem to me to violate wp:BLP. I believe the current wording is a neutral statement of the fact that the YEC organizations cited strongly condemn the lack of support. I would encourage you not to restore the old wording without careful consideration of wp:BLP. All the best, and I hope that helps.sinneed (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:BLP, so I really don't understand your concern. It seems like a cop-out in order to put your own version beyond any possibility of dissent. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead-in text.

"For example," - this says that the following text is an example of a consensus. It isn't needed lead-in. My favorite English prof would yell "JUST SAY IT!"

"evidence-based facts" - Current, excellent theory. Not facts. Excellent evidence. How can people trust us when we mislead them?

"established" - false. Conclusions and theories are supported by evidence.

"derived experimental results" - derived is not correct. The results are the results.

"without any contradiction from scientific evidence" - pointless and OR. The numbers vary, they *MUST*. We have inferences, averages, and consensus. Claiming exact numbers, 100% agreement, etc. is false and destroys credibility. There is no excuse for it.

"that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" - Why not hit the low end and say "more than"? Then there *ISN'T* any contradiction. There most certainly is for the 4.5 billion number. What's a few hundred million either way? Just longer than humans have been walking around, that is all.

"common primordial origin" - primordial is just for effect. Indicated: common origin. Inference: primordial. For all we know it all died off and new stuff came along. Maybe more than once. Why not stay to things that are easy to defend?

sinneed (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy/paste

At http://www.interacademies.net "© Copyright 2005-2008 IAP. All Rights Reserved." appears on short study to apply to the text in the lead-in copied from http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf

If not, it needs to be documented, and really, the fact that it is quoted should be shown by quotes at least. They deserve credit.

If so, it needs to be rephrased. This certainly explains the pedantic wording.

sinneed (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The material is cited to this source and is not a verbatim copy&paste of the material (longest exact match appears to be "Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago"). I don't think that quote-marks for such material is advisable, as it would give the impression that this is just a single opinion, as opposed to the opinion of the entire scientific community (or as close a facsimile as you can get an answer out of). If somebody objects to the above without quotemarks, then they are weclome to come up with an equivalent paraphrase. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, paraphrasing was NOT welcome. Perhaps a different paraphrasing.*shrug*sinneed (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Source?

"^ Christianity and Judaism being the two major religions for which Genesis is canonical."

This statement appears to be cited as a wp:reliable source in the lead-in. Killing it. Perhaps it should be a parenthetical phrase?sinneed (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be surprised to discover that in most scholarly literature, footnotes are not only used to present sources, but also to clarify points in the text. Wikipedia is no exception. Per our Wikipedia:Footnotes section of the manual of style:

"Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, they are used to add material that explains a point in greater detail, particularly if the explanation would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article."

Since no reasonable person could be expected to think that the footnote you objected to is intended to cite any sources, it must be that, in fact, the purpose of this note is to clarify the point stated in the text. I have removed your parenthetical version of the footnote, because it did not follow the standard grammatical norms for punctuation, and it rendered the sentence nearly unreadable. At any rate, I don't think this point needs to be made, and I think the footnote was originally added for the dubious purpose of mitigating those who would unthinkingly add "...and Muslims" to the list (despite the lack of any prominent YEC Muslims). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored the fact flag. Since there was a statement that needed a citation, and there was none.sinneed (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what your {{fact}} tag was about. Was it about whether these are Christians and Jews? Or was it about the definition of Young Earth creationism. The latter seems a reasonable request, so I have given a good general reference on the subject. Otherwise, I don't know what would satisfy you here: that there are Christian YECs? Jewish YECs? Both of these details are already covered in the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the article is that only Christians and Jews are Young Earth Creationists. That needs a source. I have pulled it. Please do not readd it without a source.sinneed (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(killed a remark I made that did not belong here at all)sinneed (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Only Christians and Jews are YECs, as these are the only religions for which Genesis is canonical, and therefore the only religions with any reason to take it literally. We have sources for both these groups having members who are YECs. We have no source for any other religious group having members who are YECs. Therefore it is reasonable for the article to state "Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who..." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I know there are Muslim Creationists, and Islam certainly accepts Genesis at some level. Probably Bahai'i does, but I don't know that they extend to Creationism. Other than that, your argument seems sound. Spotfixer (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bahai'i is not a major world religion. Also, I'm totally open to the possibility of Muslim YECs as well, but so far the only ones to cross my radar have been isolated WP:SPS websites from Muslims sympathetic to the Genesis account. As Hrafn says, the Biblical account of Genesis is not canonical in Islam, and so Muslims are not bound in the same manner by dogma to believe in a young Earth. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Harun Yahya is a good example of Islamic Creationism, and I think the form he espouses is young-Earth, but I could be mistaken about that detail. Spotfixer (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you are mistaken in that detail. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Spotfixer (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, if so, you will have no trouble finding a source, I am sure. In the meantime, I have restored the fact-flag, as there remains no such statement. "major" is not "only", just for example. It really is essential *NOT TO KILL* a flag without providing a source. I have restored this for the 3rd time now. Please stop.sinneed (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored the flag yet again. This is not appropriate. The article says something VERY different than the source.sinneed (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored the fact flag again, 3rd revert for me today, and done. The source does not say what the article claims. sinneed (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact flag is neither to make a point, nor is it to be tendentious. It is certainly acceptable to include a false statement in Wikipedia, if there is a wp:RS that says it. There is not in this case. The flagged statement needs a source.sinneed (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed: you are WP:EDITWARing to include a fact-tag on an already-referenced statement in an extremely WP:POINT manner. The statement does not explicitly state "only", and whatever implication there may be of it is reasonable given that only Christians and Jews regard Genesis as canonical and as there are no WP:RSes for counterexamples. The current text is reliably sourced and is more accurate and informative than any immediately-apparent alternative. There is a WP:CONSENSUS for its inclusion as is. If you want to make a song and dance over it, then your legitimate recourse is to call an RfC. It is not to editwar on the subject.

Hafrn, as you say, it is not to editwar on the subject... so, why would you?sinneed (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted twice on this subject in recent days -- you have (by my count) tried to get your way 6 times, against multiple editors. Equivalence? I think not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Finding a copy of the cited source shows no mention of "Young Earth" or "Creationism" anywhere in the book.sinneed (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Owning and frequently referencing (the latest edition of) The Creationists, I know that you're completely wrong. On p10-11 it describes Flood Geology & Creation science (two pseudoscientific movements supporting YEC) as holding to a "6-Day Edenic Creation of Life and Humans" "4000-8000 BC", covers YECs in chapters 5, 7, 10-12, as well as in many other parts e.g. discussing the Biblical Creation Society's refusal to limit membership to "young earthers" at p358. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Further the latest edition is cited three times elsewhere in the article, which should have told you that it was mentioned. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The searchable text of ISBN 0809143496 is available online, and does not contain the text I quoted. So no, I am not "completely wrong".sinneed (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you search for "young earth" or "recent creation" or any other variant? I think not. Therefore "completely wrong" covers it perfectly. Anybody who actually knows something about this subject knows that The Creationists is the most canonical history of the movement, and would most certainly cover major forms of it such as YEC. Anybody making statements to the contrary simply loses all credibility. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the ISBN under contention here is the one one the Torah, which was provided to indicate (per the original placement of the {{fact}} tag) that Genesis is only canonical in Christianity and Judaism. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then nobody in their right mind would expect it to have "mention of 'Young Earth' or 'Creationism' anywhere in the book". It supports the explanation of why these are the religions that would be open to YEC. It does not purport to verify their inclusion in the statement (which is done by the Numbers & Zucker citations at the end). For myself, I am sick to death of Sinneed's edit-warring on a hair-splitting WP:POINT, and would suggest that she is rapidly approaching earning a block or topic-ban. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A source for the elusive non-Christian/Jewish YECer

Does sinneed have a source for any non-Christian or Jewish young earth creationists? I honestly can't see a legitimate reason to fight for this tag (especially a cite for the nonexistent word "only") unless one had some sort of evidence these people actually exist. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

