Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 2

message: I'm not sure how to fix the link. Falphin 21:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone saved a blank page so I copied the last edition with text and saved it. Try the link now. MPLX/MH 05:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: YEC is NOT a form of 7th day adventism. There are clear and distinct differences between 7th day adventists and many YEC'ers. " Its history can all be traced to one woman, Ellen G. White, the founder of the Cult of Seventh Day Adventism" -- this is wholly inaccurate. It is clear that yom implies a 24 hour period in Genesis, there is no reason previous generations of Genesis readers wouldnt believe similar things to a current YECist. It is also innacurate to say that no scientist in 150 years has considered YEC a valid line of reasoning. This is clearly an atheist viewpoint, and though the scientific community at large rejects the concept of a deity, it is wrong to consider YEC impossible or anymore unscientific than the theory of evolution. The article also lacks in its explanation of the growth of YEC in recent years as a backlash against the improbable, er, impossible myth of evolution. While the scientific community is entrenched in a myth, a lie of the geocentric universe scale, many intelligent critics are beginning to understand that faking things such as transition fossils merely causes evolutionists to lose any respect they may have had.
Wattssw 04:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. I will be looking forward to some good edits from you. It may be impossible to make a NPOV article though as both sides are biased. :-( RossNixon 11:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait as second. "... it is wrong to consider YEC impossible or anymore [sic] unscientific than the theory of evolution." Please tell me you're joking. Science does not take its answers from literal interpretation of a book, particularly one with such a disputed validity as the Bible. It takes them through repeated processes of experimentation, observation, and interpretation of results. YEC could not be MORE unscientific - I mean, unless someone imagined it. The article is biased, yes. But adding things about "the growth of YEC in recent years as a backlash against the improbable, er, impossible myth of evolution," are more biased and NPOV than the problems you're trying to fix. Please, if you can't remove your own bias on the issue, just don't edit the article. StellarFury 23:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Article

message: "Young Earth creationists respond by pointing out that evolution is also unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and untestable, and is therefore, by its very nature, completely unscientific, since it offers no explanation for the origin of life without which it cannot occur, and because there are no known mutations which have resulted in an information increase in the genome (See Lee Spetner, Not By Chance [Judaica Press, 1996]), and because evolutionists excuse this lack of empirical evidence by appealing to the need for long periods of time."
I think a section devoted to the  Creationist responses to criticism would be beneficial.
The section above was pulled because it didn't belong in the criticism section, but it is good for the article. Falphin 18:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I've noticed Big Hurt and The Rev of Bru have been debating over the passage after the ark. 
The Rev of Bru " contrary to the biological, geological, radiological, astrological, historical and glaciological evidence."  or "contrary to evidence"
Big hurt- 
"Contrary to current, secular evidence when viewed through evolutionary assumptions."
Neither is comletely neutral, reason why are 
Rev-1. The list is not reasonable.  Perhaps a better wording would be sciences. But the point of a  encyclopedia is to right a non-biased article on the subject not to attack a perticular group. 
Rev- 2. Contrary to evidence is claiming that modern science is fact.  However it is through our current lense. Theories will always change.  
Big Hurt-  Your point is  POV because these current "evolutionary assumptions"  are generally accepted and held by the majority of scientists.  
Two suggestions for a compromise
"contrary to the mainstream science's theories"  Or "contrary to the current mainstream sciences theories such as biological, geological, radiological among others."  Falphin 23:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, radiology is not radiometrics. Astrology is not astronomy. The Rev of Bru would be wise to get his or her facts straight before entering blindly editting. The current conception of scientific evidence is just fine. Joshuaschroeder 15:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: I removed a section which doesn't belong in this article.  As I have said before, this article is about what the YECs believe, not whether it is scientifically viable or not.  Wikipedia is not a debating ground.  Here is what I removed: Samboy 01:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiometric section removed

message: I haven't read the whole article yet, but where is the POV dispute. Aside from the comments (which sound like they have been deleted) made by the two who were arguing, it seems like everything is fine. I haven't seen anything on the talk page talking about the POV of the article. Mred64 22:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
*Dispute tag removed. If someone wants to put it back, start a new section on the talk page listing the POV problems.  --brian0918 23:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm lost

message: 'If they do, or learn of, research which contradicts their belief, they swear to conclude that the research is erroneous' is removed for POV and because it is an unsubstantiated assertion (not to mention false; they do not swear conclusions). --agapetos_angel 06:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics of YEC 

message: This Article appears to me, as a YEC, to be an exceptionally hostile article for something that claims to have a neutral point of view.
From start to finish, EVERY idea, ideal and assertion of YEC thought is criticized, even outside of the section on criticisms.  YEC's best arguments are either unlisted, such as Dr. Russel Humphrey's work on starlight travel times, or are overly summarized so that they can be followed by an immediate critique, such as the mention of the Flood depositing the fossils.
Additionally, every position of YECs is followed by a critique, and the critique section itself comprises over 25% of the articles space!
  Tom S.
134.152.161.35 17:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only natural, given the extremely controversial and fringe nature of creation (pseudo)science, and especially YEC groups.  Giving air to criticisms within the article is part of Wikipedia's policy regarding NPOV; their inclusion doesn't make the article hostile to YECs any more than the existence of the First Amendment makes the United States hostile to Christianity.  Neocapitalist 22:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exeptionally Hostile Article