Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3

message: The wp article on Dawkin's tv documentary ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F ) states that.. 
"Next, Dawkins visits Colorado Springs to discuss the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the United States where, according to polls, 45 percent of the population believe the universe to be less than 10,000 years old."
Needless to say, I was blown away by the mere possibility YECs might be so numerous in USA. Is this a mistake, or are there actual polls to support such an overabundance of gross scientific illiteracy among Americans? Might I suggest a section describing this "movement's" popularity throughout the world? 212.152.70.12 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll result indicates that despite 80 years of evolutionist's pseudoscientific propoganda, a large proportion of the population has not been sucked in. See poll reslts here  rossnixon 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity in the United States? 

message: It is the last sentence in the 4th paragraph "Before long, scientific inquiries provoked by his claims had pushed back the age of the earth into the millions of years – still too short when compared with what is now known, but a great advance on the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old."
Saying "compared with what is now known" automatically assumes that YEC is wrong from the POV of the author of the article.  I changed it to say "still much younger than commonly accepted by mainstream scientists."
I understand that in most articles it would be acceptable to assume that the commonly accepted theory of the majority of mainstream scientists is correct and list it as such, but in this article that is precisely what is contested and it is POV to assert that the other side's view is "what is now known."  The naked prophet.
:I would say that was more a case of clumsy wording than outright POV, but your change is a definite improvement. Well done for fixing that. -- ChrisO 07:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the statement that the scientifically-determined age of the Earth is a "point of view".  It's not a point of view, it's a fact.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not! Science has never proven anything to be fact! You're biased. Scorpionman 14:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  and yet, your computer works!  Dang science and their "semicondictor" theories... human 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Technically, isn't every single human being on earth biased in some way? Homestarmy 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume you mean over a certain physical or intellectual age? •Jim62sch• 18:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, after all, wouldn't very small children have that typical bias for....themself? :D Homestarmy 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have any kids? •Jim62sch• 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you about to tell me something about how small children are so precious they are incapable of wanting something for themselves over wanting something for someone else? Homestarmy 18:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How the heck did this discussion on children start? Cyde isn't merely biased; he's prejudiced. He insists that the scientifically-determined way of dating the age of the earth "isn't a view; it's a fact." I said it's not a fact because science ahs never proved anything to be a fact. Scorpionman 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scorpionman, the only way that what you are saying could be true, is if facts themselves were impossible to obtain. The scientific method has uncovered more truth and guided more rational thought than any other method of analysis that has ever existed. If you’re using some kind of deep meaning for the word fact, then there is no point in even having a wikipedia, because nothing is certain with 100% clarity, we might as well just be clucking like chickens. Applying such philosophy (that nothing is certain) to everyday life is dangerous, because there certainly is knowledge which can be used to predict future events and guide us through our lives. Currently, the scientific method is the best method for determining what is true, and what is not true with certainty. Think of the theory of natural selection as if it were a prophet, and think of it's Hypotheses as prophecy. The predictions that the theory of natural selection has made about the world are constantly validated by hard evidence. How can you say that science has not proved anything to be fact? Without the proven scientific facts of physics, how would we have cars, and planes, and computers, and the internet? All of these great inventions are the result of predictions about what is true which have been made by the scientific method. I'm always amazed at how people can have so much passion for the truth, and yet fail to see how much the scientific community respects the truth with its scientific method. Don't you see how much we have acheived through science?--146.244.137.178 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You gotta understand, those things you talk about, cars, planes, computers, the internet, all of those are fine. But with natural selection, thats a direct attack on Christianity, which many adherants believe(Including myself) is proven compleatly because we were born again. I don't see how you can just lump all the achievements of man together and say that every single thing we've ever created should be looked at in the same exact light of "truth" and by that standard say that every time the scientific community agrees on something, everybody is obligated to believe it or their hypocrites for picking and choosing whats right. Besides, on a fundamental level, everything scientifically is speculation, because what we see in our world depends on our understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe and their smallest components, which we don't know everything about. We see that the reactions of fuel and oxygen, when given a spark, will create energy that drives things. We can't see into the individual nucleus's of every molecule of that reaction, to literally know exactly the shape, composition, nature, and building blocks of everything in there down to the smallest thing possible. And yet, irregardless, we know that these forces are giving us the reaction we need. It's called Quantum Theory for a good reason, there's always more to discover :). The same should logically follow for natural selection, the framework which evolutionists use to look at the past. So what is "known" today in the scientific world will probably discarded for tommorow, pretty much as science has always done. Homestarmy 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern was with scorpionmans statment that "Science has never proven anything to be fact!". But this is an old issue, and I don't have any objection to how the article itself is worded at the moment, so I probably shouldn't have said anything.--146.244.137.178 18:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This may be an old article but I can't see what your problem is. I never said that we should go through life saying that nothing is certain. All I said was that science can't prove anything. Science cannot prove that the earth is as old as Cyde Weys thinks it is, so I told him that and now you start off on some tangeant about something I didn't even say. Are you saying that science can prove anything? Scorpionman 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I fixed a POV statement in the history section 

message: Is:
However, the development of scientific methods of enquiry soon produced a considerable volume of evidence that made a scientific belief in young Earth creationism untenable.
A NPOV?
Also I dont know what do make of this paragraph:
-Young Earth creationism has also failed to make much of an impact outside of fundamentalist Protestant denominations. Virtually all other Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, reject the concept of young Earth creationism. Many Bible scholars dispute the idea that Genesis should be taken literally, as young Earth creationists argue.-
"fundamentalist" here is used here in its everyday inaccurate and somewhat disparaging definition. The fundamental movement of the 1920-30s was succeded by the present day Evangelical movement which holds the majority of american christians. People like to call evangelical's fundamentals because fundamentalism is associated with backward southerners. In any case, YEC has succeeded in making "much of an impact" in evangelical christianity. "Virtually all other Christian denominations.." is misleading, since most non catholics in america are evangelical. I want to be fair though: Catholisism has said evolution is OK, and liberal christian denominations dont accept YEC. 
-"Many Bible scholars dispute the idea that Genesis should be taken literally"-
"Many" is very relative. "A majority" is not, but is harder to prove. Yes, I'm taking pot shots at the POV of this article, but I'm trying to be NPOV myself. How about "Bible scholars continue to debate the proper interpretation of Genesis 1-11" ?
And all this isnt halfway thru the article. Oh well.
15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the first thing isn't sourced by a pretty big degree of references which contain the statement in context, (As in, nothing obscure about the scientific method being "better" than Christianity or something) then I would say it should be nuked with much prejudice for being POV. (Ah, the irony!) As for fundamentalism, in my experience, its only negative depending on who's side people are on, for instance, i'd be glad if people thought I was a fundamentalist because that means im hopefully succeeding in "letting your light shine before men",(Or, you know, I might just be annoying them alot. Ah well!) but im sure people who are against fundamentalism would, you know, think of it in a negative sense heh. And I like your last suggestion about the many vs. majority thing personally. Homestarmy 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Some Issue'''

message: I just added this topic.  People can check the wording and help point out any NPOV.
Liberty4u 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Earth creationism and Cosmology

message: This article needs to have properly formatted references using <ref> and .  I might get around to it, but it could take awhile.  --Cyde Weys 22:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing references 

message: The article refers to YEC as being both a Jewish and Christian belief, but the only mention of any Jewish acceptance is from the first century.  Is there any significant Jewish acceptance of YEC beliefs today?  If so, we should have some references. –Shoaler (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe many if not most Orthodox Jews adhere to young earth creationism. I don't have time to look up references though, hopefuly someone else will come along. 12.220.94.199 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt most is true, but it certainly is common among orthodox jews. My general impression is that most orthodox jews are between OEC and theistic evolution. Modern orthodox are generally theistic evolution or something similar. Certain groups are officialy YEC, the most prominent example being the Lubavitchers. I'll try to see if I can dig up any formal references for the section. JoshuaZ 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. 12.220.94.199 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Young Earth Creationism

message: Just a thought, YEC is also believed by many muslims, but the article makes no mention of it. I can probably find some good references quite easily, so I was wondering if there is any reason not to include it in the article.Islamic Creationism has it's own article, but it is still a YEC belief. Jefffire 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it in. Jefffire 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic YEC 

message: Plumbago thinks the claim does not need a citation and reverted the citation marker. If anyone disagrees, a citation might be  or if they find that insufficient, one of the many sources listed there which make the same assertion. JoshuaZ 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy for there to be a cite there, I just wasn't convinced that we need one.  The one above seems fair to me, but something from one of the larger professional societies might be good too.  There were certainly a couple published last year during the ID trial as I recall.  Cheers, --Plumbago 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, digging up a bit more, we get  which gives the percentage of scientists who are YEC as under 5%, we have Project Steve , we have this which is more about ID than YEC but is still pretty relevant since YEC seems to be a subset of ID  ,  and finally we have in the Cobb County case an amicus brief filed by 56 major science organizations pdf here. I wasn't able to find any as extensive as that in the Dover trial although there were I think evidence submitted to that affect. If anyone cares and I have time, I'll go through the Dover records in more detail. So the question now becomes which of these sources do we prefer? JoshuaZ 16:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for citation by anon IP 

message: I've changed the last two sentences of this passage.
WAS: Many Bible scholars reject the fundamentalist approach to taking Genesis literally, contrary to what some see Jesus as having stated (Mark 10:6). Young Earth creationists disagree with their view.
NOW: Many Bible scholars reject the fundamentalist approach to taking Genesis literally. Young Earth creationists disagree.
REASON: As it stood it seemed that many YEC disagreed with what Jesus said in Mark 10:6. (The unintended result of an interjected edit, I presume.) And because Mark 10:6, anyway, isn't the best support for a YEC view. The statement that YEC disagree hardly needs references at all: it's the entire point of the article. MacMurrough 22:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit at "Revival of Young Earth Creationism" 

message: Re intro text:
:that scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism is wrongly interpreted.
This goes against NPOV fairness of tone.  The tone suggests that the evidence "really is" for evolution (to the exclusion of creation), but that young earth creationism (incorrectly) believes the evolution are misinterpreting it.
I reworded the text to avoid an implication of the evidence incontrovertibly supporting one theory over another.
--Ed Brey 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. It says precisely that the evidence which is interpreted one way by the vast majority of scientists they think is being wrongly interpreted. Please read NPOV again, especially the section about undue weight. JoshuaZ 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under WP:SPOV, I could see this (I think, haven't looked into SPOV much), but NPOV's undue weight section does not call for exclusion of a class of people (in this case non-scientitsts) when determining whether a viewpoint is held by a significant minority. Perhaps the undue weight section should be clarified, but excluding the viewpoint of the vast majority of the population seems quite contrary to the spririt of NPOV and Wikipedia in general. --Ed Brey 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusingly enough, it was actually a creationist, Jphl, who reworded the text to the disputed version.  They were clarifying an earlier (and, to my mind, more flawed) version which implied that creationists questioned the very existence of certain evidence for an old Earth (see here).  Anyway, while I understand JoshuaZ's point entirely, I don't find Ed Brey's text objectionable.  Not least because a sentence or so later it's clarified that science views creationism as pseudoscience.  The possible implications of the more subtle wording we're debating here is likely to be missed when it's revealed that creationism is bunk (in a scientific sense that is; it's fascinating from a sociological perspective).  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording that implied the evidence was incontrovertibly "for" evolution 

