Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Creation science in lede

I will be undoing this reversion tomorrow. Unless someone can explain why the errors should reamin.

jps (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's got to be a better compromise that doesn't violate FRINGE, NPOV, and SOAP. Granted, the lede of Creation science is huge, but all we need to do here is very briefly describe creation science to introduce it and establish the relationship with the topic of this article, young Earth creationism.

Who says it is a "field" and what does that mean?

It's clearly pseudoscience. There's no scientific evidence. This is religion, not science.

Let's not play out the science vs religion controversy in the lede... --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But the new version of that paragraph is just so poorly written. The previous version, which has stood for some time, is clear, precise and accurate. Good intentions do not excuse bad writing. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wordy and abrupt. A rewrite is definitely in order.

Wouldn't it be better just to introduce creation science without mentioning Morris? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the progress being made. I was going to suggest using an attribute of pseudoscience rather than the word itself (eg science-like), but perhaps it's unnecessary with the new phrasing. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you're so happy with yourself. You've achieved nothing except to throw around insults and add invective Dawkins would blush at. Thankfully, there are some good editors around to clear up your mess. GDallimore (Talk) 23:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

Note that my comment was made after the "cleanup" diff that you like as well. Turns out we are in agreement about the content improvement! --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was commenting on the reasons why your edits did not improve the article, which is totally FOC, unlike your swiping allegations of soapboxing and jps' downright rude allegations of incompetence. Don't play innocent. GDallimore (Talk) 18:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wdanwatts is a creationist that has been active here for a LONG time. I do think that advocacy of creationism is prima facie evidence for a lack of WP:COMPETENCE. I really do. jps (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take my edit as a proposal and revert if it is not helpful to this discussion. Jojalozzo 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That Young Earth Creationism is pseudo-science is non-controversial; but it's clearly pseudo-science of a uniquely tenacious sort and, consequently, more than just a sociological curiosity. Is there any reason why a complete article on this topic should avoid making reference to sociological and psychological explanations that might help to account for the 'belief' statistics it cites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.98.65 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A laudable idea. Ronald Numbers' work is as good as any other place to start. jps (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Related:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Creation science is a "field"! The age of the Earth is not "measured"! Etc.

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on a rough ghits survey at google scholar, the predominant usage in WP:RS is "calculated". Results posted at WP:FTN. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that they are likely referencing Lord Kelvin and Bishop Ussher rather than the actual modern-day measurements. jps (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied at WP:FTN. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest addition to the article: "The evidence invariably supports the measurements that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years", with the edit summary "I don't see why this is poor English". Seriously? GDallimore (Talk) 22:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. Can you explain why that sentence is poor English? jps (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You think the phrase "The evidence invariably supports the measurements that..." is well-constructed English? Could do with a second opinion here. GDallimore (Talk) 22:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would eliminate "invariably" and probably just say, instead, "Measurements show that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years", but, really, no... I would prefer you to explain the issue you're having. jps (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The word "measure" implies that we can know the age of the earth simply by measuring a few of its accessible features (that's an excellent start, but only bounds the age in one direction). That does a disservice to geology. We have a tight bound on both how old the earth has to be as well as how young it has to be, and getting to those bounds requires not only diverse measurements, but modeling across several scientific disciplines. That said, if you can find a geology textbook that uses a formulation similar to "measurements show the age of the earth is...", I'll withdraw my objection. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The current construction is fine with me. I agree that there is more to this than one measurement, but, I would argue, that the determinations made of the Age of the Earth are not necessarily model-dependent and so we should be careful about implying as much. It is more than possible to measure the bounds on the Age of the Earth without model assumptions, though this is a rather academic point. Anyway, this may no longer be an issue if we go with the current wording. jps (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We should assert and not attribute the ages of the universe, earth, and life

WP:ASSERT. Please, why do people insist on saying that it is "scientific consensus"? It simply is the measurements of these ages. Can we please just state that? I really don't care how we do it. jps (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Scientific consensus" is not mere opinion: quite the reverse. The age of the Earth has been measured in lots of different ways, all of them necessarily indirect to some degree due to the lack of an AgeOfEarthMeter, by many different independent groups of scientists, but every measurement and calculation leads to the same range of calculated ages. This is the scientific consensus that the article is talking about: the evidence is actually stronger than any single "measurement" because it does not come from one single methodology or source, but instead many different methodologies which are unlikely to all have the same systematic error. -- The Anome (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly so. For the universe to be 10,000 years old, scientists would have to be wrong about how fast isotopes decay, wrong about how fast light travels, wrong about how far away galaxies are, wrong about evolution, wrong about linguistic drift, wrong about continental drift, wrong about how long it took to for the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica to form, -- the list goes on and on. And not just a little bit wrong either; off by a factor of a million. That's what "scientific consensus" means. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with The Anome and Guy Macon. The age of the universe, the age of the Earth and the point of origin of life on Earth are not directly observable or measurable, but there is a large body of evidence and associated chains of reasoning which support a broad scientific consensus. Unqualified and oversimplified assertion of unobservable "facts" is a characteristic of pseudoscience, not of science. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait.. What? you don't have an AgeOfEarthMeter? Perhaps jps will loan you his. :)

I just had a thought. I could actually design and build an AgeOfEarthMeter! You turn it on and a digital display reads "4.50" with "Age of earth" above the display and "Billion years" below. It would be a great gag gift. How would you prove that the meter isn't working? I could even even make a special AgeOfEarthMeter, Creationist Edition that reads "10.0" with a "thousand years" label... --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread has gone off rails and should be hatted. There's clearly nothing to be gained from continuing down this path. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree, with the usual provision that discussions should not be hatted by those involved in them (too much opportunity for abuse). Gaba is uninvolved, so she/he can hat this, but I, for example, should not. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Of course "we should assert and not attribute the ages of the universe, earth, and life". In Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

In any normal article, yes. that would suffice. But in this article, we also need to go further than just state the known values. The means by which they have been determined, and its contrast to the revealed truth claims of the YECs, is crucial to that article. Just to be clear, that does not mean that we should in any way allow this to give the YECs "equal time" in this debate, or allow them to set up the artificial controversy they seek. -- The Anome (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If this article needs or requires details on why that age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then those details belong in the article body rather than the lede. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Both! The article body should contain the details while the lead section should state the conclusive facts. We should never bend on this point; the reader needs to know for certain that YEC is a counterfactual belief. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Careful Binksternet. I agree that this point needs to be related in both the body and lede, but to do so in order to use it as an "POV hammer" to the reader, even if it is almost universely-held assertion, is neither necessary nor what Wiki is for. I've always thought that readers are intelligent enough to frame the correct opinion on their own, when presented with the whole truth. Similarly, we can't sway the true believers just because we choose to "underline" something for them and point out that its "stupid". I know many Creation pages bring out "the best" in all of us and I may have taken your statement out of context, as I've seen your even-handed work on other pages, but we need to ensure our pages and our editing on those pages remains NPOV. Ckruschke (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

To wit, scientific consensus is an interesting topic, but exploration of it is quite beyond the scope of a single sentence in the lede (as this section clearly demonstrated). People read it as an opinion, rightly or wrongly so. We, I think, can do better. Attributing the age of the Earth to scientific consensus may seem like a compact way to get across a lot of information, but it has the drawback of being misleading to those who are't aware of how scientific consensus works and explaining such is somewhat beyond the scope of this article. jps (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're hoping to find a wording that will persuade creationists that their wrong, give it up. Pandering to their level by being as agressive and misleading in representing the facts as they are doesn't help anyone. GDallimore (Talk) 16:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you are hoping to persuade those on the fence, you should not use the word "estimate" for well-founded scientific conclusions. I have reverted your reversion because the word "estimate" should not be used as leverage against scientific consensus. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ummmmh . . What gives you the strange idea that GDallimore is using this wording as "leverage against scientific consensus"? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems an appropriate description.

It's well documented that creationists like to use false equivalencies and reversals of burden of evidence to promote their beliefs. It's not surprising then that the same tactics are being used here.

State it as fact, then provide details in the article body if needed. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

.....Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the source we currently use for the statement in question says 11 to 15 billion years. Unless we use a different reliable source (by footnoting it or including it in the narrative) we are bound to go by the 11 to 15 billion year figure. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing irrelevant about it.

As for the information, while we shouldn't be putting all these details in the lede, we should be using the best sources from the relevant article. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative statements

Hi all,

I am pleased with the direction the sentence in the lede is taking. I tried to make the sentence a bit less passive and a bit more active. We should simply assert that the evidence shows certain spans of time rather than using terms such as "estimate" which can give the impression in some readers that this is only a "guess" (I know, I know, the technical definition of the word "estimate" is much stronger than "guessing", but we need to be mindful that many readers are not aware of technical definitions).

jps (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The changes were both unecessary and mispresentated the facts. An obvious revert to an unconstructive edit.

Note also that this editor is has now taken his unusual style to the lead of Baraminology. GDallimore (Talk) 16:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I sure as hell am no scientist, but doesn't our source here say that "in a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years . . . "?? Where are we getting this far more precise 13.8 billion years from? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the wikilink: Age of the universe. Bennett (2013) has 13.772+/-0.059; not sure where the 13.798±0.037 figure in the lead comes from yet. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be from the Planck satellite. jps (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, jps. Badmintonhist, you asked where the figure came from and I told you. I'm a little confused why you restored the older, less precise figure rather than updating the cite. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You directed me to another Wikipedia article not to a reliable source. If you or anyone else has a reliable source for that 13.8 billion year figure; one that is MORE RELIABLE, not just more specific, than the "11 billion to 15 billion year" source, then, by all means, replace the "11 to 15 billion" source with the presumably more accurate and more reliable source. This isn't rocket science. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I /did/ direct you to Bennett (2013), and it looks like that as well as the Planck collaboration paper are now in the article. So that's all good. Any interest in adding similar figures + ranges for the other dates? I think that knowing the precision is useful, and I think it helps drive home that only one side of the debate uses error bars. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How certain?

As a scientific moron, I'm curious as to just how certain scientists "from numerous scientific disciplines" are that the age of the universe is precisely the 13.798 . . . billion year figure currently in the article's lead. Do scientists overwhelmingly accept this exact figure? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cosmologists are certain see this [1] Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we have a whole article on the topic: Age of the universe -- The Anome (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

TheroadislongBadmintonhist : I have a memory from the mid-1990s of a Morning Edition broadcast where Bob Edwards led a story (in his inimitable baritone) with "Scientists are reporting that some of the objects in the universe are older than the universe itself. This.... is impossible." Starting (very roughly) with the Hubble Space Telescope, cosmology went through a very exciting patch where the new data was good enough to upset our old models but not good enough to converge on a new model. With another couple of decades of data, that convergence has taken place.

As to your question: The precision expressed in the range 13,761,000,000–13,835,000,000 years is driven by the precision of the instruments used to gather the data. That precision has been tightening for several years now, and there doesn't appear to be anything on the horizon that would indicate we've been using the wrong models all this time. That said, the most recent results are still relatively new, and it's always possible that there was some bias in the instrument that means that the low bits of precision estimates will have to be revisted. Overall, though, I'd say very high certainty. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Supporters

I realize that the USA is unique in the percentage of people who believe in creationism, however it is not a specifically American notion. Accordingly is it necessary to state in the introduction that "Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the young Earth view"?101.98.175.68 (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Independent sources needed that agree with Creationist beliefs?

Editor jps has recently deleted several sections and rewrote another based upon WP:FRIND saying "we cannot include the ideas promoted by pseudoscientists such as Young Earth Creationists unless there has been independent notice of those ideas." On my Talk page he requested sourcing (other than AiG and ICR) to backup these claims ("Independent sources are needed when describing creationist pseudoscience" - with my emphasis on "describing"). I have no problem with this as the claims of YEC should be independently stated rather than just allowing "we think this" sources. Through discussion, I learned that jps is actually looking for ref's from non-YEC who AGREE with the YEC claims. This is completely different and not something I support. If this "litmus test" was applied throughout Wiki, most of the Christian pages would be distilled down to almost nothing. This is also clearly not supported, I assert, by Wiki policy. I have a version of the deleted sections ready to go back up with corroborating ref's, but considering my recent discovery of our lack of understanding of the issue, I didn't want to start an edit war and I'm putting the issue on Talk for discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Diffs would be really helpful here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Ckruschke misunderstood me. I think that the independent source must speak to the prominence of the belief being mentioned. The source does not need to profess belief in such. Currently, we're severely lacking in such sources and are running the risk of this article being used as a soapbox. jps (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

How about this deletion with the comment "removing unreliably sourced commentary"

Diversification of life

− Young Earth creationists believe that all modern species of land vertebrates are descended from those original animals on the ark. Many young Earth creationists believe that the Ark "kinds" diversified as they subsequently adapted to their environments by the process of variation and rapid natural selection. The selection of such animals as kangaroo and koalas on the ark is based on hypothesized sunken land bridges or glacier ice bridges (which formed during a subsequent ice age) between Australia and South East Asia, over which Noah or his sons, or the ancestors of the animals themselves, could travel.

Dan Watts (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dan, giving me a link to the diff allows me to see the change in context, as well as see what the original citations were. If "link to a diff" doesn't mean anything to you, let me know and I'll walk you though how to generate one. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dan is right. I removed that section. It was sourced only to creationists sites. If there are external sources which speak to the notability and universality of these beliefs on the part of YECs, that would be fantastic. However, I have not seen this elucidated. This is just too much explanation of too many parochial hypotheses (e.g. what subsequent ice age are we referring to -- is this mentioned in the Bible?). I don't think this section deserves inclusion, but am happy to see some WP:FRIND to convince me otherwise. jps (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

All, I think I misunderstood jps' request. Although I disagreed with him just removing whole blocks of text, I would have just flagged them with a comment, but then that's just me. I don't know if it necessarily needs a better source, but I do agree with jps that it would be BETTER with a non-YEC source corroborating that that is what YEC's think. I have an edit saved from yesterday where I've attached external links to every sentence corroborating that this is what YEC's think - EXCEPT - one line. For this I attached a "better source" tag. Since the content has been restored by Tonicthebrown, I'll go ahead and make those changes. Ckruschke (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Removing unsourced material is the right thing to do. You added two sources but only one was reliable and it only said that creationists explain the fossil record through a global flood. Let's keep building. Help us find better sources to explain what's happening! jps (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ckruschke, if you think better sources are needed then add a tag, don't use the meat cleaver when it's quite obvious that we're dealing with typical, widespread YECist beliefs. I happen to think that a lot of YECist belief is stupid pseudoscience too, but Wikipedia is not about what is stupid and what is not stupid, it is about providing verifiable information about notable points of view. Tonicthebrown (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in quibbling about what was done. We all have our opinions about "how to correctly edit on Wikipedia". Let's just "fix it" and move on.

jps - since I added more than two links to the sections I fixed, which link do you not think is reliable? Did you not like the Gallup Poll? I've never used Gallup as a link, but I'm not aware that it isn't RS - although I'm certainly not a Wiki policy expert. Its an opinion poll and I thought it fairly clearly outlined what YEC believe. Although I'm not hard on keeping it. Ckruschke (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

What were you thinking that Gallup was indicating? It was not a survey of Young Earth Creationists and it didn't coincide with the content you attached it to. jps (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm - maybe I made a bad paste (or I was on crack). Let me look at it and if it looks stupid, I'll just delete it. Like I said, I'm not married to it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I have added a few references from Answers in Genesis material demonstrating the claims made in this section. (It goes without question that AiG speaks for the majority of creationists, at least in the USA -- which is where creationism is strongest anyway.) I agree that independent sources would be desirable; however at the current time I do not have access to many. One of the challenges is that mainstream news and science media systematically ignore creationist material so as not to give credibility to pseudoscience. The same would be true for, say, homeopathy. The constructive thing to do here is not to axe credible content from this article, but to continue to seek out credible references. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick Google search provided a few things. Do these count as independent sources? [2] [3] [4] Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

These are good, but they don't have a lot of material for us to use that I can see.

"It goes without question that AiG speaks for the majority of creationists, at least in the USA -- which is where creationism is strongest anyway." Then let me be the first to question it. AiG is an organization that gets a lot of attention, but I see no indication that "creationists" see it as a mouthpiece. Many creationists disagree with it -- including many Young Earth Creationists. Indeed, the disputes between creationists are one of their defining features. AiG attacks other creationists almost as much as it attacks scientific facts. jps (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. However, I've looked into YECism for the last 10 or so years and from what I can tell AiG (and the spin-off British/Austtralian organisation CMI) are by far the most prominent and followed YEC organisations. AIG claims 200,000 subscribers to its magazine. The only other group that seems to have similar clout is Kent Hovind's group (the guy who is in jail for fraud). Tonicthebrown (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Trinity Broadcasting Network used to promote Carl Baugh to a huge number of people with television sets. If you're going to claim that AiG speaks for all YECs, you're going to have to do better than just making claims on the basis of your personal experience, I'm afraid. You can start by reading Numbers excellent book on the subject. jps (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Are u referring to Ronald Numbers? I have not had the privilege of reading his book but would like to when I get the chance. I never said AiG speak for "all" YECs, but they do speak for the bulk. Aig/CMI and their allies (eg. the ICR), who are collectively the intellectual descendents of Henry Morris, can be regarded as essentially identical in their views. In any case, no one is going to dispute that the vast majority of YECs adhere to the following set of beliefs

• • 6 literal 24 hour days
  • earth approx 6000 years old, scientific dating methods unreliable
  • humans & dinosaurs coexisted
  • all humans from Adam and Eve
  • global flood wiped out all people and terrestrial animals, and created virtually the entire fossil record
  • 8 people and animals survived the flood on the ark, then repopulated the whole earth
  • all details in the Bible to be taken literally, eg. men who lived 900+ years

It is only when you get into the details that they start to diverge. Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We actually don't have a source about humans & dinosaurs co-existing being a primary belief of YECs. The others I have seen sources for, so I'm happy to support revisions to those means. The problem is that the article as it currently stands goes way beyond this. We cannot go into details. jps (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations Needed in May

I added Citation Needed/ Not in source tags to the following claims made about YECs because I don't think they're necessarily intrinsic to YECs beliefs and so would like to see a source supporting them. Not just supporting that one or some YEC's regard/believe/interpret/insist each of those claims, but as stated that in the general case most or at least many YEC's regard/believe/interpret/insist them.

1. Earth and life were created in six 24-hour periods
2. [They] regard the Bible as a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history
3. [They] interpret the text of Genesis as strictly literal
4. [They] interpret these genealogies [in Genesis] literally
5. [They] believe that the flood described in Genesis 6–9 did occur
6. [They believe Noah's Flood] was global in extent
7. [They Believe Noah's Flood] submerged all dry land on Earth
8. [They] insist that Adam and Eve were the universal ancestors of every human to have ever lived.
9. [They] adhere strongly to a concept of biblical inerrancy, and declare the Bible to be divinely inspired and "infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."

The second last claim has a source which shows that Ken Ham preaches that Adam and Eve were universal ancestors but doesn't show that it is a prevalent belief among YEC's. The second last claim sources to a section of principles of Biblical Creation Science. Can we verify that is the same as YEC in all or most cases?SPACKlick (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a talk.origins source that covers at least some of the points. I'll see what else I can find. Sjö (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One point I noticed -- the "submerged the highest mountains on Earth" bit might be a little misleading. The majority of YECs hold to flood geology, which involves modern mountains being uplifted as the purported Flood ended; they will say that (wildly-implausible) catastrophic plate tectonics leveled the earth's surface, effectively removing all mountains during the flood period. Not sure how to correct this potentially confusing bit. Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've edited strikes into the above to cover those points in Sjo's link. SPACKlick (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I edited the above from "submerged the highest mountains on Earth" to "submerged all dry land on Earth", simply because of the ambiguity over whether the mountains that currently exist also existed before the fabled Flood. Some YECs think mountains were formed during the flood, others don't. Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I liked your edit Physicsandwhiskey - good revision. Ckruschke (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Edit war

Please note. This article is about Young Earth Creationism and what they believe. You don't need to agree with YECs to accept the content on this page provided it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Content has been removed that, to me (as a non-YEC), looks very much like stock-standard YECism beliefs and has been adequately verified. For example, it is a staple of YEC belief that every human being comes from the people who were on Noah's ark -- it may be a ridiculous opinion, but I have never seen a YEC teach otherwise so it is an accurate representation. Before removing large chunks of material, please discuss it here on the talk page first and reach consensus. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was an edit war, but jps and I definitely disagreed with how edits should be made. Actually I specifically did not want to start an edit war, but this was before the IP editor and Binksternet got involved. However, jps was gracious enough to post on my talk page and I think we worked out the issue. I've now posted additional, non-YEC links to the sections that you restored that confirm these statements are what YEC's actually believe. Most of them are somewhat derogatory, such as "Those stupid YEC's actually believe XYZ", but they nonetheless corroborate the text. Let me know if this is sufficient. If not, I can put in some more work. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The problem with YEC is that it's so at variance with the modern rationalistic worldview that it's quite hard to find ways of describing it from the outside that don't seem in some way to be mocking it. For example, even if you don't believe in radiocardbon dating, geological strata, billios-of-years-old Earth, or any of that other fancy sciency stuff, there's a continuous timeline established by dendrochronology that goes back over 10,000 years into the past.([5]) that makes most claims of YEC absolutely implausible, as well as being evidence against any global Flood event during that period. This means that without deploying "sophisticated" arguments that deny the very simple, direct, common-sense rationale behind dendrochronology, pre-10000-BP YEC hypotheses are, so to speak, dead in the water.

The problem for YECs is that once they've pinned their faith to early creation, they've made the whole thing falsifiable: deny that, and the whole edifice falls apart. -- The Anome (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

From your link, the Holocene trees have a mean age of 176 yrs and a max age of 575 yrs. Therefore they are placed in historical context through Carbon dating. This is not a linear, 12,000 yr dendrochronology - as you state - it is a patchwork of hundreds of trees that are used to build this timeline. The find thus hinges on Carbon dating which YEC have already stated in multiple peer-reviewed articles are subject to much interpretation since the basis of Carbon dating is the steady-state amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (and is constantly being reset because of ongoing discoveries[6]) - something that is easily explained away by a global flood and the postulated pre-flood atmospheric conditions.([7]) I agree that if you could prove the beginning falsifiable the edifice falls apart, but using circular logic (Carbon dating of one subset is used to prove Carbon dating of another subset) doesn't accomplish that. Ckruschke (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

As far as I can see, they do a fairly good job of linking up the multiple individual continuous records from different places. Yes, they use carbon dating to bootstrap the similarity checking, and then check again that it's self-consistent elsewhere, but they do seem to have correlated the records in each case. Unless I'm mis-reading the paper. -- The Anome (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We'd probably have to go to the authors to 100% verify this, but there is no way to date a archeological find other than in context of surrounding strata or other materials. Unless we KNOW KNOW when a bed was layed down (such as a firmly dated volcanic eruption), a find is dated through either direct Carbon dating or through assumed similar deposition of other articles that are found in the same strata of the same bed (such as plant material), or through the direct comparison of articles found (such as pot shards) for which we have an "established" date through Carbon dating of similar materials. We compare the pot manufacturing techniques and or designs to other shards that we've found and "dated" and when we find a match, the undated material is then considered to be "of a similar date".

Therefore archeologists are often using Carbon dating-established dates to date other material and then stating that it is a firm date. I'm not arguing that this is a bad or faulty thing - just pointing out the methodology. Thus the "12,000 year dendochronology" is actually a patchwork of 200-600 yr old trees laid on top of eachother to create a quilt that is 12,000 yr history. If this was - say - a 10,000 yr old tree that we could count rings that would be one thing (or then we could argue about what's a ring and what isn't), but it isn't. Good discussion though and I appreciate your challenges. Ckruschke (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

"it's quite hard to find ways of describing it from the outside that don't seem in some way to be mocking it" - exactly. Also, there is a deliberate effort by scientists to ignore YECism so as not to give it any oxygen. See [8]. Because of this (probably legitimate) tactic, independent sources describing YEC beliefs are not all that easy to find. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why removal of content is somewhat appropriate. We should only reference things which everyone (outsiders and insiders) agree is part-and-parcel to the topic. Insiders have a lot of ideas they want "fairly" described, but in many cases to do so would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRIND. That's the issue I'm having. The NAS sources was fantastic, but it only mentioned that creationists believe in a flood as evidence for the fossil record. That may be as far as we can go. Wikipedia is set-up to be stifling of in-depth discussion of WP:FRINGE material because it is impossible to strike the neutral balance unless there is a neutral balance of sources. Keep the sources coming. I'm not having a lot of luck finding good ones (please no more blogs, though). jps (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe its just my interpretation, but I still disagree that WP:FRIND means that we need to show "balance" when we are simply describing what a fringe topic BELIEVES. I agree that WP:FRIND does mean that in order to discuss the notability/prominence of fringe theories in the populace, you need an independent source to corroborate this. However, neither of these sections are stating notability/prominence of this subject - just what it is.

As I said, I think we need better sourcing and we are working on that. I still disagree that section blanking is a first option tool - I only do that if section of text is completely unsavable and something that just needs corroborating links is "not" - but we are at the "agree to disagree" point here so no reason to continue to belabor it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes, this is covered in policy by WP:CHALLENGE: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.... VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We need to show "balance" to meet WP:NPOV, and specifically to give due WP:WEIGHT to majority expert views, and not replicate an "in-universe" self-depiction of YEC claims. This should be achieved by meeting the WP:V section on WP:SOURCES and basing the article on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not on the primary sources of YEC publications and websites: these can only be used with care, in a context set by secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Is YEC really "fringe"?

I've been meaning to say this for a while. Whether WP:FRINGE is even relevant here is questionable. If 40-50% of Americans believe that the Eaerth was created 10,000 years ago, then Young Earth Creationism is most definitely NOT a fringe topic. Creation science is a fringe topic as far as science is concerned (hence it should have no mention on any WIkipedia article about geology, biology, anthropology etc.), but the religious beliefs about Adam, Eve, creation in 6 days, global flood, etc. are NOT fringe. And it could even be argued that Creation Science is actually religion not science, and indeed it is very much mainstream religious belief not fringe. Tonicthebrown (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is not a function of popularity. It's a function of whether it is accepted by the majority of reliable sources. In the case of creationism, there are essentially no reliable sources which accept it. It's classic WP:FRINGE. But, you are more than welcome to inquire at the noticeboard set-up to resolve these questions if you disagree. jps (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not about popularity. And I have no doubt that we can find many many RS discussing young-earth creationism as a common and influential religious opinion which is at the forefront of the culture and education wars. Eg. these links [9], [10]. We have here mainstream, independent person claiming YEC is "bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind". If YEC is dangerous for humankind, surely then it is not FRINGE but rather very much notable. (Again, I wholeheartedly agree it is fringe as science, but that is not the issue.)

Perhaps you expressed yourself inaccurately; but it is incorrect as far as WP policy is concerned to demand "reliable sources which accept it [creationism]", if by "accept" you mean "agree with". What matters is that RS "accept" it as significant and notable, not "accept" it as correct. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't confuse lack of notability with being fringe. They are two very different things. There are many notable fringe ideas. Many of which are significant. Alternative medicine, for example. To be clear, fringe designations also have nothing to do with whether the statements being made are correct or incorrect. It has to do with the reception, evidence, and treatment received by the best sources. The classic case of continental drift shows that, occasionally, fringe theories can become mainstream (and vice versa for the anti-drifters). It's not really the place of Wikipedia to speculate on such possibilities of course. In short, I don't think you've really taken to heart what WP:FRINGE actually says. Please read it again. Note that creation science is listed specifically as a fringe theory that is notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia -- and it explains why this is so. jps (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Independent sources demonstrating that creationism is not actually a fringe topic, but a highly notable one in culture, religion, education and politics. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And of course, the multi-million dollar creationism museum: [18] [19] [20] [21] Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Young-earth creationism is indeed a popular religious belief, particularly within the U.S., Turkey, and other similar countries, is the subject of extensive coverage in third-party reliable sources, and is thus highly noteworthy and deserving of coverage in Wikipedia, as is its offshoot "creation science". However, within the world of science, it's about as fringey as it gets: it explicitly contradicts the scientific consensus chronology in biology, geology, and cosmology, by a factor of a million or more. -- The Anome (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

These sources don't establish the subject as not being fringe. They simply establish the subject as being notable. But we knew it was notable already. jps (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. "

So, if the "particular field" is science, then creation science is fringe. I agree with you on that, and always have. But if the "field" is "the cultural landscape of America" or "religion" or "origins myth", then young earth creationism is not fringe. Note- Creation science ≠ YEC. And this is the YEC article, not the creation science article. Am I making sense? Tonicthebrown (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Tonicthebrown - On the page, it is clear that the YEC's view the subject as science. However, almost all of the discussion revolves around "this is what they think" and not really "scientific discussion of what they think" as even the Criticsm section talks only tangentially about the science aspect and instead really focuses on how YEC isn't a science - its a religeon. However, stating that the YEC page is about non-science is essentially undercutting the whole point that YEC's are trying to make. I'm not sure what the answer is... Ckruschke (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

If the particular field is the central YEC claim of the timing of Earth's origins, they're clearly fringe claims in relation to the overwhelming majority expert view. Counting the proportion of adherents of the relevant sects in the U.S. doesn't make that a mainstream expert view worldwide, it merely shows how many believe what they're told by that fringe minority of religious leaders. We would report their beliefs as we would those of any other sect, while being clear where they conflict with science. Creation science has been a central part of YEC thought since the 1960s, and hard to separate from YEC thought: is there evidence of YECs these days who don't claim "scientific" support for their beliefs? . . dave souza, talk 18:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

dave souza - No - the foundation of YEC's view is that its a science-based theory. Often the science is based on the refuting of conventional science, but I think I can pretty comfortably state that NO adherent to Young Earth Creation would state that he/she thinks its anti-Science. In fact, one vocal, though less well-known adherent, Ian Juby, has a weekly television show on Christianima/The Walk/YouTube in which he states clearly his stance that YEC is a superior science than that of the evolutionists. Hope that helps (and wasn't too WP:ORy). Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