People versus Subject matter

I've notice spots where the YEC topic flips around from being a subject YE Creationism to it being a reference for people YE CreationISTS". I believe this article should not be a forum to take pot-shots at people, but should keep to a distanced view by discussing the subject matter and not discussing adherents. A business like approach is to address the subject not the people. Less personal that way on a heated topic. Kristinwt (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that the history of YE Creationism is closely intertwined with that of prominent YE Creationists who created/promoted it (most notably George McCready Price and Henry M. Morris), your suggestion would seem to be unreasonable, as a general principle. If you wish to bring up specifics, they can be looked at. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They may be closely related. However, it's a psychological trick to bring up people as an object rather than a subject. Remember in the book 1984, during the Two Minutes Hate, the face of the person would morf into a wolf? Orwell, was speaking to something that happens in humanity. In the reverse, as an example, there was a British book on the Revolutionary War. The author most often refers to George Washington, not as a person, not by name, but as "The man in blue" (or was it the "figure in blue") This disembodies a person, makes them not of substance. And plus, if you talk about people, or a person, then isn't it more liable to disparagement and personal attack rather than attacking a subject would be?Kristinwt (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these analogies seem particularly apt (and the latter flimsy even on its own merits). Please give specific examples of the "psychological trick to bring up people as an object" within the article. Is it 'disembodying' Johnny Cash to refer to him as "The Man in Black"? I think not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Promotes Ad Hominem attacks. Kristinwt (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That response is neither specific, nor even coherent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, since Kristinwt has mentioned Orwell, you are by default sinister and evil for continuing to disagree with them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "them" of which you speak. <shudders> siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who isn't one of us o'course, and <portentously> they must be eliminated. </portentously> Y'know? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm only slightly a leftie -- more or less ambidextrous -- so I'm really not that "sinister". So there! :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Popularity as an argument versus Truth

Some people believe that if there are a majority, say 51% of people believing one way then that makes it a valid position to hold. I see words like that in this article. This is supposed to be an article on YEC, but I see words mostly redirecting to OEC or Evolution. I'd like to see a list of arguments defining what is seen in nature as pointing to a YE model of creationism. As it stands we have a few editors who say, "There are none." None is a strong term. If editors won't let ideas be brought up however erroneous and left to view, how can this be unbiased journalism? Is this a cleaned up version of community? Why do I get the idea that Old Earthers are the main ones writing, vetoing the article on YEC? Is truth based on democracy? Do we vote science in? Are some ideas more equal than others? Kristinwt (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV/FAQ. Wikipedia is not journalism, the aim is to accurately reflect expert opinion on the subject, ahowing the minority view in that context. To the extent that YEC claims to be science, it's an extreme minority expert view. In terms of theology it's probably a more significant minority view, reliable sources giving expert opinion welcome. Note that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with what you just said. When looking at the Evolution article I see no such other opinions on the opposing side of it as much as there is in this article. Wikipedia is suppose to be a fair, unbiased view upon such articles, upon which this article has very little. If you want to show criticism of said article, then put it in the criticism section of the article. I may not be a YEC, in fact I don't believe in this stuff at all, but seriously though guys, lets just back off a bit. Let's try a little respect towards other opinions. If they want to believe that way, okay then let them do it in at least an unbiased way.--66.169.200.163 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT policy – articles about fringe views such as this one must make it clear that these are minority views, and show the relevant majority view, while articles about a majority view need not mention insignificant fringe views. The structure section mentions the problem with isolating significant views in a "criticisms" section. . dave souza, talk 10:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

When YEC makes scientific claims such as the age of the universe, it gets the weight the scientists place on it: soundly refuted. When evolution makes scientific claims, it also gets the weight the scientists place on it: all of it. This is fair and unbiased. Both get the same treatment. The reason you see no "other opinions on the opposing side" on the evolution page is because there aren't any. If there was a second theory and scientists didn't know which was right and were split down the middle, both would be presented and conflicting with each other. If tomorrow all scientists change their minds and decide that YEC is correct, you'll get that weight instead and the refutation they give of evolution will be on its page instead. Assuming that the internet still works in Bizzaro World. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

YEC & Pseudoscience

Can anybody point to a prominent form of YEC that is not closely associated with claims that the scientific community generally regard as pseudoscientific? By YEC, I am meaning viewpoints since the geological discoveries of the 17th century that made the age of the Earth an issue, and particularly those views coming after the popularisation of Biblical literalism and adoption of the label 'Creationism' in the early-to-mid 20th century.

Given George McCready Price, The Genesis Flood, ICR, AiG, etc, etc, the overlap between YEC & its pseudoscientific claims would appear to be complete. This would appear to be in contrast to Gap creationism and Day-age creationism, which hew to a more accomodationist path, finding theological solutions to accommodate the scientific discoveries of their day.

I would therefore recommend the re-inclusion of the 'pseudoescience' cat. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I find this argument convincing. Re-inclusion sounds like the way to go. ClovisPt (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue with this logic. While YEC is a religious view, it is one that attempts to supplant science, hence it is pseudoscientific. Spotfixer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

YEC is a religious view that is opposed to the current scientific consensus on origins. It often calls on Creation Science in support - this is the pseudoscientific topic, not the religious YEC view which often stands alone. ^rossnixon 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition at [Category:Pseudoscience] is "A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not". YEC's primary support is a plain interpretation of the Bible. ^rossnixon 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As I implied, and as Spotfixer explicitly stated, "YEC is a religious view" that "attempts to supplant science". It does not merely 'often call upon' Creation Science, it to all intents and purpose is Creation Science -- to the extent that The Creationists summary of the major creationist positions (pp10-11 of the latest edition) calls the YEC position "Creation Science or Flood Geology". Please point to any major YEC organisation or book that does not intimately involve pseudoscientific claims. Claims that (a particular interpretation of) the Bible is scientifically/historically accurate when it contradicts the consensus of the appropriate academic community is pseudoscience/pseudohistory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Ross Nixon, the plain interpretation of the Bible is that it's a collection of various myths from a couple of thousand years ago. YEC, on the other hand, interprets it as a science textbook. This is precisely what makes YEC a form of pseudoscience; it claims to replace science as we know it with something "better". 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy Officially YECist?

There's a passage in the article which states, without citation, that

YEC has always been the stated position of the Oriental Orthodox Church, without having gone through any decline and revival.

The only supporting statement given is a quote from one Coptic Orthodox cleric.

I believe this statement is dubious – first, the Oriental Orthodox churches are autocephalous/independent, so for the above statement to be true, YEC would have to be the official position of all the national churches that make up the Oriental Orthodox Communion. Second, I see no proof that any of these churches have taken an official, church-wide position on evolutionism versus creationism, Young Earth or otherwise.

Basically, unless some back up references can be produced, this section needs to go. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the claims are more than a little tenuous, and require considerable further substantiation or downgrading/removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has shown up to defend keeping this, I removed it as uncited. I moved the Malaty quote to "Interpretation of Genesis". Peter G Werner (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

'Liberal' christians?

Take, for example, YEC has failed to make an impact in more liberal circles of Christianity. For example, the Articles of Faith of the Baptist Church states no required beliefs concerning creation.[27] Some Churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, accept the possibility of theistic evolution but despite this, some individual church members support YEC.[28]

The categorization that the Roman Catholic Church is "liberal" seems rather problematic. What exactly do we mean anyway when we use the term 'liberal' here? Personally, I would only give someone or some group of people a philosophical tag like "liberal", "moderate", "progressive", or what have you if them themselves use it. Tagging may give the reader feelings like "Oh, wait, they have an agenda to push; those guys not tagged have no agenda". 24.32.204.89 (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The description is explicitly relative. The Catholic church may not be liberal in absolute terms but it is, as a whole, "more liberal" than the denominations giving YEC credence (including its own small Traditionalist Catholic fringe, which also includes a number of YECs). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's the case. It is only "more liberal" in certain respects. For example, even with Vatican II, it could be argued that with regard to ritual and liturgy the Catholic Church is much "more conservative" than the fundamentalist Protestant denominations who have radically rid themselves of centuries of tradition. In fact, one might say an adherence to biblical literalism is a new-fangled, liberal/radical idea. For more than a millennium, the traditional, conservative view has held that the oral tradition of the Church via apostolic succession is just as important in formulating doctrine as is Scripture.Ibis3 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

<undent> Think theology. This is nothing to do with liberal in the modern US sense, but refers to Liberal Christianity . Which was opposed by Fundamentalist Christianity in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy which lead to the modern division of American religious life into mainline Christianity on the one hand and "evangelical" and "Fundamentalist Christianity". Rather awkwardly, both the Liberal Catholic Church and Modernism (Roman Catholicism) seem to refer to something a bit different, or at least more specific. Maybe mainline would be a better word, ever hear versions of "Jesus on the Main Line""? . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to assign the label "radical" to fundamentalist protestantism on the basis of a 500yo schism strikes me as a stretch. The fact of the matter is that fundamentalist protestantism is explicitly anti-modernist, whereas over the last century Catholicism has become more tolerant of modernism. Further, in both Protestantism & Catholicism, the YEC wings are clearly more conservative (both theologically and socially/politically) than their non-YEC brethren. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the anonIP is correct that the 'liberal' label is somewhat problematic & depends upon what aspects of the various denominations one is referring to and within what historical [eta: and political] context. It would be rather distracting to provide such an explanation within the article itself. Avoiding the issue entirely by coming up with something more precise for this context would be preferable, I should think. Maybe 'mainstream' would work (the term 'mainline' seems to refer to USian Protestantism)?Ibis3 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to changing 'more liberal' to 'more mainstream' or 'less literalist'?--Ibis3 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

<slight change of topic> Father George V. Coyne, SJ (January 30, 2006). "Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on 'Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution' - Catholic Online". Retrieved 2009-04-06. might be useful in this context. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Prefer "liberal theological oriented circles". Liberal and liberalism are some of the most confused words in existence, and use to connote to opposite political meanings on both sides of Atlantic ocean. Liberal theology means: usage of Biblical hermeneutics, usage of historicism, usage of high criticism, all of these methods used to do away with imbecille literalist interpretations, and instead regard the wholeness and the original intention of the Bible. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy Trinity

Off-topic until a reliable source can be found linking Trinitarian theology to YEC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do Young Earth creationists have any particular beliefs about the Holy Trinity ? I am surprised that Trinitarian beliefs about Creation are not included in the creationism series, since it is of course the orthodox Nicean teaching about who God is and what he does. Having a Trinitarian view of Creation means that the Father is Creator, the Son is Creator and the Spirit is also Creator ; but there is only one Creator. The Athanasian creed provides the basis for much of the Trinitarian creation theology. ADM (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Can you find a WP:RS that relates Trinitarian theology to YEC? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) But if they were all one that would only be one creator.--Pattont/c 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. -- Gospel of John 1:1-5 If you are looking for a connection between the creation of 'all things' and trinitarian beliefs that I would suggested to start with commentaries on these verses. As a basic starting point, one trinitarian view of this verse would have Word (note it's capitalization) being a title for The Son, God being God the Father, and and the verbs 'made', 'shines', and 'through' implying the Spirit of God. As a matter of personal opinion, assigning creation to one of these rather than all of them would be the same as saying leaves of a Euphorbia milii create glucose and not giving any credit to the vital roots and stems. On the contrary; leaves, roots and stems are very distinct and well-defined in their function, while the definition of Holy Trinity is at best deliberately nebulous. --King ♣ Talk 20:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

YEC claims examined and compared with scientific claims

Much like the lunar landings hoax, I'd like a section added that deals with some of the major claims of the YEC that prove the earth is young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Hoax_claims_examined

For example, the lunar dust theory (and how was supposed to be a lot more than NASA expected) has been proven wrong time and time again, yet it is still commonly referenced. Another is the antarctic ice core samples, and how the YECs compare it to snow fall layers in the arctic (antarctic is a desert). Sedimentary layers that are deposited at a common intervals, the change in magnetic fields of the Atlantic ocean floor and there are living TREES that have been dated to be older that 10,000 years. 70.75.51.202 (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suspect that it'd belong in Creation science (or a subsidiary article thereof), which deals with YEC's pseudoscientific claims, rather than here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading statement

<<Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[2] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account.[1][3]>> Genesis does not mention hours or define a day as 24 hours, the 24 hour day was not invented until the 4th day. Therefore believing that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days is NOT taking the Hebrew text literally, so as a fundamentalist I object to this distortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.151.136 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement is about what YECs believe, not what Genesis says. Those who believe that the 'days' were greater than 24 hours subscribe to Day-age creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dei Verbum

I think it is frankly misleading (or at least irrelevant) to use Dei Verbum as a way to attack YECs. First of all, Dei Verbum is a very conservative document which literally claims that God himself wrote the Bible. It goes way beyond the typical infalliblity position and actually cites a good deal of material in favour of the inerrantist view. It discusses the nature of divine revelation and does not try to explain what creation exactly is or why God was doing what he did at this particular moment in earthly terms. It is also a very magisterial interpretation of Scripture which privileges the works of the Church Fathers above the private interpretations of Protestant scholars, be they fundamentalist or not. ADM (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't used as "a way to attack YECs" -- it was used as a caveat on a Catholic criticism of the YEC viewpoint. The passage was in any case unsourced, so can be removed without a need for discussion of its underlying theology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, the most recent document on the subject is an instrumentum laboris on The Word of God in the Life and the Mission of the Church, which interprets Dei Verbum in a fairly liberal sense, and not a conservative sense like what I was talking about. A big part of the debate involves interpreting Dei Verbum itself, and not necessarily the Bible. [8]. ADM (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ussher Dating Statement

The following statement in the article in not at all objective:

In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published the Ussher chronology, a chronology dating the creation to the night preceding October 23 4004 BC. Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC).

This makes no mention whatsoever of the several estimates of the Early Church Fathers, predating Ussher by well over 1000 years, whose chronology was centered around the date 5500 BC, as found in the Alexandrian Era and Byzantine Calendar. The article doesnt state the well known discrepancy, that all of the dates ca. 4000 BC come from use of the Hebrew Masoretic text, and the 4004 date is the favorite choice predominantly of English speaking Protestant circles only; at the same time omitting to recognize that a whole series of other estimates from the Early Church all centre around ca. 5500 BC, based on the Septuagint text which Jesus Christ Himself and the Apostles used. Therefore an accurate picture is not painted here by leaving out critical information. Furthermore, I see no point to having a "See also" link to the Quran and to the Ussher Chronology, while omitting a link to the Byzantine Creation Era which is far more relevant in terms of the theological aspect of the subject. I offer these recommendations hopefully so that the article not present itself from a partisan / biased perspective; if some of the information is offered regarding these dates, then let all of the information be offered and let the readers decide; write scholary and be neutral, and do not paint pictures that omit a thousand years of church history. Rgds, 207.112.31.157 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this? And I would point out that there is no article on the 'Byzantine Creation Era', merely to the Byzantine Calendar -- which is only very tenuously related to this topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

According to: Dr. Ben Zion Wacholder. Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles. in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol.61, No.3 (Jul., 1968), pp.451-481:

An immense intellectual effort was expended during the Hellenistic period by both Jews and pagans to date creation, the flood, exodus, building of the Temple... In the course of their studies, men such as Tatian of Antioch (flourished in 180), Clement of Alexandria (died before 215), Hippolytus of Rome (died in 235), Julius Africanus of Jerusalem (died after 240), Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine (260-340), and Pseudo-Justin frequently quoted their predecessors, the Graeco-Jewish biblical chronographers of the Hellenistic period, thereby allowing discernment of more distant scholarship.

Dr. Wacholder is Professor of Talmud and Rabbinics at Hebrew Union college (HUC)- Jewish Institute of Religion (JIR) in Cincinnati, and holds the Solomon B. Freehof Professorship of Jewish Law and Practice. He also has this to say:

The Hellenistic Jewish writer Demetrius (flourishing 221-204 B.C.) wrote On the Kings of Judea dealing with biblical exegesis, mainly chronology, who computed the date of the flood and the birth of Abraham exactly as in the Septuagint, and who established the ANNUS ADAMI;...Eratosthenes of Cyrene (275-194 B.C.) represented contemporary Alexandrian scholarship; Eupolemus, a Palestinian Jew and a friend of Judah Maccabee, writing in 158 B.C., is said to have been the first historian who synchronized Greek history in accordance with the theory of the Mosaic origin of culture. By the time of the first century B.C., a world chronicle had synchronized Jewish and Greek history and had gained international circulation: Alexander Polyhistor (flourishing in 85-35 B.C.); Varro (116-27 B.C.); Ptolemy of Mendes (50 B.C.); Apion (first century A.D.); Thrasyllus (before A.D. 36); and Thallus (first century A.D.) - all cited chronicles which had incorporated the dates of the Noachite flood and the exodus.

For the background of the Byzantine Era (Greek: Ετη Γενεσεως Κοσμου Κατα Ρωμαιους), see also:

Pavel Kuzenkov. How old is the World? The Byzantine era κατα Ρωμαίους and its rivals. 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 2006.