message: The poll referenced near the end of the decline section, http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm , was made in 1997, not 2006 as this article claimed. Likewise, the poll defines scientist as anyone with a degree in science, which some people would disagree with. So I changed "Scientist" to "US citizens with degrees in science" to remove any possible confusion.
Eccentricned 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - my bad.  Sorry.  I see what you're getting at.  I latched onto the bit about college degrees.  Erroneously.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. That website, although giving very useful information, isn't very clear at times.Eccentricned 09:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in Poll reference 

message: I have reverted your recent edit for the second time. YEC organisations cannot be considered professional because they do not submit their work for peer review among the mainstream scientific community. And if they did, it would be laughed out of court. Laurence Boyce 13:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've changed it to "Mainstream science journals and science organizations generally oppose young earth creationism." The previous sentence with "professional" in is false, under any normal definition of "professional". 86.31.251.190 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted.  The use of "professional" is pretty clear on matters scientific.  That you don't like it is neither here nor there.  Cheers, --Plumbago 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plumbago, going from your "Talk" page, you clearly have history on this. I had no idea that you'd previously gone to such lengths on it. You're probably not a good person to arbitrate in this. 86.31.251.190 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, so because I have clearly expressed the opinion that nonsense dressed up as science should be knocked for this, I'm to be excluded from debates on said topic?  Hardly the way the WP does things.  You'll have to argue your corner on this one properly.  Specifically, why are well-established science organisations not professional?  That they reject unproductive pseudoscience really isn't enough to disbar them.  And your use of "mainstream science" implies that creationism is simply "non-mainstream science", which flatters it wildly.  It's.  Not.  Science.  Period.  Cheers, --Plumbago 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 86.31.x.x 

message: The first section claims, "...Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days", while the final section says, "Young Earth creationists such as Basil the Great ..."  Which is correct?  I believe it is the latter, but can anyone source that and correct the article accordingly? Ephrathah 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know any sources, but it's possible Basil subscribed to the theory that the days of Genesis actually represented 12 hour days instead of 24, which would certainly make him even younger of an Young Earth Creationist (albiet an uncommon one). So these sentences aren't necessarily contradictory. (of course, if a source names him an Old Earth Creationist, then they would be.) Homestarmy 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity error: Basil the Great 

message: This article is extremely bias towards criticism of Young Earth Creationism.  It was obviously written by a person(s) hostile towards the theory.  This is hardly the professional stance of a legitimate encyclopedia.  The entire article should be rewritten and made impartial. 
A typical example of said bias is the line
“The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century saw a revival of interest in Young Earth creationism, as a part of their rejection of the explanation of evolution.”
First off, the idea that there was a "rise" in fundamentalist Christianity in the 20th Century is a fallacy.  Historical mainstream Christianity in America, which has only recently been referred to as "fundamentalist" has been in constant decline since the late 19th century, at least. Indeed, most of what was considered orthodox 200 years ago was much more "fundamentalist" than was 100 years ago, and the same applies to the 100 years later today.  This fact is evidenced in the history of our Ivy League schools, all of which used to be orthodox theological seminaries, and now are almost entirely secular, if not exceedingly liberal in dogma.  America has not shifted "right" in over 200 years, if indeed it ever has.  It has consistently grown more and more liberal, never the opposite.
Secondly, the so called "revival" of interest in YEC was not a revival at all, but rather a more thorough study of the field.  Prior to the theory of evolution, and even up until the mid 20th century in many areas, there was not a mainstream contrary position to YEC, so no such science would need be pursued.  In fact, prior to the theory of evolution, YEC was the accepted norm for all of modern history (I am speaking in terms of public opinion, not the scientific community).  With the shift of public opinion and especially the implementation of evolutionary studies in public schools in the 1950’s, the study of YEC theory became warranted, not "revived".  The article makes it look like YEC was concocted as a means to contradict emerging scientific data.  In reality, the scientific study of YEC arose from the contrary opinion of evolution and its expanding time frames.
There are too many of these types of erroneous statements in the article to point out as time and reader interest will not allow, but suffice to say, the entire article needs a major unbiased reworking.
BigFatLoser 3Oct06
:Actually, there was indeed a rather noticeable movement of Christians around the early 20th century, in fact, I think that's when they coined the term "fundamentalist" to show how they were attempting to get back to the "fundamentals" of Christianity. They even wrote a book, called "The Fundamentals" or something, and the movement was involved during the whole Scopes trial thing. And just because collages have shifted to the left doesn't mean all of America has. Homestarmy 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homest is correct, and actually note that even prior to the theory of evolution old age views were very common among geologists (as early as 1820 or so) and there were many fewer objections to this on religious grounds (although they did exist). The Fundamentals actually make very interesting reading. JoshuaZ 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Article (part 2)

message: The article states that "The text of Genesis relates that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh."  And I agree if you do a casual reading of English translations.  However, some commentaters, notably E. W. Bullinger, argue that the six days describes the creation of the new world after the "world that was".  I have researched and understand Bullinger's argument.  I will present it here.
NIV:
:Ge 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
KJV:
: Ge 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Now, the English word "formless" in the NIV and the english words "without form" in the KJV are translations of the Hebrew word tohu, G/K Number H9332 and Strong's Number H8414.  The Strongs Concordance lists one of the meanins of toho as "to lie waste" or simply "waste."  
Likewise, the english word "empty" in the NIV and the english word "void" in the KJV is translated from the Hewbrew bohu, G/K Number H983 and Strong's Number H922.  Strong's Concordance provides one of the definitions of bohu as ruin.
Consequently, it is argued that the verses could be considered something like ~ "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2  Now the earth was waste and ruin, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Furthermore, Bullinger's observations link Ge1:1-2 to 2Pe3:6, which states (KJV) 2Pe3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."(italics added)  Bullinger believes that this is a reference to Ge1:1-2, and not the flood during Noah's time.  He concludes with "The creation in eternity past, to which all fossils and remains belong."  (Companion Bible, page 3).
Consequently, the articles should include, in my opinion, the fact that some theologians reject the young Earth on literal grounds.
See the Bullinger's side notes [].
Also, a quick google search will show that other literal interpreters [] agree with Bullinger.  
To summarize:  The article should be changed to reflect the fact that some literal interpreters of the Bible do not think the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. 65.73.80.45 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the basic tenet of Gap Creationism, one of the OEC variants that are compatible with biblical literalism.  I don't think we need to explicitly refer to it in this article - if this article made the claim that YEC was the _only_ possible literalist viewpoint, it would need correcting, but I can't see anywhere that it does. Tevildo 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh 

message: I just removed the following paragraph from the article:
:A second problem is that the plants which Adam and Eve and the animals ate in Eden must have not "died" during their ingestion, digestion, and excretion. Genesis 1:29 indicates that God gave to man seed-bearing and fruit-bearing plants, but does not specifically say whether man ate the fruits or seeds (which would not kill the plant) or consumed the entire plant. In any case, plant death may not have to be explained. Leviticus 17:11 can be interpreted as stating that only creatures with blood are "alive" (the specific passage reads "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (NKJV), and this does not necessarily indicate a statement that only those organisms with blood are alive), so Genesis could have been referring to the death of those organisms that are "living" in this sense only. Following this line of reasoning, plant fossils and geological resources such as gas and oil don't directly conflict with YEC in terms of "death", but only in terms of the age of the earth.
This looks a lot like original research. Samboy 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This looks like original research 

