Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Young Earth creationism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Need a section on the origins of the bible?

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Since YEC is no more nor less than an attempt to interpret the world in terms of the Hebrew bible, and especially Genesis, should there not be a section outlining current scholarly discoveries about that text? (If you do this, please don't get hung up in the branches of the Documentary hypothesis, which posits the idea that Genesis was written in stages from c.950 BCE onwards. Current thinking is that it was written in the 500s BCE, and that Genesis 1 is about the most recent part of it, dating from the 400s). PiCo (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be better treated with a 'see-also' or 'further information' to article(s) that treat the topic in depth. No need to reinvent the wheel -- or to take on a set of controversies that are only tangential to the subject, but bound to generate a load of Wikidrama. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidrama ... now there's a much-needed article! PiCo (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And one that would almost certainly be able to present its own article talk page as an example of what it was describing. ;P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Genealogies in the Genesis text..."

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This appears to be referring to the material discussed in Sons of Noah, and the Hebrew Mizraim should be substituted for the English "Egypt". We do however need a source linking this to (mainstream) YEC views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ... I learn something new every day. I don't have a problem with that being mentioned, but the text as it read made it sound like there was a verse in the Bible "and so and so begat Egypt, who founded the nation of Egypt" or some such thing. In reality, it should say something closer to, "Mizraim is identified in Genesis 10:13 as the ancestor of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, Pathrusites, Casluhites, and Caphtorites. These cultures, though not explicitly identified in the Bible, are traditionally identified with Egypt." We're getting way outside of anything I know about, but it seems like this is closer to correct. --B (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation"

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have a problem with the sentence, "Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis." The sentence, as worded, implies that one follows the other directly. But that is not the case. Simply opposing the proposition that you can scientifically study God does not mean that you reject a literal Genesis. You can believe that God is unfalsifiable, and believe Genesis to be literally true. I would assume, in fact, that most people who believe that God's existence is unfalsifiable believe that Genesis is literally true. That's kinda the whole point of this article - YECers reject science to the contrary and believe in YEC. --B (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean most people who believe god's existence is unfalsifiable but true. --King Öomie 20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --B (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I get your point, but would disagree with your assumption. Anyone who knows the scientific definition of 'falsifiability' can see that god or gods don't measure up. Though, that's not the locus of your statement :P

To that, I agree with your main point. The (lack of) ability to measure god has little or nothing to do with Genesis. Most folks who believe that a snake literally tricked the only two humans on earth into eating a magic apple have little problem with man's inability to to take their personal deity's temperature. --King Öomie 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I reversed myself and restored B's version, as I think it is better than what was there before. BTW, this section is labeled "Theology", but are any of the criticisms really Theological? Editor2020 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a better section heading would be, "religious objections". But what I think the article doesn't do a great job of is differentiating between various theological positions. You have people who believe the Bible is literally true ("plenary verbal inspiration", "fundamentalist", "literalist", etc) and people who do not. Among the latter, few, if any, are YECers. Though they object to the theology of YECism (in that they don't believe it), their reasons are scientific, not scriptural. Among people who do believe that the Bible is literally true, there are at least three interesting non-YEC views - last Thursdayism, old-earth creationism, and people who believe that the story is purely symbolic, but nonetheless God-authored. Their objections, I guess, could be said to be theological, but really I think their objections would be better stated as trying to harmonize the scriptural record with the scientific evidence. Aside from an adherent of another religion, who is advocating their own creation mythology, I agree that most of the objections labeled "theological" aren't really "theological" objections - just people who have a theology who object. --B (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

YEC

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They dont have to be jews or xtians even tho they mainly are, they can be muslim and other religions. The definition is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.105.42 (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Behemoth

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The article states says about the behemoth being a hippo, bull etc: 'but as these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to the size of a cedar tree' I assume this is refering to the sentance in the Bible the 'tail moveth like cedar'.This sentance says nothing about the size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.231.117 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it states "Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant, a hippopotamus, or a bull" -- it is stated as an opinion, not as a fact -- which is confirmed by the cited source. The article then goes on to describe why "some Biblical scholars" hold this opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The article reads: "Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant, a hippopotamus, or a bull, but as these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to the size of a cedar tree; creationists often identify the behemoth with sauropod dinosaurs." The only way that I can make sense out of this is to drop the semicolon, but even then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should read "Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant, a hippopotamus, or a bull, although these animals have very thin tails which are not comparable in size to a cedar tree: creationists often identify the behemoth as a sauropod dinosaur.". This would need to be checked against sources of course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway a proper translation its not tail! Its talking aboiut the animals big penis, its strong loins and virile testicles.--27.33.105.42 (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

It's a joke that Wikipedia can claim to have a neutral point of view and then categorize Young Earth Creationism as "pseudoscience" and "denialism". Totakeke423 (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would refer you to the archives for this issue, everything that could possibly be said about WP:DUE and neutrality of the article has already been said.