You will see that the known world was well aquainted with the World Era long long before Ussher existed, and his chronicle was simply in line with following the established tradition and belief system many centuries earlier. THEREFORE, I say again, this article lacks credibility by NOT at least mentioning the Byzantine calendar and also the Hebrew calendar dates and background (again, from the theological perspective, since Ussher's chronology is mentioned). If the YEC subject is to be treated with the seriousness it deserves, (rather than the selective presentation of facts from one tradition only), then this needs to be considered. Rgds, 206.47.249.251 (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work digging up these sources, but can you find an idea of the dates that these early chronologists calculated? Ussher may well have been following in the tradition of earlier scholars, but he may not have used their numbers (or even the same methods). Either way, the information you've uncovered seems worth a sentence or two in the text, just to put Ussher's work in context. Preferably with some idea of what sort of numbers these scholars estimated. I'm curious to know if their sums were similar to those that Ussher did much later. Of course, as YECs appear mostly to use Ussher's work to date the Earth, there's still a case for its prominence here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I agree, worth at least a sentence or two to explain. Here are some of the main dates for comparison (these are footnoted in the Byzantine calendar article).

Early Church Writers

• 5537 BC - Julius Africanus (AD 200-245), Church historian.
• 5529 BC - Theophilus (AD 115-181), Bishop of Antioch.
• 5509 BC - Byzantine calendar or "Creation Era of Constantinople." (finalized in 7th c. AD).
• 5500 BC - Hippolytus of Rome. (ca. AD 234), Presbyter, writer, martyr.
• 5493 BC - Alexandrian Era (AD 412).
• 5199 BC - Eusebius of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea and Church historian (AD 324).

Later Estimates

• 5199 BC - Mentioned in the Roman Martyrology, published by the authority of Pope Gregory XIII in 1584, later confirmed in 1630 under Pope Urban VIII.
• 4963 BC - According to the Benedictine Chronology, the Creation of Adam is given this date (AD 1750).
• 4004 BC - Anglican Archbishop James Ussher (AD 1650).
• 3952 BC - Venerable Bede (ca. AD 725), English Benedictine monk.
• 3761 BC - Hebrew calendar [Judaism] - (ca. AD 222-276); or, (ca. AD 358 - Hillel World Era).

Cheers. 206.172.0.195 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A number of these dates are unsourced in Byzantine calendar, and a further number are cited to sources that either range from questionable to blatantly unreliable, or are unclearly cited in the footnotes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your tone smacks of authoritarianism and an uninterest in pursuing research on the different World Eras that are relevant and predate the Protestant tradition which itself was based on them. Simply put, all of the dates are referenced and discussed in the article itself, if not in that specific section. Furthermore, identify which sources are blatantly unreliable, and explain by which standards and by what right do You alone arbitrarily make that judgement? In fact, all of the dates are well known, including the Benedictine Chronology of 4963 BC, which is in fact referenced by the way. A second commentator above agrees that mention should be made of these facts for a balanced world view; in the very least mentioning the Byzantine Era and Hebrew Calendar. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. I suggest you begin by reading the two articles listed above in this commentary. If no other party objects I propose we add this information in a sentence or two in the article. Rgds, 216.254.218.156 (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the ill-considered ad hominem attack. http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm#creation is "blatantly unreliable". Additionally, the Seraphim Rose/St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood is a sectarian rather than academic source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir 216.254.218.156 should first read WP:Civility, then consider creating a Wikipedia account instead of hiding behind four numbers, thirdly consider some meditation technique to get the emotions under control. "Lurking" and surfing around on Wikipedia, observing others' conflict is a valid and reliable method. Wikipedia have improved a lot in the years, so it works. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback thank you. Although I was unaware about this criticism of Dr. Setterfield, he and Seraphim Rose, two very different sources, both agree with eachother, that both Julius Africanus and Theophilus (the sixth bishop of Antioch from the Apostles) determined the age of the world to have been about 5,530 years at the birth of Christ. I presume that these are the two World Era dates that we are questioning.

For the sake of argument, even if you are correct and we dismiss both Dr Setterfield and Fr. Seraphim Rose, the dates that they give for Julius Africanus and Theophilus of Antioch can still be verified in the Primary Sources themselves -- For instance, I have just checked in the writings of Theophilus himself, in the "Early Church Fathers" set, (in: THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS BOOK III: CHAP XXVIII - LEADING CHRONOLOGICAL EPOCHS), and his conclusion after a long and detailed exegesis, and I quote, is that "All the years from the creation of the world [up to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus in 169 AD] amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days"; So, 5698-169 = 5529 BC, which is exactly the date Setterfield and Rose correctly cite, from the primary sources.

Based on this verification in the primary source accounts, I submit that the dates given above for Julius Africanus and Theophilus of Antioch, as cited by Setterfield and Rose, are totally correct (i.e. those are the dates that Africanus and Theophilus actually arrived at, represententing the earliest Christian sources on the age of the world!).

The larger matter here however, is that based on the historical presence of some of these important World Eras, I strongly feel that mention should definitely be made of them. The Byzantine Calendar was not only used by the Orthodox Church until the 18th century, but it was the official calendar of the governments of both Byzantium and of Russia for centuries. Archbishop James Ussher (also a sectarian source if we are to be strict with terms), provided his calculation, a very important one, but it was one amongst a number of others developed by the Church much earlier, and based on earlier sources. As Dr. Wacholder has shown (quoted above), there was a world chronicle going back to the Hellenistic age, to the Annus Adami , arguably the very very first Biblical World Era. I think for the purposes of this YEC article, since mention is made of Ussher's world era, we would be remiss to omit mention of the other dominant world eras listed in the comparative chart above. Thanks for your time, Cheers, 207.112.54.65 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> Who is this "Dr. Setterfield"? Barry Setterfield, according to his own biography, only attended university for three years (where he studied fields unrelated to History), and it is unclear whether he even completed his undergraduate degree before he "was forced to terminate his studies". The majority of dates are cited to Setterfield & Rose. Those that aren't generally have long-winded footnotes that tend to obscure their precise source. If some of the dates currently cited to Setterfield & Rose can be cited instead to a reliable source, then this would be a definite improvement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not debating his academic merits, it is really quite besides the point (and by the way he is only referenced twice, in relation to the two dates of Julius Africanus and Theophilus). As I have just explained above in detail, the dates for Julius Africanus and Theophilus are verifyable in the primary sources. Here they are:

• for Theophilus: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.2, pp.118-21.
• for Africanus: Ante-Nicene Fathers. vol.6, pp.130-38.

The dates attributed to them are not in question. And besides these two early writers, there are other listings above for Hippolytus of Rome, Eusebius of Caesarea, and others, that are also not in question. Hope this answers your question. My recommendations above for inclusion still stand. Cheers, 206.47.249.252 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another point is that a detailed tabulation of such historically-conceived dates is largely tangential to an article on the modern belief system that is YEC. Only a brief summary belongs here, with the bulk belonging in an article, such as Dating creation, that specifically deals with the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Belly buttons?

Why do the images of Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Real answer: The concept of them not having navels is relatively new, and those images are not.
2. Snarky faux-religious answer: Who's to say (besides the vast majority of the scientific community) that they weren't created by god appearing as we do today (white, somehow)? --King ♣ Talk 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, world's best username! --King ♣ Talk 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Omphalos hypothesis :) . . dave souza, talk 07:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, how convenient THAT is. "Even though there's tons of evidence, I'm going to explicitly ignore all of it, because it is in itself proof of MY perfectly valid scientific theory!" --King ♣ Talk 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation-Evolution Headlines EL

This EL:

• "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" -- as it provides no actual information on YE Creationism.
• is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" in that its topic is the Creation-evolution controversy (but would most probably be excluded on #2 there).

In fact, as far as I can see, the link makes no explicit mention of 'young earth'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The "unique resource" aspect of http://crev.info is the erudite and up-to-date analysis of science articles from a YEC POV. The comments have always, as far as I recall, presented a YEC view. ^rossnixon 03:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it is not a "resource" on YEC, but on another topic from a YEC POV (though the latter claim itself appears to be WP:OR). This makes it "only indirectly related to" YEC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(out-dent) Hmmm... OK, then we might have to remove the link to TalkOrigins. From its FAQ, "The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." No mention of refuting YEC. ^rossnixon 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you rossnixon for conflating the newsgroup with TalkOrigins Archive. I'd be surprised if you could find any YEC claim that did not have commentary and refutation in the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the refutation for the age of lunar craters (due to finite rock viscosity) lacking. Dan Watts (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Denialism category

There seems to be a dispute as to whether this article belongs in Category:Denialism. I am mildly in favour of its inclusion as YEC would appear to be denial of much of modern science: evolutionary biology, geology (including geochronology and thus some core concepts in nuclear physics), astrophysics/cosmology, etc. I am however strongly against simply edit-warring over the question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The only people seriously contesting the addition are young-earth creationists who feel the term is pejorative. I'd advocate finding a source for the addition to anchor it. --King Öomie 03:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say add it. It's pretty clear, from the definition of denialism, that YEC falls squarely in that category. Others already in the category include intelligent design, Flat Earth Society, and Teach the Controversy, so I think it would be in good company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkemper331 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

The intro claims:

However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis.

I think citations are needed for such a bold statement (however true), and I think it is actually possible to find citations for this. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! There already was such a citation... OK, then I'll see if I can find more. And:

The statement actually claims that a vast majority of scientists believe creationism is false, the citation provided and the intro formulation have to harmonize. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Creationism is a 'position' that exists regardless of 'science'. It is a religious/faith position. YEC's are not claiming that it is a scientific position. ^rossnixon 01:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And creationists have been claiming (an unjustified) scientific merit for their religious position, from the scriptural geologists, Price, the Deluge Geology Society, Morris, right up to the current day. YECs ARE (almost ubiquitously) "claiming that it is a scientific position." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you are mistaken. Claiming scientific support for a religious position is just to give more credibility (mainly to people who haven't made up their minds) to the religious position, not to make it a scientific position. ^rossnixon 02:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

When creationists start claiming scientific vindication for their religious beliefs, it becomes an ostensibly falsifiable, secular statement with real-world applications. You can't claim to know how the physical world works AND rebuke all challenges, claiming to be "above" or "outside" science. And the fact that you think it's OKAY to claim something (with no real evidence) is frankly alarming to me. "Oh, it's just to help people make up their minds..." How does that not make it worse? Isn't that the textbook definition of propaganda? --King Öomie 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

5700-10,000 years ago

In a number of articles, the YEC position is often claimed to be between c. 5,700[1] and 10,000 years ago for the age of the earth. I find lots of refs for around 6000 years, but far fewer for anything over 8000 or so. What is the evidence for 10,000 years? If there isn't any, then we should delete and just put "around 6000 years".Desoto10 (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC). OK I looked up "www.earthage" which is what is cited and it is just a website by some schmuck named "Randy S. Berg". For one thing, is this a good reference? For another, does this guy speak for the YEC movement?Desoto10 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason the "10,000" figure is thrown around is because it delineates YEC from other forms of creationism. YECists believe the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago (whether 8,000, 6,000, etc.) and other creationists believe in other dates. Gabbe (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabbe. I understand the difference between YEC and OEC. My question is: why not just use 6000 years as that seems to be the value that most YECs embrace.Desoto10 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any biographical information about "Randy S. Berg". He writes lots of articles from a YEC perspective, but never seems to present his credentials. Unless somebody comes up with some information as to why his opinion is notable or informed, I am going to delete references to him.Desoto10 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think "less than 10,000 years" is the definition used by Ronald Numbers (a reputable source on the topic) among others, but I don't have a copy of The Creationists at hand for a citation. Gabbe (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Genie Scott's splendid Continuum, in defining YEC, states "Earth, in their view, is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.", probably due to various flavors of YEC giving different dates, or just being coy about it like AiG seem to be. . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So that Wikipedia won't be out of date in 1000 years? When the earth is 7000 years old, it will *still* be 6-10,000 years old! ^rossnixon 02:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is -- "4000-8000 BC" p11 Expanded Edition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn. I know the ~4000BC date. Where does the 8000 number come from (is it cited in your book?) I assume that all YECs believe in biblical chronologies only and so there must be such a chronology that gives this number (8000BC). If you know where that comes from, great. Otherwise I will look around.Desoto10 (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked around and I find that the major YEC mouthpieces, such as AiG use "about 6000 years" rather than 6000-10,000 years, which I find in most of the OEC and non-YEC literature. Unless Ronald Numbers provides some justification for his quote, then it is not very useful. I cannot imagine how any YEC could believe in the creation happening in 8000BC.Desoto10 (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that he purposefully gave some safety margin in case somebody came along and said 6001BC. I seem to remember one idiosyncratic date of 100,000 years ago from a creationist. But that's in a weird middle-ground (neither a Biblically-literal-based YE nor an accepting the scientific age of the Earth OE). I think 10,000 years ago provides a reasonable 'outer limit' on what could be considered Biblically-literal-based YE and, as we've got a RS for it, that we should accept it without worrying too much. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that.Desoto10 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Local view/POV

How come the article does not mention that Young Earth creationism is pretty much an exclusive of the USA? By omitting this very important fact, the article is intrinsically NNPOV and gives a wrong impression that the debate on YEC is a worldwide phenomenon. Balabiot (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That is reason for a {{missing information}}, not a {{POV}}. Incidentally, the article is also missing information on Young Earth counter-currents in the 19th century, such as Scriptural geologists and the early Victoria Institute. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I added {{missing information}}. Balabiot (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

YEC fringe claims

I would draw editors attention to WP:FRINGE that states:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.

Loading up the article with what AiG "believes" about science (often in response to scientific rebuttal of YEC's more general claims), without indicating the lack of scientific acceptance of these 'beliefs', is not acceptable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Beliefs." The article is not "loaded up" with such claims. I agree with 2 of your 3 removals. The one that I believe should clearly remain is this:

YEC's believe that radioactive decay rates are not constant and thus challenge the validity of radiometric methods.

Nobody here is trying to promote this claim as fact. The article merely documents the movement's claims and beliefs.—DMCer™ 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But FAILS to document the fact that these "discounted" claims have no "acceptance among the relevant academic community." 04:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added words to compromise and make this obvious (as if they weren't obvious already from the intro).—DMCer™ 04:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your wording fails to address the "current level of their acceptance" of AiG's claim that "radioactive decay rates are not constant" and that there is a question over the "validity of radiometric methods". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would further point out that this insertion is problematical under WP:PRIMARY ("Primary sources … may be used … only with care"), WP:SELFPUB ("unduly self-serving") & WP:UNDUE ("rewrit[ing] content strictly from the perspective of the minority view"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the section is establishing the beliefs of the movement. I'm not sure you're understanding that this is different from, say, attempting to use the source to argue for why the beliefs are scientific fact. When you change facts like the Gallup poll number to made-up numbers (which, appropriately, is now removed), you give people reason to doubt your motives. —DMCer™ 04:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Again, the section" sets up discredited YEC claims without providing the context of the scientific evaluation of these claims. "When you" attempt to impute motive on the basis of reverting the bald statement of these discredited claims which meant that I once reverted the Gallup changes (which also added info unrelated to YEC), is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Opinion

I saw the request for a third opinion at WP:3O. I would be glad to offer my opinion. From what I can see so far, the line in question appears to be appropriate. It would not be appropriate to put a fringe organization's beliefs about a scientific discipline in the article about the science, but it usually would be appropriate to put them in the article about the fringe organization itself - especially if they comprise a major part of the organization's belief system. I appreciate all the hard work and enthusiasm! —Finn Casey * * * 04:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinion. I'm not trying to rub it in, but Hrafn, you keep mentioning WP:AGF and leaving it at that. What I keep attempting to communicate to you, is that we're talking about "facts about opinions" here. By your logic, the 9/11 Truth Movement article would not even be able to cite or include the beliefs of its adherents.—DMCer™ 04:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No DMCer, I cited WP:AGF once in response to an accusation that blatantly misrepresented the facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Finn Casey: could you please explain how failure to "document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community" is "acceptable"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's already in the article: Young_Earth_creationism#Lack_of_scientific_acceptance. The "beliefs" and the issues regarding their acceptance are, as they should be, two different sections.—DMCer™ 05:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No DMCer, see WP:CSECTION for why you're wrong. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the tags you added, Hrafn. You added the [self-published source?][opinion needs balancing] tags. Considering the sentence starts with "Members of Answers in Genesis, a YEC apologetics ministry, believe...," I don't think your tags aren't appropriate. WP:SELFPUB states, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Because this isn't an opinion, but a fact about an opinion, your [opinion needs balancing] the sentence doesn't require the opinion tag either.—DMCer™ 05:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) WP:ASF does not override WP:SELFPUB which does not permit claims that are "unduly self-serving" -- the claim that radiometric dating is unreliable is clearly unduly self-serving, lacking scientific context for the claim. (ii) 'Lack of scientific acceptance' does not address the issue of lack of acceptance of this particular claim and is several sections away. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you, except to ask that you move on. Finn Casey contributed a neutral opinion and you're still pushing your point, which has been addressed many times already. Stating the beliefs of the movement, by one of the movement's major apologists, is not self-serving. Self-serving would be if the article cited that Answers in Genesis site after claiming, "Young Earth creationism is seen by an increasing number of scientists as an evidence-based theory." Of course that would be inappropriate, and then you would have a valid point. But in this case, it's not self-serving, but supporting the assertion that "x" is, in fact, their belief. Besides, the section clearly states that YECs "challenge the validity of scientifically-accepted radiometric methods." —DMCer™ 05:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) The WP:FRINGE requirement is "with reliable sources" & (ii) the mere (unsourced) addition of "scientifically-accepted" to "radiometric methods" does not address the level of scientific acceptance for YEC claims of unreliability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I don't disagree with that....—DMCer™ 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this debate is ending up giving undue space to the single opinion about radiometric dating. Avoiding that was the point of my edit here. I think that "cutting it short" is the best mediation, rather than adding datum after datum after datum. Balabiot (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate for this article?