message: Hi everyone :)
The External links section is strange - it has "YEC videos" then "Critical of YEC." What would be better is having a section for Pro-YEC, listing a few (major) YEC organisations (i.e. Answers in Genesis), and then some more under "critical", combining both Old Earth creationists (like the Answers in Creation link and Reasons.org) and some atheist organisations which focus on YEC.
Yoda921 07:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I've added this new subsection to the Criticism" section, as it's quite an important area which so far is lacking from the article. At the moment it's lacking citations - please add citation needed tags and I'll try to oblige. Also any suggestions for amendments to the subsection. PiCo 10:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My first impression is that much of the new material does not belong here, and should only be in Documentary Hypothesis. Oh, also; it's confusing to have "first millenium" etc without BC or BCE. rossnixon 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's BC :). Thanks for the critique Ross. If the general view is that it doesn't belong we can delete it. My reason for thinking that it does belong is that, as I understand it, the YEC case is based on Genesis being actual history, and that we know it's actual history because it comes from God Himself. I don't know how many YECists ask themselves just how it came from God, but the answer is that He revealed it to Moses, either in a single revelation on Sinai or over the course of the 40 years in the wilderness. If biblical scholars say that the Torah was in fact written by four different people or groups of people, at various dates stretching from c.922 BC to c. 400 BC, and that each writer had a distinctive but always human purpose in writing, then that makes a major challenge to the YEC woirld-view. PiCo 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the subsection. I think it goes in the wrong direction. 08:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New subsection, "Biblical scholarship" 

message: I don't see one thing in there about actual critiques.  One that comes to mind are expanding on time-based traits (radio carbon dating, for example, is very accurate up to 50,000 years).  Another thing that comes to mind is getting the distance of planets, and finding that light would have had to travel for so many years.  Of course i know radio-carbon dating is challenged with only accurate to 50,000 years (counter-counter argument: That's still more then 6,000), and that god created light closer to earth.  But some arguments i think should be in there. MikedaSnipe 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could only mention the critiques in a 'general' way. If you try to get too specific, you will be shot down with counter-arguments. e.g. In the case of C14, there should be virtually no C14 in diamonds and coal-seams that are dated at millions of years old, but there is! rossnixon 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ross that criticism shouldn't go into detail - you just end up with a long argument in place of an informative article. The criticism section could be shortened considerably, and focus more on why YECists contine to believe in YEC despite all the evidence to the contrary. Something like: "The beliefs of Young Earth Creationism run counter to the conclusions of scientists and scholars across a wide range of fields, including biblical criticism, geology, astronomy (fill in your own list). Its followers, nevertheless, contend that it is modern science which is in error, and have put forward a number of explanations to uphold their beliefs. These include (brief outline of major YEC counter-arguments). PiCo 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism seems to only be about critics angle, not their actual facts against

message: I tagged this article for poor writing...it could use some revision —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.87.207.1 (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Writing 

message: The subject of creationism vs. evolutionism has always been one of great interest to me. I've had personal experience with more than a few fanatics and visionaries on both sides of the fence. My own views on the subject though, along with much of what I've read of the rest of the discussion elements on this page seem to be largely irrelevant to the topic of the page though.
It's my understanding that the purpose of an encyclopedia, be it hardbound or online, is to "inform" and not serve as a platform to promote a person or organization's views on the topic in question; opinions are, by virtue, subjective, and encyclopedias are supposed to be built upon objectivity as much as possible.
That being said, I believe the article was excellent! Granted, I had never even heard the terms "YEC" or "ID" before today (I followed a link from the "Oort cloud" article), so I couldn't speak to the factual accuracy of the article itself, but as I previously had no definition for "Young Earth Creationism" before reading the article, I assume it to be true until such time as someone can show me evidence to the contrary. So, as an informative, encyclopedic, piece on the subject of Young Earth Creationism, I believe it to be a fantastic success.
As far as whom on the discussion page believes what and for what reason, what does that have to do with the article itself? Assuming for the sake of argument that everything in the article, in reference to the past, present, and doctrines of YEC is 100% correct, how could there be any discussion concerning the validity of its views? Why it subscribes to the platform that it does is not the issue. All the article should say is something like, "This is what Young Earth Creationism is, these are its doctrines, this is what they've done, this is what they're doing, and these are its officially stated reasons for it." Whether you agree or disagree is beside the point.
In reality though, since it is most likely NOT authored by a deity or its minions, there may be typos and grammatical and/or factual errors. I saw some discussion along these lines and this is to be expected, even encouraged! But so often, particularly regarding subjects like this, "discussions" degenerate into finger-pointing and bible-thumping; the meat of the respective arguments, enlightened or ignorant though it may be, only succeeds in confusing people who have not yet formed an opinion of their own (perhaps the only people that stand to be swayed in matters such as these). Everyone who has a stance on this and other issues of this nature means to keep it, so trying to "convert" one another accomplishes nothing. Do yourselves a favor and stick to the facts and how the relate to the purpose of the article in the given context; arguing about who's right in this particular place and situation will only cause rationale, intelligent people who have not yet made up their minds one way or the other (presumably the only people one would choose to populate their organization with) to avoid the matter entirely due to lack of any clear and concise evidence presented in an orderly and easy to understand format.
It is all very interesting though. Asuka.n.Pico 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Most of us know all that - but it is easy, sometimes useful and often interesting to go a little "off topic". (Some of us are usenet addicts from way back).rossnixon 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is the point of the brunt of this discussion: God vs. Science, or the defination of Young Earth Creationism? 

message: I have to put this on my site because here everything gets deleted. And the only reason I used a pic of a profile to make my point, it has been my dealings with evolutionist that they will change what is written and say it is not so. And say it never said that and call me a liar in the process, etc... So here's my new webpage about the bias here: http://yecheadquarters.org/shame_part2.16.html
Shall I go further into it, or is it going to be admitted? For I can do at least ten more pages on bias here by showing word for word comparison between how creation is presented vs evolution. And if I go to that much trouble to change things here, I won't be taking it down anytime soon. To bad I can't do it here in dicussion. From this point forward I will be making copies of everything said concerning this issue, just in case someone deletes what I say here, or adds to it to try and make me look like I said what I did not say. I already have had someone accuse me of threatening people. What is my goal? If you going to push neutral view on the users, better hold up to it on your end as well.Ikester7579 09:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ikester7579 - you should read the appropriate policy sections in WP:NPOV (the defunct WP:SPOV page is helpful too).  On matters of science, rigidly equal treatment of all viewpoints is not "neutral".  YEC is a minority viewpoint at best; in reality it's even less than that - it has no presence in the scientific literature at all.  YEC makes statements about the world that are so markedly at odds with observational data, that to present it as if has some scientific basis is simply dishonest.  That YEC comes up with different answers to mainstream science is not its major flaw.  At the most fundamental level, YEC is a complete inversion of the scientific method.  It starts with the answer (e.g. the Flood happened) and then works backwards (e.g. here's a vegetarian pirhana grown under two atmospheres) to justify it, all the time disregarding unhelpful observations that fail to support "the Answer".  Anyway, you may find the material you've worked on is more acceptable over at CreationWiki.  --Plumbago 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone here is calling you a liar. The reasons behind removal of your material from the article might be a bit obscure to a newcomer, so I can understand why you might be assuming a more "obvious" motive. It might look like all the atheists are out to get you here, but that really isn't the case. Please take the time to read the guidelines about the  neutral point of view and about  notability of sources, and hopefully things will become clear. SheffieldSteel 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone here is calling you stupid either. Unfortunately you've got me wrong. I am not really a "big time evolutionist believer"; I'm just someone who likes pictures of happy fishapods. The only things I have "defended here" are wikipedia standards and guidelines, and the integrity of scientific principles. Anyway, enough polite small talk. Did you have any suggestions to make about improving the article? SheffieldSteel 06:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm.  Ikester7579 - please read my remarks again carefully.  I was not calling you a liar.  I was simply saying that it would be dishonest to present YEC as if it had equivalence with mainstream science.  YEC inverts the scientific method, has no presence whatsoever within the scientific literature, and is at odds with basic, boring facts from scientific disciplines as disparate as archaeology and particle physics.  A naive equal-treatment of YEC and science would do a disservice to anyone seeking objective knowledge from the Wikipedia.  Anyway, having now taken the time to visit your website, it's very clear we're going to have to agree to disagree.  Before adding any more material to this article you really need to read WP:NPOV, WP:SPOV and WP:NOTE.  Otherwise you'll probably just find yourself running afoul of what we're here for, and your hard work will be deleted.  --Plumbago 09:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agrees with all that, except that YEC'ists have their own scientific literature. rossnixon 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I did a some research about the bias here

message: I made my mind up once I realized how bias and the religous bigotry was being promoted here. This Wiki has no intentions of changing. I accept that. But it don't mean I won't be exposing it on my site. I determine I will be able to expose the bias here on about 5 different levels, maybe more. But when I am done, there will be no doubt about what is promoted here. A fair and balanced Wiki? Yeah, right.Ikester7579 04:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What bias and what religious bigotry?  You have made these claims many times, but have not pointed out one article with one instance of bias or bigotry.  HERE in the talk sections of the article is where that needs to be done and I know that myself an others want to see that Wikipedia is as non-biased as possible and help from you would be much appreciated.  Again I refer you to the religions section and ask that you show how Wikipedia is misrepresenting Christianity or any other religion. RiverBissonnette 04:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's very difficult to argue that there is systematic bias throughout an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Bistromathic 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can edit, not does edit, and since there is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias over the systematic bias on Wikipedia, I think it would be remarkably easy to argue that there is systematic bias throughought an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but was started primarily through the efforts of one countries citizens.... Homestarmy 17:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the allegations of bias on the page you linked seem to be very minor (spellings, article names, etc.), and some of them are contradictory (apparently there are both pro-liberal and pro-conservative bias throughout Wikipaedia), so I will rephrase what I said: it's very difficult to argue that there is significant systematic bias throughout an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.  Of course all bias is subjective, when I see 'there is bias on Wikipedia' I read 'Wikipedia does not conform to my biased opinions'.  I'm not really sure what my point is here...  I suppose you are right about bias towards the US - if that's what you meant - though if a large proportion of visitors to the site are from a country, is over-representing topics that pertain to that country really a problem?  The same goes for bias towards articles about computers, technology, online encyclopaedias, and so on: visitors to this website will of course be more interested in these topics than the general population, but only visitors to the website will see the articles anyway.  Back on topic, trying to portray YEC as having any level of public acceptance would definitely be US-centric. Bistromathic 09:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A guy actually said something on a forum? That's hardly damning evidence you have there. Given the option of going and researching wikipedia bias, I think most of us would rather stay here and discuss improvements to this article. And speaking of which, I'm still not sure I understand your point. I'm not sure whether you're arguing that there are too many US-centric views here, or that belief in Young earth Creationism is under-represented. Which is it?  SheffieldSteel 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is everyone out to get you or are you paranoid? If you think that wikipedia is biased, then you also have to consider the more likely possibility that you are biased. Wikipedia is edited by everyone and hence is not a perfect resource, and there are always biases out there - however over time the quality of a page improves. To say that some special interest groups are running wikipedia is just stupid. Also aimless accusations of bias aren't going to get you anywhere - find specific points in the article, come up with references to back up your viewpoint, and share it with us. You will find that we are reasonable people... at least when we aren't burning down churches. -v Dr v 04:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't worry, I would not dream of being a editor here

message: I've changed the capitalization of "creation science" to both lowercase initial caps, because that's how it's used in its article, and "Young Earth creationism" and "Young Earth creationists" to the proper writing, as used in the beginning of the article. Fatalistalk 18:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization