Talk:Creationist cosmologies

message: Since by the definition of the metre, it is inextricably linked with the speed of light, how can any change in the speed of light be "easily detected with modern electronic equipment?" Dan Watts 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem comparing c at time t_0 with time at t_1. There are many different ways of doing this. One simple upper bound can be derived just based on the GPS working and making a back of the envelope calculation. Also, many other phenomena are interwoven with the speed of light. For example, if you increase c, then you will get mor energy out of stars fusion and so stars will need to burn less hydrogen to be at equilibrium. There are also sub-atomic processes whose behavior would be different. A substantial change in c would have left a footprint at Oklo. There are many other examples, but your best bet is to look at the (extensive) primary literature on the subject. JoshuaZ 02:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  c-decay 

message: Gravitational Time Dilation actually is observed in GPS satellites. Gravitational_Time_Dilation#Experimental_Confirmation
:Yes. Just not the time dilation associated with the creationist cosmology. --ScienceApologist 06:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: observing Gravitational Time Dilation

message: AIG is a major creation institute and should have it site directly linked
:It is linked. We link to the cosmologies themselves, not the main sites. --ScienceApologist 06:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AIG should have its own link

message: The page is very light on sources, here's some:
The obvious one, talk.origins 
Leader U
Another talk.origins source  - talk origins generally identifies the origins of the creationist claim as well, making them doubly efficacious.  
Creation wiki article, light on sources and not really reliable as a source itself.  
Halos
true.origins
Possibly tomorrow I'll try to add to it.  WLU (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: I just happened across this page. I think the editor's choice to redirect this page due to its lack of sources was fair. However a quick scan of the most recent version shows much useful material, and I hope that it will be recovered - with appropriate referencing, that is. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that Creationist astrophysical claims tend to be (i) piecemeal (rather than giving a comprehensive cosmology) & (ii) rarely intrude into the spheres of science or science education, so that scientists feel far less urgency to rebut, and thus document, them. Likewise their main proposers, e.g. Robert V. Gentry, Barry Setterfield, & Russell Humphreys haven't published major creationist works that could be considered to give these views prominence from their side. HrafnTalkStalk 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work TonictheBrown on adding numerous sources. Additional secondary sources would help. The book The Creationists by Ronald Numbers is presumably the very best scholarly work on the topic, but I believe it focuses more on biological creation/evolution rather than cosmologies. Still, some brief references may appear in it. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: #Back in April it was proposed that Starlight problem be merged here, but no section was set up for discussion of the merger.
#Recent discussion at Talk:C-decay has suggested that c-decay may be a bit "flabby" (in that it contains a large amount of unsourced material) and that it may be desirable to condense it down and merge it here.
#'Starlight problem' itself contains a substantial section on c-decay.
#I therefore think it makes sense to do this as a combined proposal.
I hereby propose that c-decay, and re-propose that Starlight problem, be merged here. WP:MERGE rationales are: (2) 'Overlap' & (4) 'Context'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Most of the various cosmological ideas on this page have pretty good consensus responses. However, Lisle's phenomenological argument and Humphrey's magnetic field prediction are just stated without any rebuttal. It might be good to add some mainstream views on these; otherwise they would sound too convincing to readers.
This is particularly the case with respect to Lisle's claims. As far as I know, he argues that a difference simultaneity frame (using a location-based frame for Einstein's equations instead of inertial reference frame) allows the universe to be modeled in such a way that time and distance are directly related by c, so that light reaches any observer immediately from their point of view. A mainstream response to this, as well as any falsifiable predictions made by this model, would be good.
72.151.50.172 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response Needed 

