Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 1

message: Please try to sign your post even with an IP if necessary (Type ~~~~ at the end of your post) </center> --LexCorp 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true enough. Jewish and Christian literalists use(d) the same methodology in calculating the date of creation (by relying on the chronology given in the Old Testament). See the article on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar for details. - ChrisO 12:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: I thought evidence should go first, then arguments for each side over the evidence. I just put the ICR title there because there was already a section on "Responses to ICR arguments". You can change it to whatever is appropriate. - SamE 21:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

message: I'm concerned that four responses are given, and they are all described as minority. This cannot be the case! I've removed statements about prevalence, pending resolution of this. Martin 21:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Earth and Distant Stars 

message: If the earth is billions of years old, then at present rates (of what?), the amount of helium in the atmosphere should be much, much greater (why?).
People refuting this argument point out that helium escapes to space. (since you can "refute" the argument, could you explain it?)
The diffusion rate of helium from zircon crystals was determined by someone (who?) on the ICR payroll to agree with an ICR prediction.  (what relevance does this have to do with graphite?) The results (Which results?) were not replicated by an unaffiliated lab (which lab?).
: Reading this... the ICR made a prediction about zircon. An ICR-paid person got results showed this prediction was inaccurate. A non-affiliated lab didn't replicate those results... so their results showed that the ICR prediction was accurate??? And this proves what, exactly? Martin
Rates of radioactive decay presumably, producing alpha particles, aka helium nuclei. If the helium collected in the atmosphere, after four billion years there'd be yeah-much, but there isn't. The answer is that helium (and hydrogen) are light enough, and the Earth's atmosphere is hot enough that a small percentage of helium atoms at the top of the atmosphere are going faster than escape speed and are lost to the Earth. --wwoods 22:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That does at least make the exchange comprehensible. Still, it seems pointless to attempt to presume what YECs might believe, and then refute that. Let's just leave it out for now - I don't believe it adds anything useful. Perhaps someone familiar with the argument will be able to re-add it, appropriate attributed. Martin 22:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helium 

message: : A young earth would require human society to progress from the 'caveman' stage to city-building capability in only a few thousand years.
This does not appear to be "evidence" in any commonly understood use of the term. Martin 21:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  defn of evidence 

message: That text, originally contributed by 62.166.55.122, states that "This theory not only fits the same cosmological data that the Big Bang theory purports to explain, but also includes much data that has never been explained by it, like quantized red shifts."
I don't know much about astrophysics.  Does anyone know what is meant by "quantized red shifts"?  Certainly the Big Bang theory adequately explains the red-shift of the background radiation from the supposed initial expansion of the universe, but what is meant by "quantized?"
I am uncomfortable with leaving such a claim in the text unless it is better explained and "quantized red shifts" is a verified phenonemon.  --Saforrest 17:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
:The Big Bang model (and the inflationary model, which is different from the Big Bang model) does not claim that the universe "arises from a black hole".  whoever said that part was confused or mistaken.  -Lethe | Talk
:See  for information about quantized red shifts. Philip J. Rayment 12:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was correctly rendering the source, but the wrong terms were being used.  It's now fixed.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Philip J. Rayment 14:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  White hole cosmology 

message: Ungtss has started to make a pattern known where he makes a number of controversial edits/reverts and then tacks on a few relatively non-controversial ones at the very end to make reversion awkward. I submit that this is a form of passive-aggressive coersion. The idea is that he makes edits that are controversial first so that when a revert happens he can cry foul. Well, I kept his last edit (being that it was uncontroversial), though it was a pain. I fully imagine Ungtss will plead ignorance to this tactic, but I just want him to be aware that I know what he's doing. Joshuaschroeder 08:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: take your conspiracy theories and go home.  you've done the exact same thing repeatedly on this and other pages -- adding spelling corrections to "Science is useless outside the bible."  it's not a deliberate plan to waste your time -- it's a function of trying to correct your erroneous edits as efficiently as possible.  why not let other boys play at the playground too, eh, son?  wikipedia isn't king of the mountain after all?  p.s. i'm sorry for making it more difficult for your to mindlessly revert any opinion but your own.  Ungtss 12:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive-Aggressive Editting 

message: it seems to me that the real problem with the "back and forth" in this article is in the cosmology / astronomy stuff -- shall we move that over to views compared to solve the problem?  Ungtss 13:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cosmology etc 

message: Why?  you've said that it's better because the material is covered on creation according to genesis.  a quick look at the page reveals that the material is not covered there at all, and never was.  you've said that they can go to the bible to read it -- but that doesn't clarify the YOUNG EARTH interpretation of the passage -- the OLD EARTH, DAY-AGE, and ALLEGORICAL reading will be VERY DIFFERENT from this reading.  the bible itself doesn't say what young earth creationists say -- young earth creationists have one interpretation of several.  so why is it so important for you to delete historical details of the YEC view of history?  Ungtss 21:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "this edit is better." 

message: - Young earth creationists take the account of Genesis to be a historical account of the origin of the Earth and life. + Young earth creationists take the account of Genesis to be a historical account of the origin of the Earth and life. (See Creation according to Genesis). 
    
- Genesis reports that God created the Earth in six days, and rested on the seventh. After creating the Earth and all the animals and plants, God planted a Garden with all kinds of trees including the Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He planted the field in Eden. There, God breathed life into Man—Adam—who named many of the animals and birds; then, God created woman from a rib in Adam's side, and gave her to him. Adam subsequently named her Eve "because she would become the mother of all the living". They were naked, but were not ashamed, and walked and talked with God. + Genesis reports that God created the Earth in six days. According to most YEC accounts, before Fall of man there was no death in the world. The subsequent Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam to Noah to Abraham, with the ages at which they had the next in line and the ages at which they died . According to the figures in the genealogies, God sent a global flood 1656 years after he created Adam, but preserved Noah and his family on an ark. The ark was supposedly constructed of a particular dimensions and design, and fit seven (or seven pairs) of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal on it..  
    
- However, Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which they had been instructed not to do; As a result, God removed them from the Garden, forcing Adam to work hard to feed himself and Eve, giving Eve pain in childbirth, and denying them access to the Tree of Life, so that they would die. + Contemporary creationists have asserted that the flood was a combination of radical geological activity and extreme rain. They argue that the land before the flood was much more level, but that extreme geological action during the flood raised mountains to new heights and dropped the sea-bed, so that the water that had covered the land flowed into the sea. Flood geology argues that the fact that 80% of the Earth's crust is covered in deep sedimentary strata is a result of liquefaction after the flood. The detail mechanisms or models of how this works are not offered by any of Flood geology's advocates. 
    
- The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam to Noah to Abraham, with the ages at which they had the next in line and the ages at which they died .  + According to the account, after the flood lifespans dropped quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Contemporary creationists have suggested that this is due to the effects of the inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained. Creationists also assert that all the contemporary species of animals are descended from those original animals on the ark; that the animals adapted to their environments by the process of rapid variation and natural selection. Young Earth Creationists assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a loss of genetic potential.  
-   +  
- The genealogy reports that Adam lived 130 years before bearing his son Seth, and died at the age of 930. Ages of between 777 and 969 years are reported for all people until Noah (except for Enoch, who didn't die). +  
-   +  
- According to the account, over time, man became corrupted and filled the Earth with violence. Seeing this, God came to regret having made them. He found one man, Noah, who was just, and walked with God. He determined to end the violence and wickedness of men by sending a flood to wipe out the evil, but preserve Noah and his family on an ark. He instructed Noah to build an ark of gopher wood of particular dimensions and design, and to bring seven (or seven pairs) of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal into the ark..  +  
-   +  
- According to the figures in the genealogies, God sent the flood 1656 years after he created Adam, in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, "in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month." According to the account, "the fountains of the great deep and windows of heaven broke open," flooding the Earth. Noah was instructed to bring his wife, and his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives, for a total of eight people. All other people were to be destroyed. The genealogies indicate that Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, died in the same year as the flood, meaning he could have died in the flood. All his other ancestors were already dead, including his father Lamech, who died five years before the flood. Alternatively, it has been suggested that God waited for Methuselah to die before he sent the flood. +  
-   +  
- Contemporary creationists assert that the flood was a combination of radical geological activity (the fountains of the great deep opening) and extreme rain. They argue that the land before the flood was much more level, but that extreme geological action during the flood raised mountains to new heights and dropped the sea-bed, so that the water that had covered the land flowed into the sea. Flood geology argues that the fact that 80% of the Earth's crust is covered in deep sedimentary strata is a result of liquefaction after the flood. +  
-   +  
- According to the account, the rains lasted 40 days, and the waters covered the earth for 150 days, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ar'arat, and in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month of Noah's life, the face of the Earth was dry. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month of Noah's life, the earth was dry, and God instructed Noah to leave the ark. +  
-   +  
- From that point, the account indicates that lifespans dropped quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Contemporary creationists have suggested that this is due to the effects of the inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained. Creationists also assert that all the contemporary species of animals are descended from those original animals on the ark; that the animals adapted to their environments by the process of variation and natural selection. Contrary to the theory of evolution, however, Young Earth Creationists assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a loss of genetic potential.  
Joshuaschroeder 23:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The contemporary model of young earth creationism + The material beliefs of young earth creationism 

message: I believe you are refering to this extract from "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" by the National Academy of Science:
:However, scientists from many fields have examined these ideas and have found them to be scientifically insupportable. For example, evidence for a very young earth is incompatible with many different methods of establishing the age of rocks. Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and verification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science.
And I believe that your argument is that this is a contradictory statement. This will be true and you will be in the right, if not for the fact that you make the wrong assumption that a hypothesis or claim can only have one element, when in fact it could contain a number of elements. Some of which could be falsified and others which could not. What it really matters is that a hypothesis with central elements that are unfalsifiable could never become a scientific theory --LexCorp 01:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer to "Example of evolutionists claiming creationism is both NOT subject to testing and FAILING testing" 

message: ::Philip Quinn, a philosopher of science and quite clearly an anti-creationist, took Stephen Jay Gould to task for self-contradictory "verbal abuse". Quinn argued that Gould couldn't have it both ways̬that creationism is unfalsifiable and that some claims are falsified:
::In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified'. … Ironically, in the next sentence Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Indeed some of them are! But since they are easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument in Gould's anti-creationist polemics. ["The philosopher of science as expert witness", in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984]
Well, it seems that even the philosopher of science Philip Quinn is confused, at least from what we read in the above paragraph or there has been some miscommunication. In essence Stephen Jay Gould says that scientific creationism cannot be falsified but that individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research. This is clearly an omitted context abuse or obtuse literalism for the part of Philip Quinn . I am sure Stephen Jay Gould meant that "Some individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Which renders the whole of the above superfluous.
In the event that I may be the one utterly confused by the above extract, I should point out that no matter what this two gentleman discuss, testability and falsifiability are central to the scientific process and thus this addition is neither a NPOV nor are the apparent conclusions that one can drawn from it (mainly that testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument) factual.
--LexCorp 04:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition by 220.244.224.8 

message: :Young Earth Creationists (YEC), perhaps the largest and most organized group of creationists currently active in America,
Is this well known or verifiable? At should it not be North America?
Consider,
:Young Earth Creationists (YEC) is a large and well organized group of creationists currently active in North America,
Ha, what the heck it looks better and more encyclopaedic so I am changing it. Fell free to comment
LexCorp 18:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern of no NPOV that may rise by other creationists 

message: (err lets close the above debate is not taking us anywhere and is becaming quite large.)
Changing
:Young Earth creationists acknowledge that they base their ideas in part on assumptions of a supernatural creator, but claim that modern evolutionary biology is at odds with select many observations, and where it isn't at odds is largely unfalsifiable and is based on unprovable naturalistic assumptions. In support of this statement they often quote some evolutionary scientists acknowledging a philosophical basis for their belief in evolution.
to
:Young Earth creationists acknowledge that they base their ideas in part on assumptions of a supernatural creator, but claim that modern evolutionary biology is at odds with select many observations, and where it isn't at odds is largely unfalsifiable and is based on unprovable naturalistic assumptions. In support of this last statement they often quote some evolutionary scientists acknowledging a philosophical basis for their belief in evolution.
I know I said I was happy with it but I changed my opinion. That is why I am asking for an opinion here and not changing it right away. I don't want to start a POV or NPOV war again.
Rationale: Those citations only support the bit about naturalistic assumptions and not the bits about the observations and unfalsifiability. --LexCorp 21:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good.  go for it:).  Ungtss 21:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider this 

message: enesis]], and made into a subsection, it could be linked directly from here, and thus make this article shorter. 220.244.224.10 04:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: Most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel  Also, most YECs, in contrast with Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but the scientific data supports that view
According to the quote I pulled out from above they talk about the scientific data that supports their view on science and history. Shouldn't some of that evidence be presented in the article? 
I don't know what copyright rules Aig has, but perhaps some of there arguments should be presented on here in order to give the article a more complete feel. Falphin 02:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence???