Talk:Young Earth creationism

More Scientific Arguments used by Creationists

Since this article describes what creationists believe, would it not be helpful to describe more of their arguments against evolution? For instance, there is nothing in the article that describes the rapid deterioration of the earth's magnetic field as evidence of its age, no any mention of the organic tissue found within some dinosaur bones. It may be that these ideas are not accepted by mainstream science, but since this article is about Creationists specifically would it be beneficial to mention them?Cofefe2 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Any addition to the article needs reliable independent sources evaluating the significance of the point to be added, and showing how it has been received by majority expert opinion to meet WP:PSCI policy. See WP:PSTS for the caution needed when dealing with primary sources. There are lots of creationist arguments against evolution, see Gish Gallop, it's not the purpose of this page to examine them all: see TalkOrigins Archive for that. . . dave souza, talk 07:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Their arguments are not "scientific", they are just crap. Wikipedia is not the place to spread disinformation, so none of it belongs here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is neutral, Hob Gadling. If you are editing out certain voices because of your POV, that's a problem. dave souza's answer is sufficient for this thread.Ckruschke (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Our POV is NPOV, and I've linked to policy about how we deal with unscientific crap and / or disinformation. Trust we're all on the same page here, so no problem. Cheers, . dave souza, talk 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that some of us are not on the same page: they want to include unreliable crap, calling it "certain voices". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As Winston Churchill once said, "You can't throw a rock at every dog that barks at you." If I got wrapped around the axle about every piece of nonsense crap that people tried to foist upon Wikipedia, I'd be a basket case. Just do your job and let the unwashed masses call names. Live longer... Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

"Creation Safaris" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Creation Safaris. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldest trees? Ambiguity in "scientific refutation" section

I realise this article is likely to bear the scars of a few brutal edit wars, so raising this here so that editors more attuned to the dynamics can perhaps make suitable adjustments rather than inadvertently disturbing a delicate equilibrium myself (WP:BOLD be damned), although I doubt this will be too contentious. Also, because I don't really know what the article is trying to say here, not sure how to just fix it myself aside from deleting the point altogether.

Anyway, the article offers as evidence inconsistent with YEC the example of "the age of ... the oldest known trees before 12,000 BCE", with a wikilink to the dendrochronology article. Not really sure what's meant by "oldest known trees" here: is it the oldest currently living trees? The oldest known non-clonal one is Prometheus (tree), about 5,000 years old, so quite consistent with YEC; Pando (tree) is certainly many thousands of years old, quite possibly from before 12,000 BCE though this is not established beyond doubt, and anyway its precise age cannot be established by dendrochronology as the link suggests because it's a clonal tree (ie the trunks are replaced through the lifespan of the organism). If talking dead trees, the oldest known example of an organism that could be called a tree is at least back in the Triassic, so way more than 12,000 BCE, but not too much more helpful in refuting YEC than pointing to a dinosaur fossil, surely (eg, if someone's going to reject the basis of stratigraphy for a dinosaur fossil, as YECs do, there's no reason why they wouldn't use the same argument for a tree). Earliest trees aside, I'm sure there'll be plenty of bits of dead tree that radiometric dating conclusively places beyond 12,000 BCE, but what makes them "oldest", and why is 12,000 BCE a special cut-off? At any rate, unless I'm being daft, what is meant here is unclear, and it could perhaps use some tightening by someone familiar. ArdentComplainer (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is murkily written. From context (and the link to Dendrochronology) I assume this is the oldest date we can establish from overlapping tree ring data. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree the wording needs some help. From the linked article, it mentions that tree-ring data goes back 12,310 years for North America, and 12,460 years for central Europe; that's years ago, which is not 12,000 BCE, but closer to 10,000 BCE. And the link text is "oldest known trees", which can be easily confused for "oldest living trees", which I believe is the bristlecone pine, but that's less than 5000 years old. There are a few other plant or plant colonies (not trees) that are far older, and might be used as evidence against YEC, but not sure if that helps here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

First Sentence of “Scientific Refutation” Subsection

I want to be careful with this edit to NOT make it seem as though YEC hasn’t been refuted 4.54 billion times over or that EVERY competent scientist doesn’t reject it.

The first sentence of the “Scientific Refutation” subsection says: “The vast majority of scientists refute young Earth creationism.” That sentence seems to be combining two different claims into one: (i) Nearly every scientist REJECTS YEC, and (ii) YEC has been refuted over and over. As it reads now, it seems to be saying that nearly every scientist has themselves refuted YEC, i.e., done some work that refutes YEC. But most scientists just find it ridiculous and in conflict with...all of science, and so don’t themselves have anything to do with it.

If you all agree with the above analysis, how would something like this be for a rewrite of that one sentence?: “The vast majority of scientists reject Young Earth Creationism, and the position has been refuted by overwhelming evidence from numerous scientific disciplines.”

Thanks for your consideration! Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That change looks good but would need some reference work. The current "scientists refute" wording was added 9 April 2016 by ThePlatypusofDoom. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

All right; I think the refs are probably already in the article and wouldn’t require SYNTH to get to that statement. I’ll take a look and make the change if that’s the case. If anyone has any problems with me making the change, let me know. Thanks, Johnuniq. Thanksforhelping (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)