message: Some of the lines in this article are not up to Wikipedia's standard of impartiality. Whoever wrote these was a hostile source. For example:  "As the technical sophistication of YECs increased over the years, new attempts to explain away the scientific evidence for the age of the universe of 13.7 billion years has also been incorporated. YECs now re-interpret phenomena such as galactic redshifts and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to fit into their beliefs."
1. The acronym "YEC" is meant to belittle. It's almost like calling a fundamentalist a "fundie" or a young-earth creationist calling a neo-Darwinian evolutionist a "NDE"..."Those NDE's are so sinful"
2. The tone is patronizing. For example this line: "As the technical sophistication of YECs increased over the years..." especially in light of the following - "new attempts to explain away..."
3. The line "...to fit into their beliefs." is definitely intended to be condescending - especially if a scientist wrote it.
4. and this line: "Robert V. Gentry, the creationist most famous for making frequently criticized claims..." (belongs in a criticism section)
5. Also..."Creationist cosmologies are criticized for being pseudoscientific (shouldn't that read "as being"?)by the skeptics that debate YECs as part of the creation-evolution controversy." Now that I read it, that entire sentence is just awkward.
6. In the "See also" section:
Astronomy
Astrophysics
Speed of light
Biblical inerrancy
Pseudoscience
7. Lastly, in the links section: "Barry Setterfield attempts to answer his critics."
I am not a Creationist but I am concerned about the quality of content contained in Wikipedia's articles. The minority views should always be given an unbiased and fair treatment precisely because of that - their minority status. These types of articles are always particularly hostile in their content.
72.92.3.153 (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostile Language 

message: I removed 3 sections which were not properly referenced and I removed them as they appear to have been given undue weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the proper weight for something that can only be self-cited should be removal. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I would agree with that, however, I don't think John Harnett works for AiG does he? Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: Recent additions to the 'White hole cosmology' section have aggravated a balance problem there, with the section being written (almost?) entirely from creationist perspectives (mostly Humphreys' own), in violation of WP:DUE. This material needs to be pruned and WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint added. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  White hole cosmology section 

message: I just reverted the addition of a section devoted to scientific criticisms of the Big Bang. I don't believe this is relevant to the current article. Worse yet, it seems to me to be advocating a view which is clearly not contained in the sources, that "if big bang cosmology has received criticism, that invalidates the theory and opens the door for more 'robust' creationist claims". That is obviously absurd, so if we did include the content, we'd need to be very careful about avoiding those sorts of implications. Still, I could see us including content on creationist objections to the big bang, or science generally, or scientific criticisms of creationism, but I think this material is fundamentally misplaced.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant because it NPOV-balances the big-bang framework of preceding argument, and thus shows that that there is a scientific community apart from creationists which disagree with given viewpoint.--Stephfo (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned above, it contains a serious unsourced and factually inaccurate implication which violates WP:NPOV, so no, it does not "NPOV-balance" the previous argument. Please see WP:DUE - these arguments are the fringe minority with respect to cosmology, and it is consistent and necessary per NPOV to balance them with the scientific consensus. If there's a problem with neutrality that we need to address, I'd encourage you to discuss it specifically - perhaps there's another way we can solve it - but we can't combat one neutrality issue by introducing another, if indeed there is one to combat at all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faults with Big Bang Cosmology 