Just a quick listing of any past topic that discusses neutrality in the heading... — raeky t 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Totakeke423 -- how dare Wikipedia take the word of hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last two centuries, rather than give equal validity to the word of an itinerant religious literature pedlar, a hydraulic engineer, a school teacher and a convicted felon. It's just plain unreasonable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. Thank you for being succinct. Totakeke423 (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Poe's Law wins again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view, doesnt mean taking fools rantings and treating them the same as facts that have evidence to support them.--27.33.105.42 (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the lead isn't very neutral in that it gives far more weight/space to creationist perspectives than the mainstream scientific perspective. I'm going to make some edits. GDallimore (Talk) 15:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality seems impossible for this subject since the vast majority of people who contribute and discuss this subject believe that science accurately describes reality. In fact, science includes facts and excludes facts in the effort to make a theory. This process reifies the reflected reality. There are plenty of sources (non-creationist) that point out this error. Its reductionism at its worst all the more so because most people don't take the time or are not inclined to consider the philosophy of science. The best that can be said about theory is that is is a somewhat useful model that rests on unprovable assumptions and are considered fact because so many people believe it (faith).TDurden1937 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

This is not an article about the philosophy of science. Please keep your comments on topic. GDallimore (Talk) 23:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can evidence be wrong?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In reference to various edits to the lead, I would like to say that yes, evidence can be "wrong". It can be contaminated, ambiguous, misanalysed, etc. An obvious example of this is RATE, where a lack of experimental expertise led to anomalous results, which 'wrong evidence' was extrapolated to indicate massive changes in nuclear decay rates. I would however suggest that the statement in the lead should be cited to a WP:SECONDARY source, rather than attempt to interprete a creationist WP:PRIMARY source itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence is evidence, data is data. Evidence cannot by itself be wrong, it simply is. What you are talking about is interpretation of evidence. It is by interpretation that some evidence is accepted and some rejected as anomalous. The controversy is not over evidence but over who is interpreting it and by what rules. This point needs to be in the article somewhere. AshforkAZ (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much what I was thinking when I saw those edits. Often there are claims of 'evidence' from branches of pseudoscience (I saw someone recently, claiming that homeopathic treatments had clearly shown effectiveness better than placebo IN ANIMALS) that are simply false; the 'evidence' is completely invented, not just poorly analyzed. No such result was ever found. --King Öomie 13:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a primary source is innapropriate in this case: it is being used to try to summarise the position of Young Earth creationists. I'm more worried that it takes one AnswersInGenesis author as being representative of the whole YEC movement, but I think it's the best that can be done at the moment (see below for long-term goals). In any event, the issue of whether "evidence can be misinterpreted and/or wrong" is a correct/true statement is moot since it is not a statement which I felt was easily supported by the source, so it was more a reliability issue in my eyes than trying to write something true. I therefore rewrote the sentence entirely to represent what I thought the source was saying. My edit was largely based on the section in the article which talks about the flood and how, since the bible says a global flood happened and geology can find no evidence of a global, geology must be wrong - to quote: "it is logically inconsistent to believe in both a global Noachian Flood and millions of years" in the section about defending the creationist view. There are other examples through the source, but that was the most clear one in my eyes when writing that sentence.

Ultimately, I've been starting to edit this article from the wrong place, and I know I have, but I guess I had to start somewhere when I read the lead and felt it gave significantly too much weight to the YEC viewpoint.

The lead should summarise the artice (I trust we all agree on this). The fact that the source being used in the lead is not actually used in the body of the article suggests that the lead is being misused as a place to argue points rather than summarise points that are argued in detail in the body of the article. What I think needs doing in the long term is make a more detailed argument about (a) the lack of scientific basis for YEC and (b) the numerous ways YEC actually contradicts widely-accepted and mutually supportive fields of science and then to summarise that in the lead. I stress that my recent edit were just what I saw as being necessary short-term fixes before trying to delve into the article at large.

Please don't take this as an insult to those who have worked on this article. There is a lot of good stuff in there, but it is clearly one of those articles that has been pieced together over time and I feel it has got to the stage where an overall guiding hand (a designer, shall we say) is needed to sort the sheep from the goats. GDallimore (Talk) 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I would probably personally agree that "YEC adherents hold that the Bible is inerrant and that any scientific theory which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible's creation myth must consequently be wrong", I have problems with it being stated, in a Wikipedia article, on the basis of the citation given. (i) Terry Mortenson is only a single YE Creationist, and not even a particularly prominent one. He is not speaking with the voice of AiG, let alone with that of ICR, CRS, etc. Many of them might support this as an articulation of their views, many might not. (ii) It is an oversimplification of Mortenson's views, rather than a simple summary -- it says both more and less than Mortenson himself said. On the one hand, Mortenson does not (as far as I can determine) baldly state that contradictory science is wrong. On the other, his distrust of science (and particularly the historical sciences) appears to extend well beyond the simple question of whether they contradict God's inerrant word. For these reasons I'd prefer to see the YEC viewpoint synthesised by a reliable secondary source, rather than relying on an arguable-oversimplification of a single exemplar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mortenson works for AiG, the article was reviewed by AiG editors and published in AiG's on-line journal "Answers Research Journal." That is about as close to knowing AiG's official position as you can get. If AiG didn't agree with the article it would not have gotten published.