My impression is that YECs get their opinions from the religious texts and then use "creation science" to prove or "confirm" their predetermined conclusions about the age of the Earth and global flood. IMO it is fundamentally a religious position, not a scientific one. And as a religious position it is not fringe. If you are going to argue that a religious position is WP:FRINGE then you may as well say that Christianity is a fringe topic. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"If the particular field is the central YEC claim of the timing of Earth's origins, they're clearly fringe claims in relation to the overwhelming majority expert view." Not quite correct. It's fringe relative to the majority expert view if the "experts" you are thinking of are scientists. But it is NOT fringe if the "experts" are religious leaders and clergy. If you measure religious opinion against the opinion of scientists, then you will say that ANY religious belief in miracles (eg. walking on water, miraculous healings, resurrection), demons, angels, prayer, prophecy, (etc) is contrary to majority opinion and therefore WP:FRINGE. The fact is, all religion makes claims that the majority of scientists reject and if you make science the yardstick, then all religion becomes fringe. So that approach is wrong because Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a science encyclopedia. What we do is report what the religions believe, and add a note that it is contradicted by scientific consensus. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The experts in the subjects of biology, geology, astronomy, and so forth are not religious leaders and clergy. Belief in literal miracles, demons, angels, prayer, prophecy, and so forth is indeed WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia treats such literal beliefs as such. There is, however, also a tradition within major religions where these ideas are treated metaphorically or symbolically. When that's done, there is no conflict between the non-overlapping magesteria in the same way most religious leaders don't see a conflict between results from scientific discovery and religious belief. So there you have it: it depends on how it's framed. Look at our articles of faith healing, parthenogensis, reincarnation, etc. for more on how Wikipedia deals with these issues. jps (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'd point out that YEC is not even remotely a majority view among Christians, still less among non-Christians and unbelievers. The Roman Catholic Church, the single largest Christian denomination, explicitly accepts the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe and evolution of species. A little-known fact is that the inventor of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Anome - agreed. YEC is not even a predominantly-held belief in (the usually more "liberal") non-denominational churches - modern bastions of conservative Christian beliefs. However, as you know, being in the minority does not automatically, QED, denote fringe.

Many Catholic priests were known for hard science discoveries throughout the millenia. Heck, a wanna-be Anglican priest became Charles Darwin... Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I agree that it is fringe. Would throw my support behind adding it to categories: cults or other similar category. I have tried to do this in the past only to have it quickly reverted.

"Pseudoscience" category

I've reverted a recent change that removed this article from Category:Pseudoscience. The category tag was removed on the basis that creation science was pseudoscience, but YEC is not. As I think the above discussion shows, I think the category tag is warranted, as YEC explicitly makes claims about the physical nature of the material world that are contrary to scientific evidence and known physical laws. These claims are independent of the claims of "creation science", which relates primarily to biology. -- The Anome (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation of "creation" for interest in historical development

Belief in a recent "creation" is not necessarily a belief in a young earth - I run into many YECists who believe Gen 1 is a re-creation (sort of a miraculous terraforming). Again, belief in 6000 more or less from Adam also goes with the day-age theory (the days were not 24 hours as we know them). I was hoping to see material treating YECism as any other belief system (say Emperor worship in Japan), with summaries of its history with links. A neutral POV should not be concerned with whether YEC is "true" or "scientific" or even "biblical". I will have to gather this information the hard way, and will attempt to contribute if successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartGathman (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree in principle. In practice, however, it is the fault of various very vocal YEC anti-science groups that this article has to trash the logic behind the belief system so entirely. GDallimore (Talk) 11:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the young Earth view

This quote is phrased wrong and is misrepresenting the question Gallop asked. Most Christians and Jewish people hold the view that Man was created between 10k and 30k years ago.

Both Old Earth Creationists (of several flavors) and Young Earth Creationists hold the 10,000 human belief. The percentage subset of Young Earth Creationists from actual Human Creationists as far as I know it is not known.

This statistic has nothing to do with Young Earth Creationists and only if it was to be corrected should it be left. Otherwise it should be removed.

Between 40% and 50% of the people of adults in the United States say they believe that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." There are many online references that say that people who believe "God Created Humans 10,000 years ago" to also believe "The earth is 6,000" years old but these are two distinct and different beliefs. A significant percentage of the world believes that world was created by God, and that man was created 10,000 years ago and only a small albeit vocal group believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

-- consider 1 in 10 people drive a chevrolet. Volt is made by chevrolet, therefore 1 in 10 people drive a volt.

DevonSprings (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The beliefs that Man was created recently and that Earth was created recently are both found in YEC, and as far as I know those who believe on almost always believe the other. There are many reliable sources that show that the beliefs are connected. Please show a reliable source that there i a significant number that believe in an old Earth and a recent creation of Man. 18:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a SET / SUPERSET discussion. There are many faiths, Judaism, Christianity, Shikism, Hinduism that all have creation stories. These Stories do not include a specific time of creation. There are 40-50% of americans meaning 140 Million americans that hold God created Man 10,000 years ago. There is not even data on how many YEC people their are but it is far less than 120 Million Old Earth Denominations

So most Christian faiths believe in Young Man Creation. Very few believe in Young Earth Creation. Just because YEC believes in Young Man Creation does not mean, nor did Gallup ask if they believe in Young Earth Creation.

They are two separate beliefs. They are NOT the same thing. Before you put it back, find proof that ALL people who believe in Young Man Creation also believe in Young Earth Creation.

DevonSprings (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please show sources for your assertions.Sjö (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I showed an assertion from the Old Earth Denominations that they went through several of the major sects of christianity and documented from their web sites their belief on YEC and OEC. But again YEC is not Young Human Creation that Gallup asked about.

The Gallup question did not say, Do you believe the "earth was created in the last 10,000 years". It said do you believe "Humans in their current form were created in the last 10,000 years."

The Wiki is using Gallup Data that is not even close, young earth is NOT EQUAL TO young human. YEC just also happen to believe in YHC but not all YHC do not believe in YEC.

DevonSprings (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DevonSprings here. It is OR to state that the people who said that they believe that many was created in his present form 10,000 years ago are Young Earth Creationists. In fact, I would say that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say anything at all about whether they are creationists at all or not. When it comes to opinion polls on private matters like religion, people often give logically inconsistent answers, and it is inherently exceedingly risky making logical conclusions based on those answers. Far too great of a risk for us as WP editors to assume. I highly doubt that Gallup came to the conclusion that 40 to 50% of the American population subscribes to Young Earth Creationism. If they didn't, neither should we. In fact, I don't see how the poll results can be logically connected to the topic of this article at all, and can't see why this poll should me mentioned in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have simply removed the words "young Earth" from the sentence. It now represents the source without question. The poll is also clearly relevant to this article even if there is some doubt over how many of the people questioned the accepted age of the Earth as well as human history. The second poll (which got removed somewhere in the edit warring) is helpful in painting a bigger picture. GDallimore (Talk) 11:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Young Human Creationism/Young Man Creationism even a separate field of study? I did some google searching and can find nothing about it. Is it called something else? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 15:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In most denominations creationism isn't discussed as part of their "faith message" in anyway. It is a very recent phenom as the article observes that YEC is even a discussion. The three major religions in the world that are based on the Old Testament, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism mostly have the "gap age" view. That is because the word "Yom" as noted in other Wiki articles does not even have a passing of time until the 4th day.

The issue with leaving it is because one is a Set of the other that would read something like this. Creationists contain a set called Young Earth Creationists. Creationists believe in Genesis 1. Creationists have many different views as the article itself states including "Old Earth Creation", "Gap Creation" and a very very small number in the world, Young Earth Creationists. Creationists in general believe that Man was created sometime in the last 10,000 - (as high as 90,000) years ago depending on who you speak to. But the general reference number is 10k.

Young Earth Creationists also believe in "Humans were created 10,000 years ago"

Young Earth Creationists is a subset of Creationists they are not equal.

To leave the Gallup poll casual readers will assume YEC = 40 - 48%. To be very clear we should actually write that YEC is Not EQUAL to YHC.

DevonSprings (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree I think this poll should stay in the article. Although I believe it should say "Since 1982, between 40% and 47% of adults in the United States say they hold the view that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'". This would be more accurate as the poll never reached 50%. We have a duty to be as accurate as possible. S806 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue I have is whether the results of this poll are relevant to the specific topic of this article, YEC, as opposed to creationism in general. Gallup says nothing about YEC. To use the Gallup report to say or imply anything at all about YEC would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dominus you are right, but really the issue is not creationism in general as the Gallup poll is only addressing the belief of "when you think humans were created by God" it is not asking the question of "when was the universe created". Genesis 1:1 says "in the beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth" and on the 4th day, of the days, he created the passage of time. DevonSprings (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not true, the poll is asking specifically, were humans created in the last 10,000 years. This is very closely tied into young earth creationism. The first sentence in this very page says "all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago". This is what this poll addresses. I object strongly to taking this poll out of this article. S806 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the conclusion that the object of the poll question is "very closely tied to young earth creationism" is yours, and not stated or implied in the source. Hence, OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My conclusion is correct, YEC believes humans were created in the last 10,000 years, DevonSprings is making an unfounded assumption that Old Earth Creationists believe that as well. He has given no proof that this is true. I object to removing this poll from the article. This will be my last post on this subject. S806 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

S806 the quote you are referring to says " Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago." possibly the basic math is missed here. A set of 3 objects "Universe, Earth and Life" is not equal to a single object "Life".

The mathematics of it are simple. If you read in the article itself it describes in detail the three different view of creationism, likewise the Wikipedia article on creationism itself describes the different view points.

So now that you see the math I expect you to vote yes, or do you not get where the set math is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is if there is any other WP:DUE group that believes in an old Earth and a recent creation of Man. As far as I know, and as far as I can see in the sources, the set that believe in a recent creation of Man is the same as those believe in a young Earth (barring some small, insignificant sect). Yes, the beliefs are not the same, but the are so closely connected that belief in one can be taken as a sign of belief in the other. Sjö (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well here is a 50 / 50 split from Lifeway which is as far as christians go the most moderate. Wherein "Age of the Earth

In response to the statement, "I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old," 34 percent of pastors strongly disagree. However, 30 percent strongly agree. Nine percent somewhat disagree, and 16 percent somewhat agree. LifeWay Page. Even at a 50 / 50 split we can't call them one in the same.

Here is one of the most influential Christians of our time Pat Robertson, calling YEC and specifically Ken Ham, "...Pat Robertson Who Dismisses Young Earth Creationists as 'Deaf, Dumb and Blind' as cited in this article. It is a short article from Christian Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried but can't for the life of me work out how this is relevant? Different Christian factions disagree with one another about how to interpret the Bible. Nothing strange there and nothing to do with this article.

Ultimately it boils down to evolution being the primary target of modern YECs, therefore a poll asking people about their beliefs in evolution is relevant to an article about YEC. GDallimore (Talk) 07:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This matters because the authors are using a survey that has nothing to do with Young Earth Creationism and making it seem it is a "Widely supported view" in America. It isn't. It is like stating 40% of americans agree with veganism, because 40% of americans eat vegetables at the dinner table. YEC is a VERY EXTREME SMALL group of Creationists and this is mainlining them.

It also is a bad wiki precedence to use the WRONG gallup pole.

• I have to question whether what 30–40% of U.S. residents may or may not beieve merits inclusion in the lede. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

But literal creationism is a primarily American belief. GDallimore (Talk) 21:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

But there is a big difference between literal earth creationism (A) and literal human creationist (B) and creationism (C). A is a set of C, B is a set of C, A is not equal B. C is not equal A.

By including this survey we are saying A == B. They are NOT.

National Center for Science Education says number of people who believe in Earth is less than 10,000 years old is 18%.

So people keep removing a more relevant survey. I guess I am going to have to ask for dispute resolution.

Survey on creationism beliefs

In this article the author points out why the gallup poll is wrong in its assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps people walked away from the conversation because you only gave your opinion and some very tangential arguments rather than a concrete source. You've now provided a source, but will have to persuade people all over again to listen to you having got it wrong the first time. Looks like a good source to me, though. GDallimore (Talk) 18:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly but I put it on the talk page for 5 days before I did an edit. I did quote sources along the way, but this is also a very "understudied" point of faith, because old-earth, gap-creationism is where the largest majority of churches fell until 20 years ago. It took a lot of digging to find any source at all since so many people referenced the wrong gallup pole. DevonSprings (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason why so many people referenced the "wrong" gallup poll isn't because they are wrong, but because you are wrong. I looked at your new source, right above the line you quote it says 39% of people believe it is true that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years." I personally don't subscribe to any creationist beliefs, but I will not deny a poll simply because I think the people are wrong. S806 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely. Since most people haven't been able to figure out Humans NOT EQUAL Universe, I expect there are a whole bunch of other people that can't figure it out either. For example the article best expresses it this way... "But we know much less about the nuances and structure of these beliefs and the scientific knowledge or ignorance that underlie them." I basically used to ignore the entire subject of creationism, but recently have been studying it in depth, YEC is a vocal group, but it is not equal to Young Human Creation. But keep on editing without understanding... that is good for the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason you cannot get consensus on your changes is because every one of your arguments for your position devolves into insults... S806 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Insult?? There are several people in the commentary that literally said -- human creation, universe creation -- same thing... Basic Math 101 it isn't. DevonSprings (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Rewording the poll as there are many issues with it currently. First, the poll wasn't by the NCSE as the statement claims. Second, The linked source is about contradictory responses with poll questions. I believe this information should be in the article, however it needs to be reworked. It says in the source who conducted the polling.

Note: This article is a revised and updated version of a paper presented at the 64th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Hollywood, Florida, May 14–17, 2009. The data were originally collected by Harris Interactive with 4626 respondents in two waves of data collection from July to October, 2009. Respondents were drawn from Harris Interactive’s on-line panel and weighted based on age, sex, region of country, income, education, and ethnicity to resemble the overall US based on US Census proportions.

To begin with, sizable chunks of the American adult public evidently believe a whole host of creationist articles of faith to be true, among them such claims as: God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years (39%). ... Yet hardly a fifth (18%) actually believes the statement "The earth is less than 10 000 years old." And this is one of many such cognitive-psychological incongruities in the public’s belief system.

Again, I think this is important information, however it needed to be reworked as it was incorrect. S806 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Gallup Poll is redundant

Now that we found data that is more on point specifically the Poll by Harris Interactive, the gallup poll is redundant as well as being off topic. The gallup poll finds out that the the number of people that believe God invented Humans through either evolution or in their present form at 73% and only 19% believe in "pure slime form evolution"

The gallup poll doesn't cover off the number of people that believe in Earth Creationism.

Opinion remove the Gallup Poll.

If you want to revert it you need to discuss why it should be reverted here.

DevonSprings (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No response by reverter putting article back and warning them of edit warring will apply for page protection if they revert again.

DevonSprings (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You are edit-warring against the other editors here. I understand that you have been concerned that the Gallup poll is conflated as YEC when your appreciation of it is that it asks about young human creation. And now you are saying the Gallup poll is "redundant" even though it returned different numbers than the Harris poll. I say both polls can be put into the article. We should not choose which numbers are the best fit for our world view. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not a world view it is the view as presented no longer makes any sense. When there was no other data or near data that represented the data, then you could take a position ok, this data is wrong, but it is similar. Now it is just wrong.

No where have I seen anyone argue, Humans = Earth effectively. They just ignore it like it is the same thing.

So put back the gallup poll that says the wrong thing... And no one enters the discussion they just revert including you! You still are not discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We already had this discussion about the Gallup poll Talk: YEC#Gallup Poll. You simply added a new poll as a way of removing the one you wanted. I think both polls are relevant, and keeping both polls is fine compromise. S806 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We didn't have a discussion we had people saying my statements were wrong without a reason or backing. Are Earth and Humans equal? DevonSprings (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, the Gallup poll, in 2010, 40% of people believed "God created human beings in the last 10,000 years", and the 2009 Harris poll, said 39% of people believed "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years". This shows the two beliefs are pretty much the same and the poll is relevant. Many people in the other discussion pointed out their reasons for wanting to keep the poll in. Your obsession with removing this poll has blinded you from everything. I would suggest you drop your crusade against the white whale, but I doubt you will. S806 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Humans NOT EQUAL EARTH

Leaving a bad poll in the document is just misleading. If anyone has an argument for Humans == Earth go for it.

“Young Earth Creationists” are not equal to “creation of human life less than 10,000 years ago”

1. This wiki article describes, Young Earth Creationists, Old Age Creationists, Day Age and Gap Creationists that all believe humans are less were created in the last 10,000 years.

2. However Old Age Creationists, Day Age Creationists, and Gap Creationists all believe that the earth was created several billion years ago, and man created some 10,000 years ago. They are right in the article as stating it or just click on the link and read.

3. The gallup pole is on “Evolution, Creationism, and Intellegent Design” and 73% of people believe God guided the formation of humans. 42% believe humans were created as we were 10,000 years ago.

4. Day Age Creationists base their believe on the interpretation from Genesis of the Word “Yom” where “The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day”

5. The gallup pole makes no distinction between any of these groups.

6. The earth [[22]] is a planet and was created on the 3rd day of Genesis and made Humans on the 6th day of Genesis. From the Bible.

7. The earth is made up of non living chemicals.

8. Humans are living beings.

9. Most people are able to see them as two distinct and different entities.

10. Most churches do NOT believe in the Young Earth Creation "Insistence that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 must be interpreted as six literal, twenty-four-hour days as we know . . . has not by any means been characteristic of all the great teachers of the church of the past. It seems rather to be the child of modern controversy" (Culver 2006, p. 162).

11. The order of Genesis, is obviously the type of the actual billion year creation, "Astronomical knowledge makes it difficult to conceive of the existence of day and night before the creation of the sun . . . It must, therefore, be supposed that the first three days were seen as different . . . " (Wenham 1987, p. 22).

12.Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer writes, “On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day. (Gleason, p. 199)

Culver, R. D. 2006. Systematic theology: Biblical and historical. Ross-shire, United Kingdom: Christian Focus Publications. Wenham, G. J. 1987. Word biblical commentary, Vol. 1: Genesis 1–15. Mexico City, Mexico: Thomas Nelson.

Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994), 199

DevonSprings (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)