Talk:Young Earth creationism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

And on the 8th day[edit]

... God said 'Over to you Murphy' (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Compelling argument for Creationism[edit]

You decide.--BnBn (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, it's jailbird 931567324 Kent Hovind. Needless to say he's hardly an authority, logicked has an excellent video series debunking a lot of Hovind's claims, you can find it here. Samstr (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


The earth is 4.6 billion years old. SCIENCE, GUYS! XY007 (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get the samples to say that? Or is it an assumption off of a guess?Rimuru TempestRimuru Slime.png 01:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactionary belief[edit]

Does YEC count as a reactionary belief, where the proponents want to bring Christianity back to the good old days where a literal interpreatation of stuff made you pious? -- (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it's already mentioned in this section of the RW article on reactionaries and their beliefs. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


How? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a cover article and thus has to be, if the cover page is any indication. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
But why is it a cover article? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Because it's one of RW's central topics and it's not a bad article? (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Not being "Bad" or being "Central to RW" doesn't make it inherently "Gold Status-Cover article" though. As to why it's a Cover article, well, 3 people in 2008 voted yes when it was nominated on the reasoning of "Nominated by User:Barbara Shack"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we take the gold back? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It'll probably have to be brought up in the Bar or something instead of a talk page. Go for it if you want.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There's quite a lot of legacy not-so-marvellous cover articles from the early days. Be nice if it can be brought up to scratch instead - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer transfering the gold from this to the creationism article. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
*cough* αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest a call for de-golding somewhere prominent, e.g. Saloon Bar, and consideration of what to do with older cover articles that aren't so gret actully. I'm not sure this article in its present stage would make bronze - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Unless you plan to switch the content from this page to the other, 'transferring gold status' seems like an odd concept. If you grant gold status to Creationism, that doesn't require you to take the gold status of this article away. They're two separate articles. Though I agree this article should probably be de-golded. (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bronzed. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This article needs more love[edit]

Young Earth creationism... Should we not have one big article instead — named "Creationism" — into which we could contain both Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism, and variants of creationism that aren't Biblical (e.g. Hindu creationism)? I believe this is necessary for several reasons, and if done right, it could become another Gold article next to the one on Intelligent Design. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean something like this one Creationism?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere in Heaven[edit]

God-of-the-Bible sits the YECers down and explains to them in #very# simple terms that he told the Bible-writers (who were comfortable with numbers up to the low thousands - for counting livestock and armies) a simplified version of what he had done (the big bang is not easy to explain when you don't have exploding puffballs and ball lightning to hand) and that the scientists had indeed got the basics of how the Universe had been created so the YEC lot are 'ever so slightly wrong.'

Would they change their beliefs? Anna Livia (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)