Perhaps the WP statement is an oversimplification. It can be corrected. Using a primary source makes sense when wanting to know what the primary source actually says, rather than someone else's interpretation of what they say, which may or may not be accurate. As they say, "go to the horses mouth." AshforkAZ (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of most of paragraph on Gallup Poll

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I deleted most of the paragraph on the Gallup Poll in the intro. This is because the information in the Wiki page clearly misrepresented the information in the poll.

The Poll was referenced to provide poll results on what percent of people believe in YEC. This was not the intent of the poll at all. Look at the poll. It addresses 3 question 1) Humans evolved without the help of God, 2) with the help of God, or 3) God created humans complete as they are today in the last 10,000 years. #3 is the only part of this poll that can be used to imply a belief in YEC.

Additionally, the first sentence of this paragraph which mentions YEC being believed by 10 - 40% of Americans may lead people to assume wrongly that the poll subsequently cited is ALL about YEC . . .and it is not.

Second, the reference selectively refers to results in the poll that completely destroy whatever meaning can be derived from the poll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please learn to sign your comments on talk pages. ~~~~ is all you need to do. Second, I'm not getting your point.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The poll is entitled "Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism." The citation of this source was addressing the belief or lack of belief in YEC. The poll has noting to do with that as I pointed out above. Look at the source. The most that can be said about the poll come from question 3)ie, God pretty much created humans as they appear now in the last 10,000 years. One must assume perhaps rightly that these people would support YEC.

Every other statement in that paragraph or statistic referenced has noting to do with belief in YEC, but 1) and 2) above. They are irrelevant or were irrelevant unless someone puts them back in and smack of data mining to support a contention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to say here, except that it appears to be you who have read the source wrongly. However, I did spot and correct one error, or at least an over-approximation which might have led to you thinking that the data in the article was being taken from the wrong question: I changed "around 40%" to "around 34%". The number of respondents to question 1 and question 3 were similar there which might have been the confusion. Every other part of the material lifted from that source is clearly related to question 3. GDallimore (Talk) 23:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Look . . . I don't give a rats . . . well, I pretty much think Creationism is sparse in its science. What I'm talking about in the cited source is that its not even about YEC! Do you understand that. I's about percent of people who believe that God had a hand in evolution, God created man fully formed about 10,000 years ago, or Evolution occurred without any intervention.

"Anywhere from 10 to 45% of adults in the United States say they believe in YEC, depending on the poll.[11] According to a Gallup poll in December 2010, around 34% of Americans believe in YEC, rising to over 50% among Republicans but falling quickly as the level of education increases; only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less.[12]"

34% of Americans believe in YEC? If anything its inferred. Where in the poll does it say that? What does rising to 50% among Republicans have to do with anything? And falling quickly as education increases . . . where are the numbers? If anything the falling belief in God created man in the current form 10,000 years ago is more than made up in those who believe that God had a hand in evolution! The whole trust of this paragraph is misleading. If OrengeMarker or whatever his name was would have just let it alone to speak for itself it would have been fine.

Wiki is now in the process of trying to determine why so few editors are attracted to Wiki and retained.

At the beginning of this Wiki page there was an invitation for "me" to try and improve this page. I spent most of the day going to sources, and trying to understand what was being said.

When I edit I am looking for objectivity. I don't care what it is. If it were a page on "Proving God is Dead," I'd just want it to be objective. The space in an article is in proportion to the accepted body of knowledge supporting or refuting it . .. fine. Kind of status quo but fine. So then at least make the information accurate.

I just can't get over it "established" is okay while "current" is derogatory. Give me a break. 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

If you are unable to find this information in the source when it's quite clearly there, I not sure how I can help you. Perhaps you're overlooking the tables. GDallimore (Talk) 00:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Made a mistake correcting what I thought was a mistake. The original figure of 40% was correct. 34% was the percentage of democrats answering yes to question 3. 40% is the overall figure answering yes to question 3. GDallimore (Talk) 00:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

One persons artical does not make all YEC

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

"Conversely, YEC adherents hold that the Bible is inerrant and that any scientific theory which contradicts their interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative must consequently be wrong.[5][non-primary source needed]"

The source is a compendium of several different Theological and Creationist arguments, only one of which mentions an inerrant Bible.

To use that source as a basis for claiming "YEC" (that is all YEC) use inerrant Bible as a defense is simply wrong because one does not make the class.

This source is insufficient to make the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, how do you explain the denialism of the Fact of Evolution, the Big Bang, etc.? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"However, the established scientific consensus is that young Earth creationism has no scientific basis."

def established - to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.

Anyone familiar with scientific consensus knows how it changes sometimes quickly. I suggest using "current" in place of established are more accurate.

I consider established in this case a weasel word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. And we don't make predictions on Wikipedia. "Current" is deprecated. Finally, no scientific consensus doesn't change suddenly. I think after a hundred years, and millions of pieces of data, we're good with how life evolved, how the earth was formed, and how the universe started. If you have reliable sources that show something different, please bring it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not any grand claims. The only thing I'm denying is the use of one YEC's article to attribute inerrant Bible as as rational response by YEC.

