Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 January 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Copyediting

Don't mind me...just doing a little copy-editing.--PalMD^{-רפאל ליפשון} 10:35, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Can we get the Jesus on a dinosaur pic up? Or would that be a cheap shot?--Bob_M (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

It wouldn't be very accurate. If I recall some of the dinosaur discussions, it would hae to be Adam, Eve, or Noah on the dinosaur.Prof0705 11:12, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Latest edits by Conservative

I'm not sure where to put this but here is the latest version of text by Conservative on the Ordivican period:

The Ordovician period is a theorized second period in the theorized Paleozoic era. It is posited that it started approximately 500 million years ago after the end of the theorized Cambrian era. Most of the phyla which are living today is posited to have existed at the beginning of the Ordovician period by those who assert that the earth is billions of years old. Evolutionary scientists assert by the end of the Ordovician period, the first land plants, bryophytes, evolved and began to colonize the land. The Ordovician also is claimed to have seen the evolution of fish. The Ordovician is posited to have preceded by the Cambrian era and succeeded by the Silurian era.

More of this and CP will be completely unreadable. ɱ@δ ɱ!ɳ^Hello?/_{I did this!} 15:44, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

And this on the Pleistocene:

The Pleistocene epoch is a theorized period of time that is said to have occurred 1.8 million to 11,000 years ago. It is during this period that modern man is theorized to have evolved The Pleistocene is also posits frequent glaciations. Many large animals went extinct at the end of this theorized period including sabre toothed tigers, wooly mammoths, and neanderthals, our sister species. This epoch coincided with ice ages which ravaged the earth as well as interglacials. It is thought that the Pleistocene ice age is still ongoing and that we are merely in another interglacial althogh global warming may result in a superinterglacial. This will delay or prevent us from going into another ice age.

How did he overlook the neanderthal bit? ɱ@δ ɱ!ɳ^Hello?/_{I did this!} 15:52, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I hate when he opens his webbrowser and edits things.--TimS 15:54, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Considering that he has to have read a lot of research I am amazed that he still is a YEC. I guess his ignorance is absolute.--TimS 15:55, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Conservative doesn't research things, that's been made clear ages ago. Most of what he posts comes from quote mines, and the remainder from Google searches on various word combinations, then skimming for the most damning stuff he can find. There's not an intellectually honest bone in that body, I'm afraid. --Kels 16:09, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Honest? Surely you mean there isn't an intellectual bone in his body? XD Trashbat 16:14, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

His? I went through C's talk page, diff by diff, and it's really funny to watch him try to conceal his identity, even down to not admitting his gender. Of course it's staringly obvious, but it's funny to watch him pretend we can't figure it out. --Kels 16:30, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Re:Google searches - you might like this and this. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Haha, I totally remember that exchange! --Kels 16:30, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Holy Shirt!

173 references!? You sure this guy doesn't have OCD or something? --Kels 21:11, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

On the one hand, it's better than 0. On the other, he doesn't seem to understand that quality matters more than quantity. --jtl^talk 23:27, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Removed banner.

I have removed this Banner:

!

This article is possibly the work of a parodist or vandal! It contains suspect information and/or Leftist POV. You are encouraged to remove the POV, but please abide by The Conservapedia Commandments & Style Guide. Never be afraid to name names. The party will reward you for your faithful service.

As I don't think it helps the article a lot.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 14:17, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins quote in intro.

I ahve removed this quote from the introduction: But Richard dawkins himself put it beutifully: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." <ref> Richard dawkins article submission[http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html]</ref> as it doesn't' seem to really fit.--Bob^{bing up} 06:50, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Cover Story Nomination

(do not archive this section)

• Nominated by Barbara Shack Marghanita Laski 05:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
• I vote "yes" human 21:43, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
• Yes. DogP 21:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure. It doesn't seem to have a lot of body at the moment does it?--Bob^{bing up} 04:26, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

It needs fleshing out. SusanG 04:56, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Done a small amount of "fleshing", not sure if it's there just yet. Armondikov 07:09, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Any more thoughts? ArmondikoV^gnostic 14:15, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I'd say do it. You know how, right? Change the parameter in "cover", and "noinclude" the templates at the top and that image near the top... ħuman 19:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Yep, did it with Poe's Law (although I initially forgot the noinclude tags), just gathering opinions first. ArmondikoV^gnostic 05:53, 3 December 2008 (EST)