I would also point out that Wikipedia has already several articles on creationist pseudoscientific claims, including the more general Creation science, and Creation geology, which specifically addresses YEC claims as to the Age of the Earth, and provides scientific context for these claims. I would suggest that these claims are more appropriately addressed there. I would also note that the author of the AiG piece, Mike Riddle, does not appear to be a major creationist author on the subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, as Mike Riddle bases his claims largely on those of RATE, isn't the in-depth coverage of those claims in Creation geology sufficient WP:WEIGHT for the topic, without going beyond the statement that "YECs believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old,[33] rather than the age of 4.54 billion years calculated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating" in this general article on the topic? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to fringe theories, it will always be challenging to set a limit on which part is relatively mainstream (somewhere there's an oxymoron in this dialog.) I recently heard a discussion on NPR about YEC, and this issue of Carbon Dating was also raised by a YEC proponent on the show - I'll dig it up since it may be a useful source. I agree that Creation geology is the place for most detail on their objections to carbon dating (among other scientific disciplines that point to a planet older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old). I tend to lean towards a compromise position where we summarize, and then let the core articles go into detail.Mattnad (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, I'm curious to know why you keep raising the undue weight issue, when the article is about the belief itself. It's not like this is a scientific article about the age of the Earth, which wouldn't warrant space devoted to YEC theories. WP states that fringe theories should "be excluded from articles about scientific subjects," but again, this isn't a scientific subject. I think the way it stands now, it merely documents the beliefs.—DMCer™ 07:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) The statement that 'radiometric dating is inaccurate' is not a religious belief, it is a claim about science. The 'religious belief' is that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. (ii) I would be more than happy to leave the 'claims about science' to the appropriate articles (Creation science or Creation geophysics). I would further point out that the creationist author in question is not a major writer on the issue, and is merely echoing the work of the RATE team, that is already discussed in detail in Creation geophysics. (iii) But whether there or here, the treatment has to give WP:DUE weight to the overwhelming majority of the relevant scholarly community -- which rejects these claims as being without foundation. This is explicitly countenanced in WP:FRINGE#Reporting on the levels of acceptance, which states "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For me, the most compelling point is (ii) above. We should avoid offering too much detail in one article when there's another "main" article on the topic. I found the recent NPR interview on this topic if anyone's interested [9].Mattnad (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks on dinosaurs

1. The Lost World is a novel, and thus not a WP:RS. Additionally, AFAIK, it makes no claims about YEC views.
2. This piece of creationist swill makes no mention of the size of dinosaurs, other than in a footnote citing the above novel. Question: what kind of complete idiot cites a novel as a source for a purportedly scientific claim? Answer: Ken Ham.

   And the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   An "award" is not a "purportedly scientific claim" :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   For the record, many AAPG members were [insert expletive] pissed about that... though not about the Jurassic Park part, everyone loves Jurassic Park. Awickert (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

3. "The Complete T. Rex, 1993, 124" is simply parroting Ken Ham -- not a reliable source.
4. The Smithsonian does not say that dinosaurs were small: "One of the most dramatic of these evolutionary changes occurred in body size. From their small ancestors, some dinosaurs reached sizes exceeding 35 meters in length and 50 tons in weight. In fact, most dinosaurs were relatively large—the average size of a Mesozoic dinosaur was about 100 kilograms, quite large compared with the average size of a Cenozoic mammal (about two to five kilograms). The earliest dinosaurs were among the smallest." 100kg is the weight of a large jaguar -- you wouldn't need too many of even the 'average' dinosaur (remembering for it to be the average, there'll be a considerable number both larger and smaller requiring housing) to take up a lot of room.

Given that all this is more-or-less sourced to a single Ken Ham footnote that, rather than giving a coherent hypothesis, lists a few bald facts/claims that give the (false) impression that a dinosaurs-in-the-Ark (as well as everything-else-in-the-Ark) scenario is feasible. WP:SELFPUB & "unduly self-serving" -- therefore not fit for Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: as the Smithsonian commentary demonstrates, "most people think[ing that] dinosaurs were huge" is not completely wrong -- many dinosaurs were huge. It's just that many many were smaller. For Ham's argument to work, he has to demonstrate how fitting both the many huge dinosaurs and the many many smaller ones onto the Ark would have been feasible. Simply citing the 'average' size and leaving it at that is lying by omission. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. This talkpage is not for (i) discussion of dinosaur eggs, the WP:Synthesis of an argument for the feasibility of Noah's Ark on the basis of them, or (ii) a WP:SOAPbox for the claim that a viewpoint, rejected in the early 19th century (see scriptural geologists), is some sort of Kuhnian paradigm shift, resisted by scientific inertia.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question I have is, what is the largest dinosaur egg ever found? I suspect that the large dinosdaurs were only large because they kept growing for hundreds of years. rossnixon 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Google is your friend. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Sure is. A quick search reveals one egg having a major diameter of 43 centimetres, found in Tiantai China. I recall seeing recently that a small 'species' of dinosaur has now been reclassified as a T.rex. Don't be surprised if many other 'separate' dinosaur species get merged in the future. rossnixon 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC) That's the irritating thing about scientists. They change their mind when new evidence becomes available, instead of sticking to their guns no matter what. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC) That is how science *should* work. It doesn't always happen like that. Long held paradigms, peer-pressure, inertia, group think, politics - all intrude too often. rossnixon 01:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant paragraph?

This paragraph seems to be irrelevant to the "young earth", especially in its references to Bacon and Darwin, for it says nothing about belief in the age of the world. It may be false in claims abut "Baconian method". It is probably best deleted: "The belief that the universe was made by a rational Creator deity was held by many of the founders of modern science, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Faraday, Galileo, Maxwell, Newton, Boyle, Pascal and Nicolas Steno, all of whom followed the empirical Baconian method described by Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626). Bacon's emphasis that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible is quoted by Charles Darwin at the start of On the Origin of Species.[14]" TomS TDotO (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an appeal to authority. "We think X due to methodology Y- these smart people also liked Y", leaving unsaid "(But none of them were proponents of X)" --King Öomie 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll delete the paragraph, but I'll give this a few days longer for comments because it is a long holiday weekend. TomS TDotO (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about ID

I've removed the following addition:

YEC is also rejected by leading intellegent design proponents including Michael Behe Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute. ID proponents seek to explain the diversity of life on Earth as based on active design, not passive selection of species based as described by Darwin. Because of that explaination, many people claim that they are supporting belief in a sentient creator, which many also claim is the abrahamic God. Among other reasons, many intellegent design proponents point to the fossil record and the cambrian explosion as part of the inference for an active, intellegent, creative force. This would obviously negate a "young" earth.

This would need a source, and is inaccurate as their "big tent" carefully includes YECs, such as Paul Nelson (creationist). . . . dave souza, talk 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

THE STATEMENT WAS NOT INACCURATE. I do agree it may need citation and MAY need to be in a different paragraph. If you could help teach me how to do citation, I'd appreciate it. Intellegent design is NOT "big tent". It is a theory about the origin of species that also disputes young earth. If you believe that the paragraph does not belong in "lack of scientific evidence" I may tend to agree despite the fact that YEC totally ignores the fossil record, geologic stratiology and radiographic decay. The info I posted came from parts one and two of the PBS show "think tank" where Intellegent design was debated by Stephen Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute and noted Dr. Michael Ruse, Director of the Program for the History of Science and author of "Darwinism and Design". I did not say that ID was anything more than an inference and competing theory, and that it did NOT agree with young earth. I agree that ID is pseudo science, but it certainly should be listed when discussing YEC.