Current is deprecating but established isn't. Interesting . . .

I didn't make a prediction . . .

I'm not supporting one view or another on how old the Earth is or how life developed. At best one can only say Evolution is the theory that makes any sense at all.

Your observations, sir, make it obvious to me that you and those like you are the reason that this article is screwed up. Objectivity is out the window when the Eternal Fight Between neo-Evolutionists and Creationist is on, and there is not any in between ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Returning to your first comment, there is an error in your understanding of the source. The source is (in part) an analysis of several theological non-creationist texts by a creationist writer. It is very definitely not a compendium of different creationist writings so it is not surprising that only part of it supports belief in an inerrant, literal interpretation of the bible. The part that matters, the discussion of creationism by the creationist reviewer, includes many statements that support inerrancy particularly one that says that fossils must be the result of a global flood because the bible says there was a global flood. GDallimore (Talk) 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate assertion . .

Latest comment: 13 years ago28 comments9 people in discussion

"YEC is contradicted by many fields of science, including nuclear physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology and geology."

It is more accurate to say that "Opponents of YEC point to many fields of science . . . etc, for their argument."

It is the opponents of YEC right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a debate. YEC is completely contradicted by science. You're implying that scientists spend their day worrying about YEC, so they oppose it. No, they think it's mostly laughable and silly. They mostly ignore it, because there is not one bit of evidence for YEC. Not one. Again, it's not a debate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a debate? You ignore the fact there are thousands of scientists with relevant PhDs who would identify as YECs (and claim to base their view on empirical evidence). There is, by all definitions, a debate. To assert otherwise is pure fantasy, not to mention downright dishonesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.246.13 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I imply nothing. You assume I am implying. BTW, I don't support YEC. But I do question that "science" contradicts YEC and is practically and philosophically incorrect. People who appose YEC use the "facts" that science presents as accepted reality to contradict it. Science is not a sentient being and cannot do anything.

Ya know honestly . . . I get so tired of arguing about this stuff. I'm a believer in the scientific method. I think that probably in the broad sweep of things Evolutionary Theory is true. What really bugs me is the absolute hostility that Creationists and Evolutionist treat each other. The both take on a absolutely dogmatic position is is NOT complimentary to either side. Scientific method is the open and honest and impartial assessment of any and all Theories. That's what makes the Scientific Method so great.

That's why I decided to try and edit some of the crap in the introduction of this Wiki page. It impresses me much more as an introduction to "The Refutation of Young Earth Creationism" than a Socratic dialogue even of the pro's and con's.

TDurden1937 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Two comments.

1. I have absolutely no idea what "Opponents of YEC point to many fields of science . . . etc, for their argument." is supposed to mean. Please explain what you are trying to say.

2. The article is correctly not a "pros and cons" article because it must represent the sources in a balanced manner. Listing the pros and cons is not balanced because it presupposes that equal weight should be given to the creationist viewpoint when it is actually a minority position. GDallimore (Talk) 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Having gone over the article, I think you're right that "fields of science" do not contradict YEC since science is not an active, sentient being. I have put it in the active voice from the perpsective of the YEC: YEC contradicts many fields of science. I think that's much better. Thanks for highlighting it. GDallimore (Talk) 23:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm tired, I haven't eaten, and I have head ache. We can continue arguing tomorrow, lol.TDurden1937 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Check my version. I think it reads much better. "Aspects" rather than complete "fields". ^ross ^nixon 03:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell me, what "aspects" of evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology does YEC not contradict? And what is left of nuclear physics if you reject uniform decay rates? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

rossnixon has hit upon the precise problem with creationist science by saying that creationists are "involved" in scientific research. The only extent to which they are involved in geology, for example, is to attempt to prove that there is geological evidence of a global flood or that a global flood could create the fossil record. Generally, they only do research in areas where the scientific consensus does not support a creationist view. So, to the extent that they are involved in scientific research, their research is totally contradictory to the fields in question by definition. For example, geological research has found no evidence of a global flood and, in many MANY different ways (not just the fossil record), establishes that the earth is some millions of years old.

When picking the fields of science I did for the lead, I tried to choose ones which were completely contradicted by YEC. So I chose "nuclear physics" rather than just saying "physics". If the fields I have chosen can be narrowed a little further, I wouldn't be averse to someone improving on my edits - but I agree with Orangemarlin that just adding the preface "aspects" is not an improvement. GDallimore (Talk) 10:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Answering Hrafn above. YECs support 'natural selection', which is part of evolutionary biology. ^ross ^nixon 03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Natural selection is one of the two mechanisms which drive Evolution. If YEC's "supported" natural selection, then they "support" evolution. Since natural selection may require 10,000 years to change one minor characteristic, how can you logically sit there and claim that YEC's utilize any biology whatsoever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I see where rossnixon is trying to come from. YECs do "support" aspects of scientific theories which either agree with their beliefs or don't directly contradict them. But cherry-picking parts of science you agree with does not mean you fail to contradict entire fields. The key example is micro-evolution vs macro-evolution. To YECs, this is an important distinction and many are happy to support micro-evolution. Evolutionary biology as a field, however, does not support such a distinction so the YEC viewpoint is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable from a scientific standpoint. Accepting only part of a scientific theory is still actually rejecting the theory in its entirety. GDallimore (Talk) 17:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, all of the above is now pretty much irrelevant since I've completely rewritten the introduction and the bit in the article body based more carefully on the IAP source. I was nervous about going down that route before because it talks about "scientific facts" and I wanted to avoid the whole fact vs theory minefield. But I've been reassured by the above discussion about whether there is a debate and also by the wording of the IAP statement.

Orangemarlin is correct: there is no debate. A debate, by "definition", requires two parties. Here we have only creationists shouting into the wind. As clearly evidenced by the IAP statement, the scientific community pays no heed to them or there activities except where necessary, eg to ensure that science is taught correctly in schools. The IAP statement focuses wholly on this: facts that have been established by science, what is a scientific theory, and what should be taught in schools. It completely ignores creationists and their arguments. In this, it is a marvellous piece of writing and we should be careful to do it justice in this article by avoiding the implication that it gives any weight to creationist viewpoints at all.

In other words: the scientfic community in general and the IAP statement specifically do not even acknowledge creationism, only the harm that creationists are doing to science education. GDallimore (Talk) 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Listen. Creationists have debated evolutionists and visa-versa. Obviously, some brilliant evolutionists do pay attention to the shouts in the wind (R. Dawkins, Eugenie C. Scott...). Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 07:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what he means is that there is no scientific or fact based debate. It's not that a YEC has never argued for their position, just that no one in the scientific community takes it seriously. N^oformation ^Talk 07:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. Sorry it took me so long. I just updated Wikipedia's 4th most watched page. Anyway, does anyone have an accurate definition for 'scientific community'? Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. We have an article titled scientific community, here is the lead: "The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.[1]" N^oformation ^Talk 08:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm updating my user page so it can serve as an accurate portal to creation-evolution related articles in and out of wikipedia from a "neutral" point of view.Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Wekn reven i susej eht#List of Users Involved in the Creation Topics may be a bad idea. Have all these people identified themselves as belonging to those categories? Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just left a note on their user talk (i) noting that some of the inclusions are inaccurate & (ii) objecting to the "Evolutionist" label. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right. I'm going to have to get more confirmation from the users themselves. Sorry! Let's see, Rossnixon has said it, a few users have the answer in their user boxes, and Hrafn is in the middle of making his position clear... Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you would find ANYONE who would call themselves an "evolutionist". EVER. And hrafn, I like your "What me a creationist?" box. Happened to me once. Mind if I steal it? GDallimore (Talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for 'Creationist'... Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're demonstrably wrong: [1]. Here's an article saying they don't like the term "Young Earth Creationist", but call themselves "Biblical Creationists" since there's is clearly the only proper interpretation of the Bible. Anyway, this is getting off-topic. I'm not going to comment further unless there is something useful about improving the article. GDallimore (Talk) 13:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And for some reason, many other names exist on top of that: ID (slightly different sometimes), Scientific creationist etc. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

For the origin of the term 'Creationism' see Harold W. Clark -- it is a self-description. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Thank you. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why I shortened the lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have just made some edits which considerably shorten the lead by moving detailed commentary into the article body where it belongs. I have left a brief summary of the material I moved in accordance with WP:LEAD. I realise that the lead is now shorter than it should be given the size of the article, but the solution to this is NOT to put back the material I have removed, but to better summarise other topics covered in detail in the article body. Hope everyone can agree on this at least :) . GDallimore (Talk) 11:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Greatings GD - I'll not go through all the "comments" I made last night but only say this . . . I respect all you guys and women who contribute to Wiki and I love Wiki. I contribute money (that I could be spending on video games, ha ha ah), I use Wiki nearly exclusively as my Encyclopedia and find it of immense use. Ya'll are doing a great job.

My only wish is that you all, we all, stick to the most strict standards of objectivity, source and exactness. Best regards, TDurden1937 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Thanks, but I'm not sure how much clearer I can be: the only real issue of exactness you've raised has been an error on your part in reading the source. GDallimore (Talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

TDurden apparently has his own idea of what constitutes WP:NPOV and WP:RS, which seems antithetical to the community at large. 21:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Claims that Creationist research is ignored?

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

"Some Young Earth creationists claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.[6][7][8][9] "

Well, look at the four cited sources. I don't think there is any "claim" about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer?
In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it meant being cast out of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Shortly after publishing the article “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution lashed out at Sternberg, calling him a “shoddy scientist” and a “closet Bible thumper,” according to a Washington Post article (August 19).
— The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy

Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.
— Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Was Sternberg YEC? The statement was based on primary sources, unreliable ID proponentsists without specific mention of these being YEC related. Have researched this, found reliable secondary sources and modified the statement accordingly. Have left the paraphrase as "discrimination and censorship" as a reasonable summary, though Morris calls it "bigotry". The body text on this issue also needs updated using these or other suitable sources, will come back to this. . . dave souza, talk 08:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sternberg is a member of the YEC Baraminology Study Group, and the claim was made by the YEC Answers in Genesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad, it's hard to keep up with which ID proponentsist is denying being YEC creationist. Fair point about the AiG article, my first impression was that they were reporting on an ID kerfuffle rather than promoting the issue directly. So, a viable primary source, someone may wish to restore it now the more detailed account based on secondary sources has been moved to the body of the article. . . dave souza, talk 17:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, (original research) many of the Creationist science journals are professional. The facts are: professional peer-reviewed Creationist science journals will rarely ever publish an article that promotes secular scientific theories unless with a rebuttal and visa versa. Someone could do a lot of research and confirm that. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

One little note. I'm a baraminologist myself. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is (i) those publishing in Creationist journals, and peer-reviewing the articles, are seldom qualified in the fields involved & (ii) their claims generally involve heavily cherry-picked and/or misrepresented material (often from outdated or otherwise unreliable sources). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? LOL (+WP:NOTAFORUM to myself).Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct way to edit an article

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Okay . . . so I remember once reading that one should try and NOT delete information in an article but amplify it. Is this so? If it is, the I can add additional information in the introduction concerning the Poll so as to make the paragraph MORE accurate. Any objections . . . or will OrengeMarker man use his magic marker to erase that to. Cause I'm not going to waste my time if someone just pushed a radio button and erases all my work.TDurden1937 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

I disagree with your opening statement. I also object because it is already accurate despite your contention to the contrary. GDallimore (Talk) 00:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Be careful there TDurden. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I at least know that OrangeMarlin doesn't have any magic markers. He keeps whatever edits he thinks alter, adapt, or refine articles, references, and formatting in order to bring about conformity to Wikipedia standards. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Although some editors to fit the criteria for WikiKings, Marlin here is a pretty good example of how not to be one. Sorry TDurden1937. But you're right that such editors exist. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Age of Universe, Earth, and Life

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

This whole thread is mooted by Age of the Earth and WP:MNA. If there is WP:RS evidence that there is (or even has been) serious (by which I mean something like 3 orders of magnitude in the last 150 years or one order of magnitude in the last 50) dispute over that age, then bring it up on that article's talk -- unless and until that occurs it is off-topic for discussion here.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am an ardent “evolutionist”, but even so, I am not a believer in overstating the case for what is known, believed or surmised in the scientific account of the beginnings of the Universe, the Earth, and life on Earth. The article says:

Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts which have been established by observations and experimental results derived independently from many scientific disciplines including cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology.

This is simply untrue. Science is still trying to get firm timelines for these events. And far from scientific evidence never having contradicted these figures, in so recent a past as the last 20 years there has been considerable debate as to whether the Universe was 20 billion years old, or as little as half the figure. To make triumphalist assertions that Science has had consensus on these matters, and that the figures have been backed up by every other field of associated research is to think, write and propagandise in precisely the way the fundies do.

Just restricting ourselves to what WP articles say on these matters, The History of the Universe gives the latest scientific determined age of the Universe as 13.3 to 13.9 billion years, which is about 1.5 billion years short of the figure this article asserts as being the official one, and the 13.3 – 13.9 figure is as recent as 2011, that is, work and thought on this issue is still going on.

WP article History of the Earth gives the age of the Earth as 4.6 million which is 100 thousand years longer than the one this article pronounces as the one which has consensus. And more seriously, WP article Evolutionary history of life has life appearing 3.5 billion years ago, a whole billion years before this articles figure of 2.5 billion years. There are many outstanding problems in verifying the accuracy in all these figures. For example, there is still a problem that in some calculations, the early stars are older than the age of the Universe, and so on.

Of course, most of these discussions and debates have to do with determining a RANGE of viable figures. I am certainly not suggesting that the Universe, the Earth, and life on Earth could be 10 thousand years old. But it is amateurish, uncyclopedic and unjustifiably partisan to make claims that are gross oversimplifications of what is currently known. It suggests the author of these lines does not really have much of a grasp of what is at stake, and how scientists go about their business. Myles325a (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would hardly call an off-by-one in the least significant digit 'contradiction' -- more likely simply a difference in rounding. Nor has any scientific dispute in centuries come even close to supporting the YEC viewpoint. If you want a rewording such that "never contradicted" is applied to the magnitudes rather than the exact figures, I'd probably support it -- but I would not support a watering down of the expression of the level scientific support for billions-of-years-old Life/Earth/Universe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's sourced and explained further in the article. I don't see there's a discussion to be had about the accuracy of the statement. But if we are going to have a discussion about the accuracy of the statement, I see nothing to dispute, for example, that scientific consensus has always been that the universe is around 15 billion years old; 10-20 billion years being "around 15 billion". So, again, no problem. GDallimore (Talk) 22:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nor has any scientific dispute in centuries come even close to supporting the YEC viewpoint." Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hongzhen, Wang (1997). Comparative Planetology, Geological Education & History of Geosciences. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. p. 262. ISBN 9067642541. demonstrates that uniformitarianism, and thus a far-longer-than-YEC history of the Earth, has dominated geology since the 19th century. AFAIK, there's been no serious dispute of it since. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nor has any scientific dispute in centuries come even close to supporting the YEC viewpoint." [citation still needed] I meant for no scientific dispute coming close (like how do you define close, anyways?) to supporting the YEC viewpoint. I would also like to have your definition of 'scientific dispute': by your standards, you could be correct if you clarify. If you mean debate (some guy vs. another guy) or a group of scientists vs. another group of scientists (pseudoscientists by your standards) or something else I still do not know. As for uniformitarianism, yes, it has been the dominant bias ever since its modern dawn from c1790-1860 (scientists such as James Hutton, Charles Lyell, John Playfair, Abraham Gottlob Werner (Neptunism), Sir James Hall...). P.S. Then again, you did say "AFAIK".Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Competence still needed: <Dumps the entire geological literature from the last 180 years onto Wekn reven i susej eht, hits him with a WP:TROUT and tells him to get a clue.> No, I will NOT provide the thousands of citations documenting each and every scientific dispute relevant to the age of the Earth, in the last two centuries, to demonstrate that none of them "come even close". I will however define "close" to "within an order of magnitude" (i.e. an age of ≤ 100,000 years or thereabouts) and point out that, AFAIK, the closest a credible estimate has come in that period was Lord Kelvin's 19th century estimate that it was 20 million and 400 million years (he'd failed to take account of an important factor or two) -- I'm fairly sure I'd have heard if there were any more significant outliers. No it is not "a group of scientists vs. another group of scientists" -- it is virtually the entire geological community, against a bunch of itinerant religious literature salesmen, engineers and theologians. There were a couple of embarrassing incidents from the early days of the Geoscience Research Institute when the (staunchly YEC) Seventh Day Adventist Church, finding that they didn't have any qualified geologists, took a YEC, sent him to study geology, only to find that it turned him into an OEC (see the appropriate chapter of the book The Creationists for details). It is not "the dominant bias", it is the only interpretation that fits the full set of facts (as opposed to the cherry-picked, often outdated or taken-out-of-context, set that YECs typically work from). Now I've wasted enough time on a thread that has long since lost any relevance to improving the article. Go and read Age of the Earth and its 'Further reading' list if you want to find out more. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good luck w/trouting me. I'm not yet sure how to line up all those bubbles at the top of my userpage, so one of they're all piled up with the trout at the bottom, making it inaccessible. How about dumping geology itself on me (most of the geological literature from the past 180 years stinks: it might have no affect on me (partly because I'd never get through it all)). by the way, my name's Nathon, so you can stop using that ridiculously long name I picked: sorry 'bout that'n. Good call on not providing "the thousands of citations documenting each and every scientific dispute relevant to the age of the Earth, in the last two centuries." All I'd have to do is find a creationist who fits your definition of 'scientist' (or that of Richard Dawkins) apart from theirr 'pseudoscientific beliefs'. Chances are they've debated w/someone over the age of the earth, and chances are they've won (if that's the kind of dispute you were talking about). Yes, I agree with you that Kelvin "failed to take account of an important factor or two", but those factors could have led him to lower estimates or higher estimates (depending on his bias). Yes, G.M. Price didn't have the right qualifications. Henry Morris held a doctorate in hydraulic engineering from the University of MN (not some rural bible institute), which I'd say doesn't have too much to do w/geology (o.k. maybe flood geology), and nor did John C. Whitcomb's Th.D.. Thank you for cherry-picking these names. You seem to have left out Dr. Steven A. Austin, Dr. John D. Morris, Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Dr. Terry Mortenson, Dr. Emil Silvestru, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Dr. Tas Walker, Dr. John Whitmore, Dr. Clifford Burdick... and I'm not going to come up w/the entire list of all the YEC Geology doctors that ever lived. As for the embarrassing incidents, well, I'm afraid I'll have to point out that you've picked another cherry. If that was relative, then the fact that Charles Lyell never earned a degree in anything related to geology would matter (he also attended geology lectures with William Buckland while at Exeter). If you could give me a definition of scientist, it would help quite a bit. I, on the other hand, do believe this thread could be of great importance in improving the article. -Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow}, the cherry picking pseudoscientist

Wekn: I could find qualified scientists who insist that alien abductions are real and that Elvis is alive -- that does not make either a "scientific dispute" -- a genuine scientific dispute requires that both sides has sufficient evidence for their views that they are able to get them published in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals. And as for your list, John D. Morris is an engineer, Mortenson is a theologian and a historian -- neither are scientists. The rest seem to be staff at the sort of Christian apologetics ministries that earn scientific disrepute by pretending to do scientific whilst requiring their staff to sign statements of faith (or equivalent) enforcing a young earth viewpoint. They therefore have about as much credibility on the topic as Comical Ali. "Charles Lyell never earned a degree in anything related to geology" does not matter because he was one of the founders of the discipline -- unlike Price & Morris Senior -- both of whom were notorious for spending their time trolling through old scientific literature, looking for perceived inconsistencies, rather than doing real research. And I've yet to see any evidence that Whitcomb even pretended to do geological research. Lyell helped create the modern discipline of geology -- your clowns, not so much -- so trying to create an equivalence between them is ludicrous. ROFLMAO! As I did not raise the topic of "scientists" it is not encumbent upon me to offer a definition (I have offered one above for "scientific dispute"). And any definition would have to take into account the degree of maturity of the scientific field at the time the scientist was working. It is for example nonsensical to expect a scientist to gain a degree in the discipline before the discipline even exists, to any recognisable extent. Have you read Age of the Earth and its entire 'Further reading' list yet? (If not then why are you responding here?) If so, then I recommend you read Pseudoscience and its 'Further reading' and links -- I particularly recommend this link. TTFN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good decision. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Age of the Earth/Universe 2

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I didn't read through the above thread, as it seemed to be related to this one only by its title. I offer the following passage from Frank Close in "Nothing: A Very Short Introduction" as a possibility for inclusion, since I didn't find it in the article; the closest section was "Age of the Earth", and maybe it would best fit there.

"As a student, I first met someone who fervently and seriously believed in the 6,000-year-old universe. I explained to him the idea of parallax, how when we move from side to side nearby things appear to move relative to those farther away; that the earth's annual circling of the Sun provides enough 'side to side' motion that we can see parallax in the stars, which shows them to be light years away. Even without getting into the many other temporal measures, such as the natural radioactivity of rocks that places the earth at 5 billion years, the evidence in front of our eyes, literally, reveals a universe that is far older than a mere 6,000 years.

He agreed, but then went on to claim what had happened 6,000 years ago was that some divine act had created a fully-fledged universe with a built-in memory: uranium in its various isotopic forms balanced so as to appear 5 billion years old; light beams created in mid-flight so as to appear to be coming from remote galaxies."

Frank Close, Nothing: A Very Short Introduction, 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 41–42.

The ideas in the second paragraph are probably covered in the article already. But the idea of stellar parallax conflicting with YEC does not seem to be covered—only radiometric dating. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The unnamed "someone" in the paragraph above appears to endorse what is sometimes called the "Omphalos hypothesis", which is not universally held among YEC'ers. As you note, that is covered in the article. Gabbe (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the point the original editor was making: he was asking whether the parallax problem should be added to this article. Actually, parallax isn't the thing that conflicts with YEC. Parallax is merely the evidence that the universe is big (*really big*). Once you have established that and the constant speed of light then you have a problem in that light from the most distant visible stars has been travelling for billions of years. This is, I believe, covered by the lead where it says that YEC conflicts with cosmology. The attitude to science section also mentions astronomy and links to this reference [2] which is the basis on which I mentioned cosmology in the lead.

Perhaps some more detail could be included, but it would take an article in itself to list all of the particular things wrong with YEC. Much as I would like it to, this article should not take every opportunity to bash YEC andis supposed to be about YEC with, of course, a summary of all the things wrong with it. GDallimore (Talk) 13:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair points. I had considered perhaps in the "Age of the earth" section that a few words could be added such as "This depends on a literal interpretation of the internal chronology of the bible, and contrasts with the age of 4.54 billion years estimated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating, as well as cosmic phenomena such as stellar parallax."

It didn't seem to fit well with that section as titled, however. The section title could be adjusted, a few words such as the above could be added elsewhere, or this topic could simply be dropped. As you note, there sare some nuances to the parallax topic in regard to YEC; but, perhaps what matters in this case (verifiability vs. truth) is that the author identifie it in a reliable source in opposition to the idea of the earth being created 6,000 years ago. In that sense, it might merit inclusion, even if it's only a few words. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the age of the universe with the age of the earth. Also, a key point which you still misunderstand, I think: stellar parallax by itself does not provide an estimate of the age of the universe (and is not a cosmic phenomenon per se) so does not really warrant specific mention. Rather, the distance of some stars, as determined by several methods (only one of which is parallax) provides an estimate of the age of the universe.

The point made (though I agree it could be made better, and a more specific source would be better too) in the "attitude to science" section of the article is that YEC is in conflict with cosmology essentially as a whole, not just the results gleaned from this one cosmological research technique. GDallimore (Talk) 23:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a distinction between the age of the earth and the age of the universe. I'm not sure that it's a meaningful one in the context of this article though. I think that Young Earth Creationists would state that God created both (the heavens and earth) on the same day—or at least in the same week.

Anyway, I'm not an expert in cosmology, physics, etc., so I can't address the nuances you mention. I can only offer Frank Close's analysis. I can't say if it's true or false or inaccurate to some degree; I can only offer that it's from a reliable source and is verifiable. Its relevancy to this article is the key concern here, I think.

But I've no wish to force something where it might not belong. If the editors here think Close's account adds nothing to this article, I have no issue with that. Especially if the material in the lede and "attitude to science" section does it justice already. Just throwing an idea out there. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying these sections don't need improvement, just that the improvements you suggest aren't appropriate for the reasons I give. For one, it would be wrong to let YEC set the agenda for how science is discussed. Also, my view is that you are actually misreading the source and it doesn't quite say what you seem to suggest it says. GDallimore (Talk) 08:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)