message: :Many ancient peoples around the Mediterranean and Near East professed variants of a YEC cosmology; for instance, the Tyrrhenians were noted for their belief that our age is 12,000 years long, with creation of Earth having occurred during the first 6,000 years, and the history of mankind occupying the latter 6,000. (ref) See Suda entry on "Tyrrhenians"(/ref) This has also been compared to the Zoroastrian cosmology as outlined in the Bundahishn.
This article seems to suffer from the usual problems of lack of globalism, seriously underreporting the scale and extent of creationist cosmologies throughout human history.  When all attempts to address this imbalance are summarily and routinely reverted on a variety of shifting pretexts, it becomes apparent that this is no accident, but that there is an organized and conscious attempt to keep the situation as underreported and "selectively informative" as possible.  What I wrote above is a mere drop in the bucket  in addressing the historiography of the situation.  One source mentioned is the Suda article on "Tyrrhenians", another is the Bundahishn.  Sources can also easily be found comparing the two. Rather than stick our fingers in our ears and say "we don't want to hear any of this and would rather pretend these doctrines never existed", why not take a route that has honour and present all of the verifiable and relevant facts simply as they are? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you get to determine that the SCOPE of this article shall be "pervasively about modern YEC pseudoscientific claims"...???  That is precisely what I am trying to address.  If this is not the correct page on wikipedia to present correct and verifiable data about Creationist Cosmologies, then where pray tell is there a home for this information?   That's what I mean by "a variety of shifting pretexts".  I've been through this smoke screen and inexplicable resistance to presenting verifiable data many times before.  Firs the pretext is "no reference", but as it gradually becomes apparent that there are indeed references, other pretexts are quickly trotted out. "It is out of scope, because I get to decide what the scope is" is an old standby favorite. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Also your choice of title for this section reveals that your main technique for argument relies on an illogical fallacy, ad hominem or the personal attack.  Can't come up with a more logical argument? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But I was saying the data is being suppressed, not me personally! But thanks for pointing out the existence of Timeline of cosmology - it definitely seems to have room for expansion (Zoroastrian cosmology should be listed there for starters.  In fact, there could well be enough data for an article dedicated to Ancient cosmologies in general. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article called Religious cosmologies - you could devote your energies to improving that. PiCo (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant Religious cosmology. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressed data 

message: #Citation to WP:RS for any of this?
#Relevance to the rest of the article -- which is pervasively about modern YEC pseudoscientific claims about the modern science of cosmology, not the beliefs of "an ancient ethnonym associated variously with Pelasgians, Etruscans or Lemnians"?
#Oh and leave off the faux-martyrdom. Requiring verifiability and relevance is not 'suppression', it is merely basic Wikipedia policy.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you get to determine that the SCOPE of this article shall be "pervasively about modern YEC pseudoscientific claims"...???  That is precisely what I am trying to address.  If this is not the correct page on wikipedia to present correct and verifiable data about Creationist Cosmologies, then where pray tell is there a home for this information?   That's what I mean by "a variety of shifting pretexts".  I've been through this smoke screen and inexplicable resistance to presenting verifiable data many times before.  Firs the pretext is "no reference", but as it gradually becomes apparent that there are indeed references, other pretexts are quickly trotted out. "It is out of scope, because I get to decide what the scope is" is an old standby favorite. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Also your choice of title for this section reveals that your main technique for argument relies on an illogical fallacy, ad hominem or the personal attack.  Can't come up with a more logical argument? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But I was saying the data is being suppressed, not me personally! But thanks for pointing out the existence of Timeline of cosmology - it definitely seems to have room for expansion (Zoroastrian cosmology should be listed there for starters.  In fact, there could well be enough data for an article dedicated to Ancient cosmologies in general. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article called Religious cosmologies - you could devote your energies to improving that. PiCo (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant Religious cosmology. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Help, help, Til Eulenspiegel is being repressed ... yet again!

message: The source is not taken out of context; my edit summary describes what it is talking about; the fine-tuning of cosmological constants to allow for the building blocks and environments favorable to life. Do not remove it: it is a valid, reliable source (an academic journal, published by Cambridge) which states nearly verbatim (p. 117) what I am quoting it in support of. if you don't like it, I believe there's a mechanism on Wikipedia to ask for "verification of source" or to "dispute source". The source says what I quote it in favor of: "along with most other cosmologists" believe that the universe is finely-tuned. In the interest of neutrality, I added a proviso in my original edit: that non-theistic cosmologists often invoke the anthropic principle to explain this, but you found even that unacceptable. JohnChrysostom (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "So the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life" did you fail to comprehend? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

text: *Edited to say, "along with most cosmologists" - change it to physicists if you like - and removed claim of scientific consensus. This is not a controversial statement, that "most cosmologists agree that the universe is fine-tuned" (and that, as far as I see, leads to the claim of "scientific consensus", which is, as I understand it, when most scientists of a specific discipline agree on something). The different ways of explaining the fine-tuning can be (and often are) controversial (this is why I added the original proviso about the anthropic principle): the statement itself is not, and is repeated throughout the relevant literature. "The building blocks that life requires" leads to life; thus, the universe is fine-tuned. Change it to, "the universe is fine-tuned for the building blocks of life" if you wish. In context, the import of the statements is identical: the fine-tuning of some aspect or another of the universe. JohnChrysostom (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Then it is blatantly WP:Synthesis to claim that what the scientists believe is the same as what the creationists believe -- and the relevance of the citation to this article disappears. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *How so? I have combined no sources, nor conducted any original research: it seems that virtually the only common ground between all cosmologists is that the universe is finely-tuned for life/the building blocks of life/the possibility of life/the probability of life/the thriving of life in some way. I edited the article to say, "that the universe is finely-tuned for the building blocks necessary for life, and environments friendly to it", a near quotation of the article. Unless I'm to quote all five pages of it, it's by definition going to be "out of context". JohnChrysostom (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *How so? Because your cited source does not discuss creationists' beliefs. You made your own conclusion that they were the same. In any case, the original fine tuning claim was unsupported by, and not particularly relevant to, this topic, so I've eliminated it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Fine-tuning for life/the building blocks of life/the possibility of life is fine-tuning for life/etc., etc., whether the source discussing it is atheist or theist, or is discussing it in context of creationism or not. The concept of fine-tuning is independent of theism or atheism (as are all actual scientific matters), or any specific cosmology, and is dependent only on the evidence; the interpretation of that fine-tuning is what is not independent, and is controversial: is it explained by the anthropic principle? (many atheists), or is it explained by the direct creation of the Abrahamic God (many theists)? or is it something else entirely? As it was, it was clear, "this is what most other cosmologists believe", in any case. How do I ask for some form of oversight, review, consensus, or "higher judgment" (pun intended) on this matter? Your attitude is eminently aggressive and condescending, and have now deleted a point of central importance (you say it is tangential to the subject: isn't a specific form of theistic design, which ends in the observation of fine-tuning - one of those "interpretations" I was talking of above - of central importance to creationism?; the creationist interpretation of fine-tuning - not the concept of fine-tuning itself - is what is controversial, and is of central importance to creationists), so as to preclude the possibility of my statement and citation. JohnChrysostom (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for that irrelevant rant. Fine tuning is "not particularly relevant to this topic" because none of the cosmological models, that are the topic of, and discussed in, this article mention fine tuning. Creationist views on fine tuning are currently discussed in a different article, Fine-tuned Universe. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Int. J. Astrobiol. 