I dispute your assertation that ID is a "big tent" and includes YEC. MOST people would say it does not. YEC and ID are mutually exclusive. YOU cited Paul Nelson, NOT me. YOUR citation, who I agree might be intellectually dishonest, was the one who uses the term "BIG TENT". Like you, I would view info from Paul Nelson with a jaded eye. I cited Stephen Meyer, who says in the interview I cited that "Young earth creationism is not our position". In fact young earth is at odds with his theory. The talk article on young earth includes a paragraph on "why isn't this merged with creation science?" Six people were in the discussion. Several people feel the two topics may be interrelated, but that they might hold different content.

It is not fair that either militant athiests OR militant religious nuts squash intellectual discourse. I believe that faith and the theory of evolution are NOT mutually exclusive and that even if they were exclusive, civil people can learn from each other's points and discuss it civily. I have run into numberous BULLIES that feel that their opinion is the ONLY correct opinion. Any devaition from their version of orthodoxy is immediately changed, and if I or any other contributor chages any info THEY posted, they call it defacing. I think we all know that articles that have religious connotations are especially prone to this bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisonrh (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your remarks suggest that you're failing to assume good faith, and you'd do better to make constructive proposals with suitable sources, per WP:TALK. . . dave souza, talk 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the PBS program, even though Ruse sounds hopelessly muddled, it doesn't support the whole statement you make, according to this transcript, and isn't a very good source for scholarly third party analysis of ID. Meyer is quoted as saying "You understand, Ben, that we have no problem with the ancient chronology of the earth...(Unintelligeble) Creationism is not our position." which would tie in with him saying that YEC isn't their position, but as Intelligent design movement#The 'big tent' strategy shows, their position has always been to replace "materialist science" with "theistic science" first, and in the meantime to agree to differ about aspects like the age of the Earth. Nelson continues to be a prominent ID proponent, featuring along with Meyer at a 2007 symposium and turning up to support ID at meetings in February 2009 and November 2009. Still promoting ID and YEC side by side. Some of their arguments may seem logically incompatible, but ID has always included such contradictions. . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this article? Gabbe (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone will bother to read what ID and YEC really think of each other, you'd find that groups like AiG severely criticize ID because they don't identify who an intelligent designer may be and because many of the ID movement are Theistic Evolutionists or simply Evolutionists. The IDer are just as critical of YEC. The NCSE's agenda is too simplistic. They try to paint ID with YEC and equate YEC with ID, ignoring the complexities of reality. This is a logical fallacy that breaks logic's Law of Excluded Middle: "Just because two things have one thing in common does not mean they have everything in common." Trabucogold (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're proposing original research which can't be accepted here. Verification is needed of your claims, and the NCSE is a reliable source for expert opinion on ID. Has any third party source published an analysis supporting your claims? . . dave souza, talk 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that anybody who can read and think and can search the internet can easily discover in minutes that this WP article is wrong. I understand why WP has the OR policy, however, when anybody can within just minutes search the entire internet and read what is reality, it makes WP and its editors look stupid. I think this OR thing is taken too far. Making an encyclopedia involves OR in pulling together the information on a topic no matter what sources are used. And paraphrasing the found materials involves OR and creating thinking. In the case of Creationism/evolutionism, OR is used to censor reality and create a fantasy world. And anyone who can read and search the internet can see that immediately. Why is everyone so afraid of letting Creationists speak for themselves????? If they are wacked, it will be obvious to everyone. No one needs to point it out. I realize that WP is international, but in the US there is freedom of speech without censorship. And that is one of the reasons for its position in the world. WP ought to live up to that same standard. It's not up to the WP editors to tell everyone what is true or not ture. Their job is to accurately report what is, whether it is wacked or not. Trabucogold (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think WP:NOR need changing, this is not the forum to discuss it, WT:NOR is. Gabbe (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IS there consensus for "myth" to be changed to "narrative?"

IP and Til Eugenspiel are pushing through the change from "creation myth" to "creation narrative." It's a creation myth. It's not NPOV to change it. Auntie E. (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that there is also a message at the top of the article now, stating that it needs to be expanded beyond just the US. How curious, at one point I added a whole referenced section about how YEC is the stated position of the Oriental Orthodox Churches of the Middle East, but it looks like someone was uncomfortable with "allowing" that information here. It's not like they're really stopping the info from getting "out there", because fact is, you can easily find info like that anywhere else BUT on wikipedia. Which is exactly the kind of thing that is giving Wikipedia the reputation for being the one-sided POV-pushing backwater that it is becoming. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While I believe it does lean a bit too much toward the biased side to use the term "myths," one of the definitions my Oxford English Dictionary uses to define "myth" is, A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. That seems to apply here, though "narrative" does carry less negative connotations. @Til, I'm not sure why it was taken out, but I think it would've been appropriate to include it (however, I haven't seen it).—DMCer™ 00:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Til, did I remove something about Oriental Orthodox Churches? If so, it was inadvertent, I apologise. If not, I don't see why you commented on it here. Auntie E. (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree there is no consensus for a change of terminology, and given the policy WP:RNPOV, guideline WP:WTA#Myth_and_legend, main article creation myth and an overwhelmingly clear consensus against a change of terminology at other pages (like Talk:Creationism), I doubt there ever will be a consensus for change. Until such time as those things all change though, this particular article should remain consistent with the rest of the project. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While using the word Myth may technically be correct, the use of it in anything concerning Christianity has negative connotations that ALL Christians find offensive. Those who insist on using myth, know this, and they intentionally use it to slap Christians in the face. This makes WP guilty of the intent to insult all Christians. Those who want to use Myth represent a small minority of the USA and the world with big heads of how important they are. Narrative is a perfectly neutral word and does not have negative connotations. Trabucogold (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"narrative is not the story itself but rather the telling of the story". TheresaWilson (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of myth with respect to Christianity is not matched to the use of it in Hinduism, Bhudhism or Islam (which is practically nill). and according to Dictionary.com Narrative means.

–noun

1. a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.

2. a book, literary work, etc., containing such a story.

3. the art, technique, or process of narrating: Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

–adjective

4. consisting of or being a narrative: a narrative poem.

5. of or pertaining to narration: narrative skill.

6. Fine Arts. representing stories or events pictorially or sculpturally: narrative painting. Compare anecdotal (def. 2). Trabucogold (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While either "myth" or "narrative" would be technically correct, since "myth" is so often (mis)used in a pejorative way in everyday speech, why not go with "narrative?" In creation myth the use is appropriate as the article is more concerned with technical aspects of religious literature. Here the focus is on the pseudoscience known as YEC, rather than theology or biblical literature, so it seems either would do; "narrative" is more likely to be understood in the proper sense by the casual reader, so I think it's preferable in this context. Agathman (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RNPOV. The context is clear here and there is an abundance of supporting wikilinks available to anyone unsure. Avoiding terminology is not neutral. Ben (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's rich! Using insulting terminology is NPOV! And the pope is Jewish. No wonder WP has such a bad rap. Editors twist WP policy to fit their biases and insult whom ever they want and think they get away with it. The problem is that the general public is not gullible. They see all this and know that WP is being used by bigots. Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC

I disagree with the idea that "myth" is insulting in itself; the only problem is possible confusion of its informal and formal uses. According to WP:RNPOV, "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion." My problem with the usage here is that I don't see that the context has been established. What does the term "myth" achieve here that "narrative" would not? Or conversely, how can we establish the context more clearly so as to reduce the chance that it will be misread in the informal sense? Agathman (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading the first two sentences of this article (before the word myth is encountered), I can't see how it could possibly be made more explicit that we're dealing with a religious topic. Ben (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the current lede is rather redundant: it says "Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[3] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Hebrew text of Genesis as a basis for their beliefs.[4][5] Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis as historical fact." The second sentence adds nothing except the idea that some adherents think this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world. It then reiterates the idea from the previous sentence. We could combine the two by saying "Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Hebrew text of Genesis as a basis for their beliefs. Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world." Tighter, just as informative, and the whole "myth" issue is irrelevant. Agathman (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we can do better:

Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis as a basis for their beliefs. Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world.

I'm not too happy with that second sentence though. Regardless, the creation myth article is clearly relevant here, and attempts to avoid referring to it are ridiculously POV. Ben (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, including the link the the Genesis creation myth article is a valid reason for having the terminology here. I'm not wild about the second sentence myself; I was just trying to preserve the current sense. Actually, I don't think it's "some adherents". AFAIK, all YECs hold that evidence from the natural world supports their view -- that's why it's pseudoscience rather than purely a literalist religious view. How about Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe evidence from the natural world supports the idea that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, consistent with a literal interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis. Agathman (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem with this though is that it doesn't give any weight to the perceived authority of the text (as a sacred text). I'm certain there exist YECs who hold the position on that criterion alone. As you say though, many then look for (and claim) evidence supporting the position, but this is after the fact. I'm about to head home, so I will think about it between now and later on tonight. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We may need to look for sources here. I agree that the authority of the text is at the root of YEC in all cases; however, the phenomenon of YEC seems always to contain claims that the physical evidence agrees with the text. As I said earlier, it's pseudoscience because it claims scientific validity; there aren't (I don't think) any YECs who say "Genesis is true and scientific evidence doesn't matter." The whole phenomenon actually presumes that science is the only sure way to truth, and then tries to co-opt the perceived authority of science to bolster a literal reading of the text. Let me see if Numbers has anything to say on this, or perhaps Ian Barbour. Agathman (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not making a point, but just pointing out that "narrative" is used in Flood geology also.—DMCer™ 11:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's immaterial to me whether we use "narrative" or "myth". I think Ben has a point that we do need to link to Creation according to Genesis, but now that I look at it, that article doesn't actually use the term "myth" much. How about Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who adhere to a literal interpretation of the story of creation found in Genesis, holding that God created the earth in six 24-hour days, and arguing that this claim is supported by evidence from the natural world. Agathman (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted a footnote to clarify in which sense the word "myth" is used in the article. Is that an improvement? Gabbe (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't be using footnotes in this way. Agathman, I think the article should clarify what the belief is before the source of the belief is given. At this point, I still prefer

Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis as a basis for their beliefs. Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world.

We can strengthen the last sentence by replacing "Some" with "Adherents generally believe" if you prefer. Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a footnote is inappropriate. However, I'm again not convinced that "myth" need be included in the passage at all, now that I've seen the Creation according to Genesis article that the passage links to. The article describes the Genesis story/stories as an "account", and only uses the term "myth" well down into the text, in very specific context. Given the principle of least astonishment, there's no reason the link to that article should contain the term "myth". So I have to say that insistence on this term in this spot is unwarranted, and others would do just as well. Agathman (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the creation myth article is relevant in that article too, so I've modified the article. Ben (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" has been the favored term of opponents of Christianity, to label the beliefs of millions of Christians, since at least the French Revolution - despite the fact that many Christians and others have repeatedly stated that it is offensive. They aren't about to give up trying to get the Bible declared a "myth" any time soon. The concept of "neutrality" means nothing to these people, because to them, their POV is the only one that counts. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben: You say that "we shouldn't be using footnotes in this way". WP:FN says that footnotes may be used "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article". Gabbe (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I like Agathman's proposed text before the outdent above as a solution to the issues raised. It also bypasses the need for a note.—DMCer™ 21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Gabbe. DMCer, story is a woefully inadequate substitute for myth. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

However, the article to which we're linking here uses the term "narrative", not "myth" -- so why don't we use "narrative"? Agathman (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The article title is creation myth, and this article can not avoid using the term since it's so obviously relevant - the belief rests on a creation myth. Also, as I noted above, I've since adjusted the Creation according to Genesis article to include this obviously relevant link. We don't use "narrative" for Christian articles and "myth" for all others. Such an action would clearly not be neutral and is against WP:WTA#myth_and_legend. If you think the term narrative should be used throughout the project (and not just Christian related articles), then by all means take that up at Talk:Creation myth or something, but such a decision should not be made on this talk page. Ben (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The line we're talking about, I believe, is this one from the lede: Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis as historical fact. The phrase "creation myth found in Genesis" in this passage is currently linked to the Creation according to Genesis article, not to Creation myth. And Creation according to Genesis, though it does have a "see also" link to Creation myth, refers to the Genesis creation account as "narrative."Agathman (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's deal with this one point at a time. The Creation according to Genesis article has been partially updated. Are we agreed? Ben (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox Church

this edit reintroduced a passage deleted after discussion at #Oriental Orthodoxy Officially YECist? above:

YEC has always been the stated position of the Oriental Orthodox Church, without having gone through any decline and revival. Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, a Coptic Orthodox scholar, expresses the typical Oriental Orthodox view as follows:

Using mathematical calculations, man cannot be more than 6,000 years old. Assuming that every family had three children (a low number compared to previous centuries) and after accounting for natural death catastrophes and wars, we find that the world's population would approximate what it actually is now. If human history goes back a million years, then the world's population would have needed several times the land space we have now.

In addition to the points discussed previously, the source as summarised doesn't say anything about a young earth, and the position is entirely consistent with a form of old Earth creationism common in the 19th century, in which the Earth was considered geologically ancient, with a series of forms of life, but humanity only dated back around 6,000 years, hence the Biblical timescale. Attribution is needed if we are to include the Oriental Orthodox Church. . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:DICK. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be one. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You've been warned Til, next time it'll be brought to the attention of admins. Ben (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Denialism" link in the see also section

Can't wait to see someone try to explain this. Is anyone able to give an explanation of why this is more acceptable here than in any article about any religion, scientific theory, or ideology that has significant opposition to its validity and/or rationality? --Yair rand (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Look up ↑

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Young_Earth_creationism#Denialism

Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF --King Öomie 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because YEC is a denial of a mainstream and amongst relevant scholars near unanimously agreed upon scientific theory and fact and much akin to the Flat Earth Society or the Halocaust deniers. Religion does not blanketly equal denialism. The Catholic Church being a prime example of acceptence of evolution. Taking a litereral interpretation of the Biblical Creation Myth and deny overwhelming evidence to the contrary (YEC) is denialism of the mainstream and that's why the tag is here but not on every other religion page. Nefariousski (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So you would say that any scientific theory of which it is almost unanimously agreed upon as being incorrect should also have a link to denialism? Isn't this a violation of NPOV? --Yair rand (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading your last comment gave me a headache. It's not a violation of NPOV if it meets the very definition of the term Denialism. Maybe you could provide an example of this Scientific theory that the scientific concensus agrees is incorrect so I can understand to which concept you are referring? Nefariousski (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to any specific theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some that have been widely refuted and proven incorrect, but are still considered correct by some who deny the more recent disproof. In such a situation, a link to denialism would likely be considered inappropriate. Similarly, the link in this article should be considered inappropriate and removed. Regardless of the consensus of the general scientific community regarding a theory or belief, explicitly saying that it is denialism in the article seems to be less than neutral. --Yair rand (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Scientific concensus is strongly against the outdated Scientific Theory of a Geocentric Solar System (Ptolemy's planetary model). I would support a denialism tag for any person or group that stated the Earth was the center of the Solar System and I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much complaint on the addition of that tag, nor would it be considered NPOV. Nefariousski (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yair: Have you read NPOV? Specifically, WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA and WP:PSCI? It doesn't say that all opinions are equal, but that the degree of acceptance among experts is crucial in deciding how an opinion is to be presented. It is in line with the neutrality policy to present an opinion of limited acceptance as being just that. Gabbe (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have read NPOV. I am still of the opinion that having that link violates it. However, it seems that the consensus is against me on this, so I suppose that the link will stay. --Yair rand (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Title of "Young Earth creationism"

There is ample evidence that seems to indicate a significantly younger age of for the earth. I would suggest either changing the name of this posting to "Young Earth Cosmology" or something to that effect and limit the information posted to scientific evidences only. The age of the earth and universe has nothing to do with existential explanations of WHY there is even matter to begin with Jlindsey2000 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"There is ample evidence ..." No, there is however ample evidence to suggest a Earth billions of years old. See the references listed in the article.

"I would suggest either changing ..." Young Earth creationism is the common name by which this topic is refered to by reliable sources.

"... and limit the information posted to scientific evidences only". What good would that do? This is an article about Young Earth creationism, and as such should deal with the entire phenomena, not just "scientific evidences".

"The age of the earth and universe has nothing to do with ..." True, but how is that related with this article? Gabbe (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would posit that that name and editorial change would be counter-productive to those who support this... odd viewpoint. Reason being, the vast, vast majority of evidence that YEC has behind it has been completely debunked. If the time comes where we need to start worrying about the capabilities of the wiki servers, though, I certainly support cutting this page down to only viable scientific evidence. At last count, we could save probably 98% of the page's 60 KB. --King Öomie 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)