A Plea for Tolerance

This article attempts to give a scientific refutation of some elements of what you call Young Earth Creationism. It ignores the Fact that people’s Belief’s are based on Faith and not on Reason. It is an Unjustified attack on Reasonable Rational religious people. I don’t dare to edit the article myself because, having spent a short time looking at the site, I fear that I would only receive Disrespect. So could I please ask that some of the more resonable editors review the artiqule so that it shows that Faith is as valid as science as a way of looking at the world? Stephen Gould, who was Wrong on oh so many other things, was at least able to see the Validity of Religious Thinking. I see that similar comments need to be made about many things you, perhaps without thinking to deeply, label, pudoscience. Thank you.^{— Unsigned, by: 78.47.210.67 / talk / contribs}

Assure you, we've thought about it. :-) SusanG 13:36, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah...probably not. PFoster 13:37, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you so much for your positive responses. May I suggest two articlres - one showing the athiestic view shown here and another giving proper respect to the religious view? ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.198.15.112 / talk / contribs}

Feel free to write one. SusanG

Refuting YEC does not equal atheism. It does equal not ignoring every bit of evidence about the age of the earth and universe, though. It is quite unlikely that an apologia for Young Earth beliefs would survive unscathed on this site. But you're free to try to write one (and there is always the essay: or debate: namespace). human 14:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

But the two views are equally valid, eqully rational - shoudl they not have equal space? Tolerence.

No they're not! SIGN!!!! SusanG 14:12, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Mr Gould does not agree with you I'm afraid. Tolerence. (How do I sign?)

I know they are equal with the same force you have faith they are not. but I do not criticize you for that.Tolerence 14:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

When someone's faith makes a claim about something that is within the realm of the scientific method, it is quite fair to attack them. Just because someone believes something doesn't mean it is immune from criticism and testing. If I was to sincerely believe the Moon was made of green cheese (because my holy book said so) and someone showed me a moon rock and said "no its not" - that would not be an unfair or unjustified attack on my beliefs. As to refuting YEC from a inerrant and literal point of view, I suggest reading Answers in Creation (not Answers in Genesis). --Shagie 15:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The problem with this 'plea for tolerance' is that many Young Earth Creationists have, in effect, made a sustained attack on science by claiming that YEC can be proven scientifically, and, together with many Old Earth Creationists, and Intelligent Designists, have been attempting, repeatedly, to try to get creationism taught in schools as science. What you're seeing here is, in effect, a response to that - a refutation of the idea that YEC (and, indeed, on other articles, OEC and ID) is in any way scientific. The very term 'Young Earth Creationism' is actually a term that is almost exclusively used to refer to this idea when it is being talked about as a 'scientific theory' (to be entirely accurate, it is actually a 'scientific hypothesis', or possibly even an example of a 'conjecture'), so it is entirely appropriate to write this article to address YEC as such. Zmidponk 15:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

All that you say may be true. But I cannot speak for others. I do not, in fact, beleive in a young earth, but many do, and for them it is a religious belief. this artiqule is an atack on those religious beliefs. Many hae to believe in spite of the evidence, that is a true example of faith. Tolerence 15:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

No; that is an example of stupidity. SusanG 15:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Tolerence, I am curious as to whether you write all the YEC web sites asking them for a more open-minded view of science? And whether you show such tolerence for people of other faiths, asking Christian web sites to please remember that there are other religious beliefs and they should not describe their faith as if they were the only correct one? Rational Ed^faith 15:27, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

C'mon, there are better arguments against this than 'others do it too'. That's not going to solve anything satisfactorily. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

You've misinterpreted. I'm not making that argument. I'm asking if Tolerence is consistent in his or her concern for fairness. Why should I waste my time discussing the point if s/he is just using the issue of fairness as a rhetorical device?Rational Ed^faith 19:02, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent)Here we have a problem. If YEC is a religious belief, what's its god/gods? What's its holy figures? What's its holy texts? YEC, in and of itself, is not, in fact, a religious belief. It is actually part of other sets of religious beliefs. Nobody is actually a YEC purely due a religious belief in YEC. They are actually a Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, or whatever, and part of those beliefs is the belief that the Earth is a lot younger than science suggests and created by their god. Additionally, most people who actually call themselves YECs (as opposed to Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc) actually claim that YEC is science. Therefore, you have to address YEC on that basis. Moreover, on reading the article, I fail to actually see a direct attack on the religious beliefs in question. It only actually states what YEC is, a few details about it, then states that much of science completely disagrees with it, and gives examples of the kind of things that many folk who claim YEC is science do to attack modern science, basically, because modern science says it isn't. Zmidponk 16:05, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Obviously YEC is not a religion. It is a Religious Belief. as such it should be covered by the primciple of NOMA and should not really be subject to scientific attack.Tolerance 14:28, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Of course it should be subject to scientific attack! It makes scientific claims which directly contradicts every single piece of evidence, apart, of course, from a 2000-year old MIddle Eastern fable/novel/biography. Not very convincing evidence, really. DogP 14:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict) I wish that were so, and it might be if not for many of the believers of YEC. It is of no fault but their own that they open YEC up to scientific criticism. Because they attempt to find scientific evidence to back up YEC beliefs, they then must accept scientific criticism of those beliefs. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:35, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. the soul could be examind seintificlly but NOMA tels us that it should not be. Why should YEc beliefs be diferent? Tolerance 14:37, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you are getting what we are writing. Our main point is that many of the believers of YEC are the ones breaking the overlap. They attempt to justify those beliefs with science. They break the overlap and must then deal with the criticism. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Please make a repeatable experiment to investigate the soul. Just because someone beliefs something from some old book does not make it immune from testing - many ancient mythos held that the Sun was a god and you shouldn't look at it - does that make all of the solar observatories something that shouldn't be? Other religions hold that blood is sacred and you shouldn't be cut open lest your life force escape - does that make all of surgery something that shouldn't be? --Shagie 14:43, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, NOMA is a bit of a fig leaf. Anything that science figures out a way to investigate gets moved over to the science side. Religion gets to play with the leftovers (which, of course, will always be approximately infinite, so the playground is large). human 14:45, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Mr Edgerunr: Those from the YEC camp (the minority) who engage with science are inded breaking the rules. YEs is based on faith and not science. A bocal minority try to pretend it is science to try to compete. In my opinion they are wrong to do so. One may get a generalised agrtement between sciendce and the bible but it will not be complere. we need to accept that our religioons are based on Faith. Mr Shaggie. No experement cna prove the soul. it a based on faith.. NOMA says keep out.Tolerance 14:49, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree completely, Tolerance. Those who break the overlap are wrong to do so. I do, however, also completely agree with what Human wrote above. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:54, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

In that case might I sugest that we remove the psudoscience banner from this artiqule? It might be offensive to Believers who do not whish to amke a scientific case?Tolerance 14:58, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't agree with that. The article is based on refuting the "scientific" claims made by YECs. At most I would think that the article might need a more specific title. However, given RW's purpose, it should be somewhat self-evident what an RW article on YEC is going to focus on. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 15:04, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Even believers who don't make a scientific case for the age of the Earth are making a scientific statement that is testable. Someone can believe whatever they want, but one cannot say it is not the realm of science because someone believes something. Nor do they have any reasonable recourse for complaint when someone shows inherent inconsistencies with reality about that belief. --Shagie 15:10, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

"I disagree. the soul could be examind seintificlly"[1] vs "No experement cna prove the soul."[2] -- those two statements are in conflict with each other. Which is it? --Shagie 15:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

The problem here is that YEC by definition makes a claim about the physical world which is scientifically testable and contradicts currently accepted scientific theories, i.e. that the world is 4 (?) billion years old, was created by accumulation of cosmic material, etc. Even with NOMA in place, this clearly crosses the boundary into science and opens it up to criticism. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:08, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Of course, the other problem with altering this article because it is an 'attack on religious beliefs' is that the whole case for it being an 'attack' is that it says something different than those beliefs. Should we then also alter the Judaism article because it says something different than the Christianity article? Should we alter the Christianity article because it says something different than the Islam article? The only real reason that there is a direct reference to this conflict in this particular article is, basically, they started it. Yes, I am aware that sounds like a schoolboy's excuse, but, in this case, it is an entirely accurate, relevant and valid point to make. If YECs did not originally make a claim that YEC was science, and make attacks on modern science in order to try to back up this rather absurd notion, there would be no reason to put that section in the article. It should also be noted that this argument rather smacks of YECs wanting to have their cake and eat it - it should be taught in schools due to it being science, but refuting the science is an attack on people's religious beliefs. Zmidponk 16:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Some believers in a Young Earth - perhaps the most vocal - wish to challenge science. But the majority simply believe in the Truth of the Bible and don't really Care what science thinks. Why should the majority be criticized for the actions of a minority?Tolerance 13:30, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

They are the most vocal and they are the most politically savvy. That makes them very dangerous. And I, for one, am not at all convinced that they are the minority of YECers. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:36, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

It seems pretty obvious they aren't. I could be wrong, but I think Tolerance is counting every Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc, as a YEC. This is flawed in two ways - firstly, quite a few religious people have already managed to reconcile their religious beliefs with the idea that the Earth is billions of years old, so cannot in any way be called YECs. Secondly, even many of those who do, indeed, believe the Earth is young wouldn't regard that as an important 'religious belief', per se - they would regard it as simply a small part of their larger religious 'truth', and could quite possibly be persuaded to accept the possibility that the Earth is very old without it diminishing their belief in their particular Sky-Daddy one little bit. It is only the small minority that would regard the belief of a young Earth as a vitally important religious 'truth', and it is these people that could only really be accurately described as a 'Young Earth Creationist', and that do the things described in the article. I do note, though, that you haven't actually stated where you regard the 'attack' as being. You mentioned the Pseudoscience banner, but, if you read what that actually says, every single word of that is 100% true and accurate, and, as you seem to be fond of referring to NOMA, I should point out that, really, this indicates that YEC conforms to it, if you are arguing YEC is a religious belief - the very principle of NOMA is, essentially, that anything religious has no place in science, and vice versa. Zmidponk 14:10, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I should expand. In the U.S., I think that the YECers that challenge science are the majority. In the world, they are probably a minority. A caveat to that would be that I believe that the single biggest group would be those that are completely indifferent to any aspect and don't think about it much if at all. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:17, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Tolerance, you presented a claim about the majority and minority of people who believe in YEC. Are there any data to back up the claim (or observation?) human 19:07, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

No tolerance! Christans are obligued by contract with God to not lie. Creationism is a lie, and thus Christans that maintain Creationism breaks their contracts with God. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 14:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth younger than Scotland

I see that we say: To put this in perspective, those with the YEC worldview believe the world was created after the domestication of the dog (and possibly the goat), after the first stones were laid at Stonehenge and after people settled in Scotland, although some people dispute this. I'm afraid that I don't understand the point here. Exactly what point is being disputed and by which parties?--Bob^{bing up} 06:55, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

The link goes to Scotand "inhabited from 8500BC" I suspect it's just badly worded and should just say "... although this is ridiculous" or some such.

TOAST

^{and butter} 07:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh and the Scotland bit's on CP, so I suppose it does make sense! ; )

TOAST

^{and butter} 07:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I suppose how the quote referrences the link could be made clearer. I just remember the Scotland thing as pretty much the example of how Schlafly thinks. ArmondikoV^gnostic 07:26, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

It's still unclear I'm afraid. It's also only of interest (or comprehensible) to people who already know what CP stands for. Linking to the CP article and saying that it has "another statement" is not particularly informative. Frankly I'm not sure that we need to refer to CP at all - not every article needs to mention CP's position.--Bob^{bing up} 11:40, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

January 2009 merge request

Would there be any opposition if content of this article was combined with the Creation science article? To me, YEC and OEC are just deviations of the Creation doctine.--4.232.75.43 13:27, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not so sure. There seems to be quite a gulf between the viewpoints. For example, the YECers on Conservapedia are almost as dismissive of OEC as they are of evolution. Bondurant 13:34, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I'm with Bondurant on this one. What makes YECers special is adding the 6,000 years nonsense to the mix. There's so much more science you have to reject to believe in YEC.Silver Sloth 13:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I'd say they should be seperate.--Bob^{bing up} 13:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)

New intro

This proposed new intro was added by an IP.

• Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a doctrine that all biology of Earth was created in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis[1]of the Bible. In the book of Genesis, the Universe, the Earth, and life thereof were created over six, twenty-hour days by the God of the Abrahamic religions - (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). Later in the story of Noah, a worldwide flood covers the earth and is cited by YEC proponents as an explanation for every scientific observation that suggests a significantly older Earth. Using the clues and genealogies described in this book, the "Creation" is believed to have occurred about 6,000 years ago.

• A deviation of the YEC is Old Earth Creationism (OEC) that relents to the supported history of the Earth but still supports a biological development in-line with the Book of Genesis. Both YEC and OEC are fields of Creation Science, a pseudoscience that attempts to reconcile and/or challenge the several fields of science with the documented history written in the Bible.

I'm not sure that it's better then what we have, and I don't think it reads very well. What do we think? --Bob^{bing up} 13:02, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I was about to copy it here & revert it. I don't think it's got all the details tyat the original has.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 13:05, 15 January 2009 (EST)

More evolved forms of Christianity?

I assume the person who wrote that YEC also contradicts the creation myths of other religions and is in conflict with more evolved forms of Christianity. believes that more evolution makes a thing better or more refined or more robust.

We know, however, that this is not the case. More highly evolved merely means that the thing has been around for longer or that the thing is better able to survive/reproduce in the current environment.

The concept that more evolution is more advanced is much like the illegitimate theory of de-evolution.

I'm not sure how to rephrase. 65.37.15.186 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think because "evolved" does sometimes have that connotation of "better" that the wording has been left. Though it may be a little too much to replace "evolved" with something political like "progressive", even though, to a degree, that's also correct. ^narchist 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Onion

Pity we can't put this in. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we? It's a nice bit of snark. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely add it as an EL! ħuman 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"True Bible Age"

Does anyone have a link to an article that contains the true age of the Earth according to the bible? IIRC, it's a combination of a test in Psalms where an hour is equal to 1000 of God's years (although now that I found Psalms 90:4, there's something else I'm missing), and the book of Genesis where God creates the world in 6 days. If you just focus on this, it means Earth was created at least ~6000 years before the events of Exodus, but when it was combined with some other calculations and statements found exclusively in the Bible, came quite close to the actual age of the universe. (But in any case, saying the earth was created ~6000 years ago from this point still flies in the face of the Bible.) --75.119.228.141 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my personal opinion to my question: It's more of a strange coincidence rather than being scientifically valid or rational, plus there's absolutely no reason why the age of the Earth should conflict with canonical Christianity. I'm just asking because I remember seeing this article in the past (one that hit a popular social network site), but can't find it again; I remember it being a Wikipedia page. --75.119.228.141 (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if one plays with the various numbers and allegories etc. in the Bible one could easily come up with 13.7 billion years. But one would need the number to work towards from "science" in order to show that the "religion" got it right. ħuman 03:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the Ussher Chronology, he calculated that the Earth was created in 4004 BCE , he used charts constructed from the Biblical genealogies of the patriarchs to go back, because the Bible maintains a true or not genealogy of every Generation from Adam to Jesus. Wiki's article about it is here [3] Not sure about the rest, matching up the 1000 hours and such Godspeed. JeffD (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no "true age of the Earth according to the Bible". It's not a scientific textbook but a group of myths strung together. Different people may interpret these myths in different ways to get their own personal "true" date but there is no universally accepted number. Ussher's is (sadly) popular amongst the most literal-minded though.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the "true" is just being used in a figurative sense. I.e., the key part of the sentence is according to the Bible, not true. ^narchist 11:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. :-( Are you suggesting that the question: Does anyone have a link to an article that contains the true age of the Earth according to the bible? should, in fact, read: Does anyone have a link to an article that contains the true age of the Earth according to the bible? Even if put this way I'm not sure that I'd change my response much.

Nevertheless there are ways to shoehorn the age of the earth into Christian thought. I'd guess the most literal would be gap creationism and the most "scientific" theistic evolution.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 11:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Found what I was looking for: Wikipedia:Isaac_ben_Samuel_of_Acre. "Isaac then makes some other calculations based on the Talmud and the Biblical sabbatical year, and arrives at the number 15.3405 billion.". Apparently, it got buried in Wikipedia: Dating Creation, and I was looking at the incorrect pages pages. --75.119.242.31 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that Ussher chronology completely misses Psalms 90:4. Given that Genesis used Divine days rather than human days, it must have been either a rush job or an attempt to force reason into a preconceived notion. Still, intentional lies tend to shatter faith more easily than reason. --75.119.242.31 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The God of the Yec-ists

Must be something of a head case/perverse, putting in all the evidence for deep history (including information available from deep space observatories and other sources) and allowing humans to be confused. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would you suggest going here to make the point. You may find that YEC's won't quite see it that way. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This library blocks that link as a 'proxy anonymiser.'

How could '1 Corinthians 13:11' be brought into the discussion with YEC-ists: ie the view most of us would accept, that the authors/composers of what became the Bible were basing their story #on what they knew# rather than what is now known. (Also that (a) the record is, and probably always be somewhat incomplete, (b) that evolution is more complex than we could imagine (to paraphrase AC Clarke) and (c) most people have some strange views (eg believing cricket is interesting).

82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

'There is no cure for deliberate stupidity'

Cricket is interesting - when the Aussies are getting their arses whipped.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The solution to the view above is that the evidence is outright faked in a global Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy. Therefore the best way to resolve the cognitive dissonance resulting from Biblical literalism meeting actual evidence doesn't necessarily involve God being a trickster, but it is considerably more far-fetched. ^narchist 09:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How young is young?

I am confused about how young one must think the universe is to be a Young Earth Creationist rather than an Old Earth Creationist. As I understand it, YECs are said to believe the universe is only 6000 years old; OECs believe the universe is billions of years old (same as mainstream scientific estimates.) Now, I fall somewhere in between these; I estimate the universe is between 10,000 and 10 million years old. So, I agree with neither, but in order-of-magnitude terms I'm closer to the YEC position than the OEC position. Does that mean I'm a YEC rather than an OEC? I think I am a YEC. But if so, then the statement at the beginning of this article is wrong:

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the belief that our planet and universe were created, from nothing, in six days, approximately 6,000 years ago, by the God of the Abrahamic religions.

1. I believe the universe was created, probably more than 6000 years ago, but still far less than OEC or evolution/Big Bang-estimates indicate.
2. I don't agree with the idea of creatio ex nihilo. Maratrea created our souls out of her very own soul, by becoming us.
3. I am inclined to interpret "six days" symbolically/allegorically rather than literally
4. I believe in Maratrea, she is not the God of the Abrahamic religions. I do however believe that the God of the Abrahamic religions may be a distorted version of Maratrea.

So if I am a YEC, as I think I am, then this article is too specific, and is ascribing to YECs in general beliefs only some YECs have. In particular, it is focusing on biblical creationism, but I am a non-biblical creationist. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Creationism" does not refer to the general idea of "divine creation," but to a specific doctrine concerning how the divine entity worked. Most Christians are not creationists, even though they believe that God created the universe. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Give us a fucking break with the fucking Maratrea shit already. YEC refers to the allegedly biblically inspired belief that the earth is around 6000 years old based on the Ussher chronology. You know this. You also know that day age and framework views are not YECish. If you just want to JAQ off write an essay. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, the views of five guys with a website should be represented here! --Kels (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? You believe in what, now? P-Foster (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What Maratrean should cease is quibbling over the exact meanings of words. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You aren't understanding what I am saying ListenerX. I know creationism does not refer to the general doctrine of the creation of the earth by the deity. It refers more specifically to sudden creation of humans rather than evolution from other species. That is the sense in which I am using the term, and that is the sense I believe in it.

Nutty, aren't there other forms of creationism possible than biblical creationism? Even among biblical YECs, not all adhere to Ussher chronology - for example, some YECs hold to Thiele chrnology rather than Ussher chronology, although the resulting figure is very close.

You also know that day age and framework views are not YECish. You misunderstand me. I don't adhere to the day age view. I don't interpret the six days to be six long periods, I'd rather interpret them as being symbolic for else entirely - either as temporal symbolism for something non-temporal, or as temporal symbolism for the entirety of history rather than creation specifically. Day age view would be nearer to an OEC than YEC view.

Yes, biblical YECs don't adhere to the framework view, but there is nothing I think inconsistent between the framework view and the belief in a young universe. I am not a biblical literalist, if I am a YEC I am not a biblical YEC but rather a non-biblical one. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not just go with what science tells us? P-Foster (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I explain in some of my postings on the page Essay talk:Some arguments against evolution, I don't actually agree that science tells us anything about the topic. Scientists just mistakenly believe that it does; they are suffering from a philosophical confusion as to the nature of what they are actually doing, a misunderstanding in the area of the philosophy of science --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ponder Stibbons (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Kels, you object that Hey, the views of five guys with a website should be represented here!. Look, fair enough, I am not arguing that my own views should be referenced in the article. But what I am saying is that it's definition of Young Earth creationism is too narrow, because someone can believe in creationism and a young earth (young relative to evolutionist/Big Bangist or OEC views), without being an adherent of biblical creationism. People can believe in Young Earth creationism without believing in the literal truth of the Bible at all. Case in point, many Muslims are young earth creationists, yet they don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible - they believe it was originally a true scripture, but has since been corrupted. Only some of the ideas in Genesis have parallels in the Quran or Islamic tradition, and those which are not paralleled Islamic YECs would not accept. And I think there are YECs other than Abrahamists, including non-Abrahamist YECs other than myself. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not a YEC because a YEC believes that the Abrahamic god created the world. QED. Ponder Stibbons (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is part of the definition of YEC, is it part of the YE or the C? Arguably one can be a creationist without being an Abrahamist of any sort. I saw an interview with an indigenous Australian on TV once, explaining how she didn't accept scientific theories of evolution or so on, she literally believed in the dreamtime stories of her group, and she rejected evolution etc. because it contradicted her traditional beliefs. I'm sure lots of people in this world, from traditional/tribal societies, may have similar beliefs. Isn't this also creationism - non-Abrahamist creationism?

And I take the YE part quite literally - "Young Earth" rather than "Old Earth". I don't see why we have to see "Young Earth" as explicitly implying biblical or Abrahamist views. People call Harun Yahya an old earth creationist, even though his views are Quranist rather than biblical. So, if one can arguably be an OEC or a YEC without being a biblical one, why should Abrahamism be essential to it either? As I've said, there are still plenty of non-Abrahamist creationists in the world, and I reckon for most of human history most people have been as such. So why not non-Abrahamist YECism? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Because "Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the belief that our planet and universe were created, from nothing, in six days, approximately 6,000 years ago, by the god of the Abrahamic religions." Ponder Stibbons (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That is only one definition. What makes that the only valid definition? I think my own definition of YEC is better: "Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the belief that the universe was created by a deity relatively recently, much more recently than believed by mainstream scientific consensus". What makes my definition wrong and yours right? Yours is a subset of mine. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Because everyone else uses my definition. Ponder Stibbons (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

But as I've argued your definition doesn't make rational sense. And argumentum ad populum too. (Yes, definitions can be established by majority use; but if the definition has logical problems, the common use doesn't excuse it from them.) --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if somebody believes that the world was magically created in the last 10,000 years that would make them a young earth creationist. I would say that the identity of the magical creator isn't that important. And what name would we give to young earth non-abramhists if we make the definition more inclusive?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) A while ago, I tried to argue that the accepted definition of "religion" was not up to the task and that a new one was needed. I even found an alternate definition that I thought would suit better — the one used by the U.S. courts.

Needless to say, that did not go over well; one cannot just redefine words on a whim. The only "logical problem" evident here is your false etymology. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Rationality and logic" do not require that names be used literally. Language is like that. For all practical purposes, YEC refers to the version described in the article. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 08:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed definitions

I propose the following definitions:

• creationist: one who believes that a deity created life and the universe, in a manner contrary to that supposed by mainstream scientific theories (such as evolution or the Big Bang)
• old Earth creationist: a creationist who believes that the universe itself is of a similar age to that predicted by mainstream scientific theories, but insists that some major aspect of our universe (such as life) is much more recent than predicted by those theories
• young Earth creationist: a creationist who believes that the universe is much younger than predicted by mainstream scientific theories - several orders of magnitude younger
• Abrahamist creationist: a creationist who believes that the Abrahamic God is the creator. An Abrahamist creationist could be either an old earth or young earth Abrahamist creationist
• Biblical creationist: an Abrahamist creationist who believes that the Bible contains an accurate account of creation, could be either old earth or young earth
• Quranist creationist: an Abrahamist creationist who believes that the Quran contains an accurate account of creation, could be either old earth or young earth
• non-Abrahamist creationist: a creationist who believes in creation by a deity other than the Abrahamic God. Again, could be either old earth or young earth

I think these definitions are reasonable, and broadly correspond with popular usage. Some would argue some of these definitions should be stricter, but I think the above usages are more reasonable. You can't precisely define what popular usage is. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think those definitions are broadly correct but I'm not so sure we need so many. I would also firm them up in accordance with our POV to read - for example:

• creationist: one who believes that a deity magically or miraculously created life and the universe, in a manner contrary to that demonstrated by accepted scientific theories.
• old Earth creationist: a creationist who believes that the universe itself is of a similar age to that predicted by mainstream scientific theories but that it was brought into being by a magical or miraculous event.
• young Earth creationist: a creationist who believes that the universe is much younger than demonstrated by science - typically less than 10,000 years.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism around the world

This section is very flawed. It starts from a bald assertion that "Young Earth creationism is directly correlated with a rejection of the theory of evolution", then uses data about views on evolution as evidence of the popularity of YEC.

We shouldn't make the same mistake that YECreationists tend to make, that of bagging the theory of evolution together with theories on the origins of the universe. These are completely separate processes in separate branches of the sciences, & it is completely possible to deny one without denying the other. YEC refers very specifically that the view that the world is only a few thousand years old, not to denial of the theory of evolution.

It appears that denial of evolution is far more prevalent in Islamic cultures than the young Earth argument is. I brought this up in the Saloon Bar today & am awaiting further comments. If correct, this is something interesting to note in this section. At present, both this article and the creationism one state, probably incorrectly, that YEC are dominant in the Muslim world. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote; moved demographics stuff on evolution over to the creationism article. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

God of the gaps

I think God of the gaps might also be relevant for the article somehow (even if no god be involved): when the YECs are presented with missing links A/B between A and B they next ask for the missing link A/AB and AB/B. The similar kind of reasoning occurs in Conservapedia:Counterexamples to an Old Earth:

"the lack of erosion between rock layers"^{creationist book and site}

I think this is kind of fallback tactics that should be countered not by trying to find intermediaries, but by pinpointing the absurdity of requiring a statement to be proved by exhibiting all intermediary steps.

The first requirement of YEC should be to present YEC models. The burden of proof should be why YEC models differs so much from each other, and why former YECers leave and become OECers (if that's so). Rursus dixit (yada³!) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

the opening line on the main page.

"Earth our planet"; though minor, looks silly. how can we fix this?--il'Dictator Mikal 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The abstract ^moral 22:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A question of timing

The article states that Ussher came up with 23 October, 4004 BCE at 9:00 am EST as the time of creation. I get that the EST is a bit of snark but the calculations seem a bit awry. Ussher's chronology was "nightfall preceding 23 October" making it 22 October at about 6:00 pm; although there was no concept of time zones then, but if it was IST which is 7 hrs ahead of EST, then the time would be 11:00 am. (Yes, I know it's all bollocks.) Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Creationist "scientists" writing outside of their field:

This titular line and its subsequent paragraph should probably be removed from the article for being an ad hominem attack. Just because someone is a moron, it doesn't make them wrong. Attacking the stupid arguments these people put forward is a much wiser choice. --86.141.4.165 (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not "ad hom": reasoned statement of fact. Scream!! (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The old '"stopped clock" argument. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

'It's only a theory'

...is gravity. (So the knife let-go-of won't fall into your foot.) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Monkeys and creationists

The creationists don't believe we are related to the primates.

If the other primates were sufficiently intellectually developed to have their opinions sought - would #they# want to be related to the creationists? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If I don't get to decide, some dirty fucking monkeys sure as shit won't. 17:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

missing something?

The end of the intro states: Also, in Galatians 4:24, St. Paul presents the relationship between Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar allegorically for the purpose of instructing the church at Galatia, which means it is possible that he applied this allegorical interpretation to the entire story of Abraham, though the text of Galations does not state or imply that.

What has Paul's alleged or implied opinion of Abraham have to do with the article? If the claim were that Paul thought the entire book of Genesis was allegorical it might be interesting. Even then I wouldn't be sure about it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And on the 8th day

... God said 'Over to you Murphy' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Compelling argument for Creationism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfpL-1GkzQ&feature=youtu.be

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)

Bah...

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?Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 01:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)