message: Til Eulenspiegel: if you hate science so much, then why don't you take yourself to somewhere that shares your preference for ignorant populist bigotry, like Conservapedia? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this pretends to be a "neutral" encyclopedia, and I prefer to edit here.  Are you going to have me burned at the stake now because I say the "Big Bang Theory" is mostly just technobabble? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFLMAO! What industrial grade psychological projection! It was Christian fanatics who popularised burning at the stake and, if you're anything to go by, are still keeping such eliminationist views alive. No, I'm not going to burn you at the stake -- I am however going to point out that such anti-intellectual bigotry has no place in Wikipedia. Experts are for citing here, not for insulting by those with a religious axe to grind. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to be able to form a logical argument.  You have just accused me of keeping alive eliminationist views such as burning at the stake. That is completely illogical argument. I take the position that honest "neutrality" means representing *all* the significant and widely held viewpoints, not "pov pushing" for your favorite and persecuting the rest. I merely asked if you were going to have me burned at the stake for being skeptical of Big Bang.  I find the technobabble used in its support far less than compelling, and I am not going to make a leap of faith in Big Bang simply because of the amount of technobabble.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the WP:WEIGHT section of WP:NPOV more carefully: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Reliable sources means that it is the weight of expert opinion that Wikipedia reflects (in this case, that of the very scientists you express such burning contempt for), not argumentum ad populum and cranks. I find you argument from ignorance both utterly uncompelling, and symptomatic of evangelical anti-intellectualism. Now kindly take that anti-intellectualism elsewhere -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with improving this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain whose "scientists" exactly get to claim this priority of "reliability" in informing all people what they are to believe?  Every government has paid for its own scientists, in its own interests, and often their results are extremely divergent, such as Nazi scientists and Soviet scientists, for one very notable example. I think if it were that easy to demonstrate the "proof" without the need to resort to an immense leap of faith in technobabble, they would have already done so long ago to everyone's near-universal satisfaction, as gravity and a spherical earth revoving around the sun have been demonstrated. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want it explained to you why scientists are considered reliable sources for science, then please take it up at WP:RSN. I may not be willing to burn you at the stake, but I see no reason not to break your WP:SOAPBOX. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Oh and I'd suggest you educate yourself on the difference between pseudoscience (as practised by the likes of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, Josef Mengele, Ken Ham and George McCready Price) and science (as practised by the likes of Arno Penzias, Robert Wilson and Theodosius Dobzhansky). 16:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got better things to care about.  Even without looking, I'd wager that all of the individuals you just called "pseudoscientists", also used the term "pseudoscience" to describe their opponents every bit a shrilly as you do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) If you had "better things to care about" then you wouldn't be uselessly tilting at windmills here. (ii) I think the lack of a fertile scientific legacy rather clearly separates out the genuine pseudoscientists. (iii) If we're going to talk about "shrill", perhaps we should start with the person quoted in this thread's title. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So you seriously want me to educate myself on all of those names you just mentioned and think I ought to care? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I "seriously" don't think you care about anything except (as I already said) "uselessly tilting at windmills". However, if you cared about actually knowing what you are talking about, instead of simply spewing right-wing authoritarian science-baiting talking-points, then you would be interested in actually understanding the scientists and their work. If you aren't, then you really have nothing to contribute here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

text: OK, on your suggestion I tried to learn about each of those men you named, except for "Robert Wilson", since there are multiple scientists of that name.  Other than the fact that the men in the first group do not currently enjoy widespread acceptance among other scientific interests, I looked in particular to see what the defining distinguishing characteristics might be.  In all honesty, the sharpest distinction I see seems to be between the first two names (Lysanko and Mengele) and the rest, which is their extreme intolerance for allowing any expression to dissenting viewpoints.  Indeed, their theories enjoyed such governmental support for a time that disagreeing with these men in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, respectively, was a capital crime. If wikipedia had been controlled by either of these ideologies, it might be a similar story. But Wikipedia should be nothing like that.  It represents a far more agile concept.  Our usual and expected treatment of dissent on a significant controversy is not to cover it up, pretend it doesn't exist or that its proponents don't count, or present a discernibly one sided point of view, using scoffing and ostracism tactics in lieu of definite conclusive proof.  We aren't run by any one ideology, so our treatment of dissent is quite different:  we have enough room to go into eleborate detail about every aspect the dissent from beginning to end, covering up nothing, and ultimately leave it up to the reader to think for him or her self.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's move on, guys. This doesn't belong here. This is RSN or Village Pump material. Til, you know this; dredging this same talk up again anyway isn't productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely the attitude of intolerance for dissent that I'm talking about.  Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.  The difference is, your 'authority' is based on a load of hot air. I definitely do feel this article needs to be checked for its neutrality. Stop acting so fearful of the open light.  If your pov were so obviously and demonstrably the correct "truth" as you imagine it to be, you should have nothing to fear from inviting further inquiry. This is a pov skewed article and a propaganda piece. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not discussing improvements to this article. You are discussing the subject of the article, and what sources we should consider reliable. You know full well that is inappropriate for an article talk page. My suggestion to take it to the appropriate noticeboard (a suggestion you turned down earlier because you were "too busy") doesn't elucidate my "attitude of intolerance". This is my last post on the topic. Take it somewhere else.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

text: * Come on, even creationists believe in the Big Bang (I'm a creationist and I do). It works with the Genesis narrative. It's been satisfactorily explained by cosmologists and to the public at large, in thousands of articles and hundreds of books, and competing theories are about as dead as geocentrism. All alternative theories, such as chaotic inflation, still take "a" big bang as their starting point, even if they claim it's not "the" (only) big bang. Don't do whatever Wiki calls "pointy editing" (I forget the exact term), because, although everyone here wouldn't mind an "open inquiry", it would slow down the project and be disruptive - we all know that all of the literature published in the past 50 years supports some variant or another of Big Bang cosmology. In the future, the Big Bang may be proven wrong; with the evidence we have today, it's as close to "proven" as anything ever gets in science (absolute proof is for maths and philosophy): we can't go on knowledge of the future, but only knowledge of today (although I'd wager the Big Bang will be around for a long time to come, seeing how it's predicted accurately so many things that have since been observed: see WMAP probe). If Wikipedia was around in 1780, the article on "combustion" would be full of references to phlogiston, not rapid oxidation. It's an inherent limit of science, knowledge, progress, etc. JohnChrysostom (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

text: John, I'm a little confused. You say Big Bang works with the Genesis narrative. Then how could you possibly consider it neutral to state in the lede of Creationist cosmologies that Big Bang "falsified" the Genesis narrative? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't catch that, and it's not neutral if it's there. The Standard Model of the Big Bang does a great deal to falsify young-age creationist cosmologies - not theistic cosmologies or creationist cosmologies as a whole. I see one ultimately important parallel: "In the beginning, God created" - full stop - ex nihilo - time and matter from nothing. In the beginning, the Big Bang occurred, and time and matter began to exist; before the Big Bang, there were neither. JohnChrysostom (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Matter did not begin to exist with the big bang, and the big bang model has nothing to say about conditions before the singularity. That said, we need sources. Conjecture about which sentences of the bible seem to be in accord with a layman's understanding of a complex scientific theory are unhelpful with respect to the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Big Bang Theory consists of just more technobabble to many people" 

message: I couldn't find a discussion on this? Neutral point of view  means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I've read the article and it seems to comply admirably with this?Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fairly thinly-covered topic in the sources (doesn't tend to get as much attention as evolution or flood geology), so identifying/weighting sources can be a bit difficult at times. The last specific discussion of NPOV & WP:WEIGHT appears to have been in the first half of last year. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Here's another issue. The title "Creationist cosmologies" suggests that it would cover any and all cosmologies that hold the cosmos was created by a creator - regardless of how it was done, or how long ago.  Yet the first sentence defines (on whose authority?) a "creationist cosmology" as being the cosmology of a Young Earth Creationist (which isn't even always the same as a Young Universe Creationist, for that matter). 
What about the cosmologies of Old Earth Creationists / Old Universe Creationists? Are they not "creationist cosmologies" as well?   Or is it sufficient for the article to attack Young Universe Creationism, and thereby "disprove" all Creationism, including Old Universe Creationism, by implication? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not. It suggests all cosmologies put forward by the creationist movement. Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology (see for example Hugh Ross (creationist), so such 'creationist cosmologies' tend to be exclusively YEC. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, talk about a false dichotomy! There are so many here I don't know where to start.  What is wrong with titling the article "Young Earth Creationist cosmologies" so it doesn't wrongly implicate Old Earth Creationism then?  Or at least, the nuances you describe on the talk page could be described in the article as well to make that point clearer? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no false dichotomy. I explicitly equivocated with "tend". However any OEC cosmology that may exist is insufficiently prominent (probably because it would serve no vital purpose within OEC) to pass WP:WEIGHT. I didn't title this article. However I would point out that the cosmologies presented in it are, strictly speaking, 'young Universe cosmologies' not 'young Earth cosmologies, so your proposed title is problematical. In any case, the article makes it perfectly clear that these are theories put forward by YECs in the article's opening sentence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would clear things up considerably if we could also clarify somewhere in there that it doesn't include other creationist cosmologies such as OEC cosmologies or creationist cosmologies that agree with scientific consensus, but are still creationist.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't include them because they don't exist. However explicitly stating that they don't exist would be WP:OR. The article does explicitly state that these are "theories of young Earth creationists", which contains the very obvious implication that they (at least the ones in this article) aren't OEC theories. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me rephrase more clearly, since we seem to be talking past each other.  You yourself stated: Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology.   If you agree with this sentence that you wrote, then could we please add it to the lede? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because doing so would likewise be WP:OR -- as should be blindingly obvious from my last comment! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: There is no ambiguity that cannot be clarified with clearer wording.  Most of my concerns would be addressed, and would go away, if only we could find some way of clearing up the misleading ambiguity of the title "Creationist cosmologies" and the repeated use of the phrase "creationist cosmologies" as if it addressed all cosmologies held by all creationists, when in fact it only deals with a certain subset 
Because of the title and repeated use of the phrase "creationist cosmology" without any qualification, it is confusing or misleading to make it sound like it is debunking *all* forms of creationism.  Your assertion that "Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology" would be close enough for me, and not necessarily OR, since the sourced article on Old Earth Creationism already states as much.  Retitling the article to "Young Earth Creationist cosmologies" and replacing the phrase "creationist cosmology" with "YEC cosmology" to make clearer to idiots like me what we are talking about, would also probably do the trick.  As it stands, the opening sentence is the OR, since NO known source or reference defines "Creationist cosmology" as excluding OEC cosmologies and including only YEC cosmologies. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: (i) The phrase "creationist cosmology" is one that the creationists themselves use to describe their work (see for example Humphreys, D. R. (2007). 'Creationist cosmology solve spacecraft mystery', Institute for Creation Research). (ii) The claim in Old Earth Creationism was not in fact supported by the cited source, which makes no mention of cosmology in connection to OEC (I've just rewritten it to match the source) -- if you can find a WP:RS that does make explicit mention of OEC views on cosmology, that would be very helpful. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt there are some RS out there that can be found, that do make explicit mention of OEC views on cosmology, but it is not reasonable to demand that they be provided in the next few seconds or minutes.  It is also not reasonable to insist that there is no possible remedy for the ambiguity inherent in the phrase "creationist cosmology".  If it can be explained and clarified on the talk page, it can be explained and clarified in the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said anything about seconds or minutes... but you're implying, in so stating it must occur immediately, that we can add material to the article before finding sources because they're surely out there and finding them will take time. Quite obviously, we can't do that, and you know better. All this arguing without concrete proposals is unlikely to get anywhere. The only suggestions made thus far have been appropriately dismissed for lack of sourcing. Either make a new suggestion, or find new sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title / Scope of article 

message: The great irony here is that the YEC Cosmology I have seen articulated the most often, is not represented on this page at all.  I will describe my understanding of it below, but sources will need to be found to build it into a section.
For want of a better nomenclature, it could be described as "Young Earth, Old Universe".  It interprets Genesis 1 as follows:
The first two things it says were created, are Day (light) and Night (darkness).  Then it says quite clearly, "And the evening and the morning were the first day".   This "first day", the interpretation goes, was probably not an "earth day" of 24 hours as we know it, because the Earth as such didn't appear until the third "day".  It was just a period of light and darkness, the only things yet in existence, swirling around each other like a primordial Yin and Yang if you will, and this first "day" could well have been billions of "earth years" in duration, for all the narrative implies.  
This isn't my original interpretation; the idea that these "days" were not earth days of 24 hours each is one of the most commonplace YEC interpetations there is, as far as I know.  Why is it not represented anywhere in this article? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has presented RS documenting this viewpoint? Really? I just now noticed that there is a whole wp article documenting this viewpoint, Day-age creationism.  I would be satisfied if this article could only draw a sharper distinction between what it describes, and that one.  Because of the title and repeated use of the phrase "creationist cosmology" without any qualification, it is confusing or misleading to make it sound like it is debunking *all* forms of creationism. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Day-age creationism is an OEC viewpoint (not a "Young Earth, Old Universe" viewpoint). It presents no specific views on cosmology (therefore is not relevant to this article). It is covered by my "Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology" point above. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hits I'm getting now for "Young Earth, Old Universe" as well as "Old Universe, Young Earth" suggest to me that plenty of YEC's also indulge in Day-age creationism, not just OECs.  Plenty of material there to establish that this viewpoint really exists, but it would take some time to arrange and present it properly. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "nobody, explicitly including Til Eulenspiegel, has presented any WP:RS documenting this viewpoint (a viewpoint which places them in a similar position to the OECs), let alone documenting it as a prominent viewpoint within the creeationist community" -- bare assertion is not presentation of WP:RSs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Patience, patience!  That is exactly why I said "It would take some time to arrange and present it properly". At this point all I can give you is the google searches I just gave you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) You yourself were the one who raised this issue -- you should not have raised it unless and until you are in a position to substantiate it. Doing so prematurely is simply wasting our time. (ii) You have rather a history of making unsubstantiated claims -- so no, I don't feel particularly inclined to 'patiently' wait for substantiation of this latest batch. (iii) What google searches? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't my boss, even if you seem to think you are, so don't hold your breath waiting for me to take orders from you on when I "should" raise issues. Still going for the ad hominem to distract from the actual argument, I see.  I just gave you two google searches in good faith to show that I am not fabricating this out of my head, and you will just have to wait to give me time until the best references can be found. Here they are again.  "Young Earth, Old Universe" and "Old Universe, Young Earth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm simply the person whose time you are wasting with all this speculative and hypothetical argumentation. When you have something concrete, that therefore might be suitable for inclusion in the article, then let me know -- until that time I'm not really interested (nor does anything in Wikipedia policy require me to be interested). Good day. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn's second point is most relevant - that a Young Earth, Old Universe cosmology, by being an Old Universe cosmology, is likely to represent an acceptance of the scientific consensus cosmology (though not geology) and as such, not a seperate creationist cosmology and thus does not need documenting here. If there is a well-established Old Universe creationist cosmology, which is not the scientific consensus cosmology, then it should be documented and cited in the article. Babakathy (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another YEC Cosmology 

message: The sentence
  "Setterfield's proposal was that the speed of light (c), was infinite in the past, but has slowed substantially over time."
appears in the c decay section.  Norman and Setterfield have never said that the speed of light was infinite at any time, only that some others who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago thought so.  See the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the forward to their 1987 paper (in http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.120.25 (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite speed of light 

message: The article lead, while discussing Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists, stated "the underlying motivation for both is a fear that science, by denying a role for God in the origin of the world, removes the purpose for mankind's existence."  I have removed that unsourced statement from the article.  That statement is just as silly as Christians saying that atheists really do believe in God, but their motivation for being atheists is a fear of eternal damnation.  It is improper to assign motivations to someone else.  Clearly, the reason the YEC and OEC believes what they believe is because that is how they interpret the bible, which to them is the final authority of truth.  Please do not restore that faulty motivation-assigning statement without citing reliable sources.  24.22.75.14 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Assigning motivation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creationist cosmologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115201632/http://www.kjvbible.org/major_models.html to http://www.kjvbible.org/major_models.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified