Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 5

Pros? Cons?

I am new to wiki. Would someone like to help me prepare this sentence so it can be added to the main article?

"The Arrow of time states that there is no proof in science that time moves forward. This calls into question any time-course evolution of physical and biological systems, because a forward motion of time is assumed."

My intent is simply to state that the apparent forward motion of time lacks a basis in science, except for prehaps the Boltzman H-theorem, which is rather weak.Nukeh (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where you want to add this, and why. If you want to add something you probably need to have a reliable source (see

WP:RS) for it. That is, can you find someplace like a peer-reviewed article where this point is discussed? If not that, what about an article in the New York Review of Books or something comparable?--Filll (talk

) 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to shove something like this into the article, you have to find places where creationists make these arguments cogently and clearly, in major publications. I am not sure what they would say; since we have lousy mathematics for describing thermodynamics, that therefore evolution is false? Seems sort of a flakey argument if you ask me and so complicated that I think it would not work well on the target audience, the "great unwashed". The target audience is more likely to appreciate things like "I found fossils; this proves there was a worldwide flood! and it proves the bible is 100% accurate so it proves all Jews are evil and should be put to death... So there!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-thought out discussion above. My reference would probably be PCW Davies, The Physics of Time Asymmetry" - if I have that correct from memory from 30 years ago. xxx.lanl.gov is also a place to look for newer work. Both Creation and Evolution are time-based, so it applies to both. I put some (:) things in here. Perhaps we have an idea for a new article on "Faith in Time"!Nukeh (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Three points:

1. I agree with Filll that this is not an argument that YECs use.
2. Lacking a
   WP:OR
   .
3. It would appear to be equally a line of reasoning "calling into question" all sorts of obvious/well-established scientific "facts", such as that gravity means that things have to fall down.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To appear in this article, creationists have to use it. I know of several other arguments that creationists could use, but the arguments are too sophisticated for the creationists and in particular their target audience. What the creationists are after is something easy to understand and snappy. Something like "mutations are always bad and never good; this proves evolution could never happen" or "Darwinism causes racism and created the Holocaust!" or "Evolution is just a theory and therefore not real proved science" or "No one has seen a dog turn into a cat, therefore evolution is false" or "Have you ever seen a crocaduck? No? Then obviously evolution is false" or "A banana fits in my hand nicely and curves towards my mouth; so it must have been designed by God to do this and this proves evolution is false!" and so on. It has to be a simple argument that the average uneducated and even slightly stupid person can get their head around and scream like an idiot about, and therefore give the creationists money. So I have my doubts that sophisticated arguments have much place in the creationist quiver of weapons. However, if you can find a place like Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute using this kind of argument and publishing it in one of their journals, then bring it to us. And we will see that it gets in an article.--Filll (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: www.icr.org and Darwin are roughly equivalent in that both have Faith in Time's Arrow. We might want to invite another physicist / cosmologist / biophysicist into this discussion to confirm that there is no known mechanism or law that establishes a forward motion of time. Without a physical basis for time moving forward, both Creation and Darwin are ridding on top of a psychological (but not physical) assumption that time progresses forward. Thus both camps are in gross eror if any argument is based on a time-course. As far as writing things down to an understandable level, I have found that people who edit for journals like Scientific American are very good at that. They frequently deal with authors that are extremely specialized and work at the forefront of research. Yet, they can cut down to what is understandable. I have still held back on searching for such references because I feel that the arguments on this article are based in emotion, and that anything concrete -but not emotionally acceptable to one camp or the other - will get expunged. Thanks for continuing this discussion. Nukeh (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC). Ooops, I just posted in the wrong section and moved this paragraph back here. Nukeh (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the paragraphs, above, are moved or deleted, possibly by me as someone new to wiki. I found the following by taking a difference between current and older sections:

Gravity is not a simple thing either. It causes curvature in Space-Time as predicted by Einstein, and this effect was measured by the sun's gravitational force acting on the apparent position of the line-of-site of stars. The speed of light, as fundamental as that might seem, is possibly quantized and decreases over time. If we have a well known physics problem that calls into question the apparent forward motion of time, and there is no evidence from physics that time moves forward, why not reference these problems as more basic than Creation or Evolution? Creation and Evolution discussions become a subset of a bigger question: Does time move forward? If the answer is "yes", then it is valid to compare and contrast Evolution and Creation. If the answer is "no", then time-based Creation and Evolution arguments are baseless. If the answer is "we don't know", then time asymmetry is an assumption and a caveat in Creation and Evolution arguments. + :To appear in this article, creationists have to use it. I know of several other arguments that creationists could use, but the arguments are too sophisticated for the creationists and in particular their target audience. What the creationists are after is something easy to understand and snappy. Something like "mutations are always bad and never good; this proves evolution could never happen" or "Darwinism causes racism and created the Holocaust!" or "Evolution is just a theory and therefore not real proved science" or "No one has seen a dog turn into a cat, therefore evolution is false" or "Have you ever seen a crocaduck? No? Then obviously evolution is false" or "A banana fits in my hand nicely and curves towards my mouth; so it must have been designed by God to do this and this proves evolution is false!" and so on. It has to be a simple argument that the average uneducated and even slightly stupid person can get their head around and scream like an idiot about, and therefore give the creationists money. So I have my doubts that sophisticated arguments have much place in the creationist quiver of weapons. However, if you can find a place like Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute using this kind of argument and publishing it in one of their journals, then bring it to us. And we will see that it gets in an article.--Filll (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

- I have done nothing original here, but I admit to not looking up references until there is some support for adding this concept to the main article. Filll and Hrafn: Do you want to procede down this path, or would you prefer I leave this discussion? Can one of you construct an acceptable statement about time underlying both Creation and Evolution, and then I will dig up some references for your review on this discussion page? I will try to find the closest possible quotes from published physicists and cosmologists so that we are not doing original research on WP.Nukeh (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument is an unusual one, and I basically agree with Filll that it's unlikely that any YECs will have ever employed it. But they are a quirky bunch, so I guess it wouldn't surprise me too much. If you have a specific reference that some YEC discussed the arrow of time, then I don't see any problem including it. But it doesn't seem that you do, so I would discourage you from trying too hard to find one since you are likely to come up short. Just to re-emphasize, we aren't looking necessarily for the opinions of physicists and cosmologists regarding the arrow of time, unless they are specifically discussing Creationism. Alternatively, the opinion of a YEC would be suitable if it made specific reference to the arrow of time. What is not acceptable is to use statements of physicists or cosmologists made outside the context of a discussion on creationism. That would be

synthesis. Silly rabbit (talk

) 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The references would come from a search of xxx.lanl.gov , where research level math to cosmology is published. Some of those physicists are YECs. That site is huge and not catalogued by search engines, but it is open to the public much like WP, and the artcles are referenced in peer-reviewed journals if and when those guys ever decide to publish on paper. The funny thing is that in math, one of the (Millineum?) Prizes was accomplished on a lone, personal website; it spread like wildfire, was confirmed, and no one cared where it was originally published. The author also refused the Field Medal. I ramble here just to illustrate that in hard math and science, a breakthrough comes through loud and clear, because it is subject to confirmation by hard math and science. In Evolution and Creation, we are just about at the other end of the spectrum. Hard proofs don't exist, because there is no math to confirm and there is no experiment to confirm. Another example is the Cold Fusion work that basically came out in a newspaper. It got shot down by further experiments among peers. Had cold fusion actually worked, the attribution would have gone to the guys publishing their immediate findings in a newspaper.Nukeh (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Nukeh (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Um I think this sounds a bit confused to me. Let me try to make it more clear. What Wikipedia does is follow a few principles. One is

WP:SPS, but otherwise, usually not. --Filll (talk

) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems that you are trying to go from "Cosmologists feel that the anisotropy of time is an important unresolved problem in science" to "Therefore nothing involving time exists/has solid scientific foundation/etc." This conclusion is, on the face of it, completely untenable. Just because certain features of the universe are not understood does not bring into question the entire edifice of scientific thought. So, we are going to have to ask for some quality references which make the connection with creationism/evolution very explicit. See

WP:REDFLAG: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Silly rabbit (talk

) 16:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Better idea: Silly Rabbit and Filll, Along with some buddies with a sense of humor, let's move this discussion to a new article on http://future.wiki.com Nukeh (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Here is the link: http://future.wikia.com/wiki/The_Roaring_2020%27s . It has a virgin secton on Creation, Darwin, and Time's Arrow. Please leave the YEC pro /con trashing here, and be a little more humorous, but factual, over there.Nukeh (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice we now have a link to creationwiki which every time I check in the last few months is not functioning: [2]. We also used to have an article on CreationWiki but somehow that got speedied and disappeared. I would fight to get it back, but I feel silly having an article about a website that is not working. Comments?--Filll (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Was the CreationWiki of any significance when it existed?--Nowa (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but it will probably be back eventually.--Filll (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But should it? When we provide ELs to nuttery, I think it should at least be to authoritative & noteworthy nuttery. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The organisation who sponsored it ('NW Creationism Network' or some such) is otherwise unknown. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the section on dinosaurs places at bit too much emphasis on whether or not a plesiosaur carcass was discovered. Before I did any editing, however, I wanted to restate what appears to be notable about the YEC view on dinosaurs to see if I have it correct.

• YECs assert that there are no dinosaur remains that are older than 10k years because the Earth is not older than 10k years by virtue of a biblically based chronology
• YECs assert that at least in preflood times, dinosaur and human interactions were, if not common, at least not rare (e.g. wide spread dragon traditions).

Given these assertions, YECs strive to find scientific evidence that:

• Dinosaur remains are younger than a few thousand years (e.g. Tyranasaurus soft tissue, Hadrosaur bones with minimal permineralization)
• At least some dinosaurs are alive today (if some are alive today, than that implies that many more could have been alive just a few thousand years ago)

Do I have this essentially correct?--Nowa (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are several different views of dinosaurs among YEC that I have run into. Some of the views I can remember include:

• dinosaurs never existed and those bones are bones of giants, the result of angels mating with human women
• dinosaurs never were put on the ark and drowned in the flood
• dinosaurs were put on the ark and there are many dinosaurs still around like the Loch Ness Monster
• The leviathan and other creatures mentioned in the bible refer to dinosaurs
• all the claims of dinosaurs are frauds and wishful thinking of paleontologists

There are several different views, not all compatible with each other, and over the years different views have been prominent depending on fashion, information, interpretation etc. However, I have never dug into this to clean it up, but if someone was ambitious and energetic, this would be a great thing to do and useful.--Filll (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Apart from these:

• Answers in Genesis

Found the journal, but couldn't find dinosaur articles.--Nowa (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Creation Ministries International

Asserts fossil evidence (e.g. position and maturity of dinosaur bones)points to global flood (i.e. Noah). [3] --Nowa (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Institute for Creation Research

Asserts that if a living dinosaur were found, it would undermine evolutionary theory. [4] --Nowa (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Creation Science Evangelism

Does not appear to have peer reviewed publication or contribute to same. Did I miss something? --Nowa (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Creation Research Society

Assert that dinosaur eggs show evidence of being deposited in rising sediments such as by Noah flood [5] (Of course wouldn't all fossil eggs be deposited in rising sediments, or they wouldn't have been fossilized?....Just asking)--Nowa (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Geoscience Research Institute

Disowns assertion that fossil tracks of humans and dinosaurs are found together. [6]--Nowa (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other representative YEC organizations we should look into?--Nowa (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of others. AiG and CMI split from a single organization. ICR also split from another organization which still exists and might be notable (

Harun Yahya which is somewhat of a YEC organizaation (but the dates are less important to the Muslims), or Truth in Science outside of the US. It depends on what criteria you want to use; there are Catholic YEC organizations too, but I do not think they do much "research" and are not as active as the protestant YEC organizations. --Filll (talk

) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Geoscience Research Institute so I’ll add them to the above list. Both Adnan Oktar and Truth in Science are described as old earth, so we can leave them out. Is there any way to sort them by impact/importance/influence? If so, then just rearrange.--Nowa (talk

) 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

At one point I was able to find their yearly budgets on the internet compared. AiG I think is the biggest. I am not sure about the general order, however. If you look on the internet you might be able to find the rank ordering of the budgets.--Filll (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What does the budget of various YEC organizations have to do with encyclopedic entries on the subject of YEC, unless this is a financial analysis of YEC organizations?50MWdoug (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a very rough estimate of their "prominence", to determine how much weight to give their opinions (per

WP:DUE). A multi-million dollar operation (such as AiG or ICR) is generally more prominent than some guy with a website and maybe a self-published book. It's not even close to perfect, but I've yet to see anybody suggest a better measure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

11:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ no weight. - 50MWdoug (talk

) 14:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nukeh, if you have nothing better to do than ask inane questions, and make inapt analogies, about a thread that had finished over a month ago, then please go elsewhere. You have had the significance of the creationist budgets explained to you. You appear to have no better method of estimating their "prominence" to offer, so I would suggest that this thread is closed. HrafnTalk_Stalk 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that one of the distinguishing features of YECs is that they attempt to reconcile the fossil record with Genesis. The focus seems to be on evolutionary theory. I don't see much in this article, however, about YEC view of classic geology, apart from "the Noah flood made all of the sedimentary rocks" and an attempt to discredit radioactive dating. Is the YEC view of classic geology (e.g. where did the metamorphic rocks come from?) worth investigating further? --Nowa (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is covered in separate articles:

Creation geophysics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look.--Nowa (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"discredit radioactive dating" should necessarily lead into a discusion of isotope abundance over time and any evidence that the isotopic preference of ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase has remained constant over time.50MWdoug (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of "This is covered in separate articles..." did you fail to comprehend? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you do realize that there are several hundred types of radioactive dating, and that carbon 14 dating is just one of them, right? And many other dating techniques that are not radioactive dating techniques that happen to agree with the radioactive dating techniques, right?--Filll (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Article states:

A 2007 Gallup poll showed that as much as 66% of the US population believe "the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

The link is dead and I cannot find this 66% number. this link shows numbers, not that one though. I think we are looking for 43% perhaps? Am I confused? ._-zro ^t_c 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

According to your link, 39% believe it is definitely true and 27% believe it is probably true. So I think the 66% figure comes from adding the two. I'll fix the link (thanks). Silly rabbit (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the poll. Apparently it was there at one point to "refute" the poll of scientists, but subsequent reorganization moved the scientific poll into the Criticism section, and left this poll where it was, inexplicably in the Decline section. Since it serves no useful purpose where it is, I have removed it. Silly rabbit (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I found an updated link to the 2007 poll. I am mystified as to how 53% of US adults could agreed with the statement “human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life”, whereas 66% of US adults agreed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”. (53 + 66 = 119%) Perhaps 19% of those surveyed just like to agree with things.--Nowa (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I always find these poll numbers to be sort of self-contradictory for the same general reason. Thanks for finding a better place to put it. Silly rabbit (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons for these kinds of problems. For example^{[citation needed]}--Nowa (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC):

• most of these polls have very poorly designed questions
• the average person is as dumb as a stump
• a minority of Americans know what evolution even is, and most Americans cannot correctly pick the definition of evolution out of a list
• even the members of the most hardcore fundamentalists sects answer quite differently when the surveys are anonymous; about half of all fundamentalists in the US do not subscribe to biblical literalism when asked in an anonymous survey

And so on. So the polls give some idea of what is going on, but there is a wide latitude in potential interpretations. And people who try to state figures by cooking the numbers can bollix things up quite nicely.--Filll (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it is not hard to find all kinds of statistics on this. One reference showing most Americans cannot pick the definition of evolution out of a list is found at "Evolution and Creationism in Public Education". People for the American Way Poll. Retrieved 2007-10-29.. An article discussing the level of subscription to biblical literalism among various American religous communities is at Sailer, Steve (1999-11-20). "A Miracle Happens Here:" Darwin's Enemies on the Right - Part I of a Two Part Series" (html). National Post. Retrieved 2007-10-29. and "American Piety in the 21st Century" (PDF). Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. 2006-09-01. Retrieved 2007-10-29..--Filll (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in compiling a list of world leaders, mathematicians, scientists, inventors, artists, musicians, otherwise intelligent / well-studied / influential people, etc., that were both a) post-Darwin, and b) YECs?

(Abraham Lincoln is too early.)Nukeh (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it is not a completely ridiculous idea, I think it has been done quite a bit already (although not all of the lists distinguish between YECs and other types of creationists). I have described some at level of support for evolution and I have a couple more that will be included in the rewrite. I hope to make it much more accessible when I rewrite it and to put the data in tabular form, and have it better organized and shorter. It is a bit of a mess now, and it has been eroded somewhat by assorted editors on various sides. I have not maintained it super well since I knew I was rewriting it anyway. So rather than compile another list, since at least 6 or 7 exist already, I have been keeping track of the people who compile the lists and the size of the lists etc. However, if you look at the other lists, maybe it will spark something in you and you can think of some unique bit of scholarship to contribute on a related issue.--Filll (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a person (child) that comes to mind: http://www.artakiane.com/home.htm . She gets 150,000,000 hits per year. Good luck with all those lists. I'll try to think of some esoteric categories. Nukeh (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC) This image might make a good one for your section head: http://bluewyverntea.blogspot.com/2007/01/extraordinary-artists.html . It's on page 83 of "Akiane, her life, her art, her poetry", www.wpublishinggroup.com (c) 2006; The legend or poetry to this painting says: (age 10) "Blend all the races, because this is Eve, the mother of all mankind." Perhaps we can get a copyright release for a low resolution image.Nukeh (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps we need a category of YYEC. :-) --Nowa (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The logical way to do this would seem to be to simply create a 'Young Earth Creationists' subcategory of Category:Creationists.
2. I would hardly consider a 13yo kid, no matter how artistically talented & media-promoted, to be "well-studied / influential", or to be intellectually-mature.
3. You need a
   WP:SYNTH
   interpretation) to make the statement that she's a YEC.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding

Akiane Kramarik, a good start may be to flesh out her Wiki page (currently a stub). --Nowa (talk

) 12:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It will be hard to tell who exactly is a creationist and who is a YEC, and there might be disagreement.
• We had some editors who did not like a category for people who signed the
  Dissent from Darwinism petition before, for a variety of reasons.--Filll (talk
  ) 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either should be too much of a problem. YECs tend to be the most forthright of creationists about their beliefs (and if we can't positively identify them as YECs, they don't get included, regardless of if its a list or a subcategory). And the ASDfD category was opposed for being on the basis of signing a petition, not for the fact that it was a subcategory of creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fundamental to both YEC and

It lacks any reference linking it to Young Earth Creationism. We need to see a specific reliable source in which a critic of YEC or a proponent of YEC mentions the Arrow of Time, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Big Bang. I have already suggested that I have seen these notions invoked by attempts to debunk certain variants of the teleological argument for the existence of God (specifically the one that suggests that God initiated the Big Bang, or somesuch). This, however, has almost nothing to do with YEC. (And I have been equally unable to track down sources, but I know I have them somewhere.) silly rabbit (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need not just sources, but reliable sources. The statement by itself makes no sense scientifically; it is a nonsense sentence with no meaning. Of course, assorted creationists and even YEC might say something like this, since they claim a lot of things which have no meaning and are impossible to decipher. But we need to be able to find a source for this statement, otherwise we cannot use it.--Filll (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You were told on

I am not pretending, I am actually baffled: When I make edits on other Articles, these sorts of conversations don't develop. May I suggest that you (Silly rabbit and Hrafn) look for the reference so that you are satisfied with what you find? That would demonstrate that you are neutral, as I am. I'll come back in a month or two, so this conversation dies down and people have time to think clearly. There might be something in [7] and Google does not search there, nor are any other search engines allowed. 50MWdoug (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read

WP:RS, no inclusion of material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the last sentence, I will refrain, as best I can, from editing your Article. 50MWdoug (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in on this, but I feel that I have to speak up. I would like to think that this article (like any on wikipedia) belongs to everybody, and not just one person. Even though I only made one small copy-edit, I would like to think that I have some co-ownership in this article. Also, when does requiring following the rules of wikipedia equate to godlessness? Bridnour (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is just a method to try to intimidate others, a fairly common and unpleasant tactic of those who fancy themselves religious inclined, or in possession of the

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hrafn"

They raise money, so there are real damages.50MWdoug (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You also have no associations with reality, jurisprudence, or anything else worth listening to, Nukeh/50MWdoug/whatever-you-want-to-call-yourself. Now if you don't have anything based on reliable sources to contribute, kindly stop annoying us with irrelevancies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way, pray tell, does the article defame ICR? Because it does not mention your unsourced rambling incomprehensible statement about the arrow of time?--Filll (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A statement is only defamatory if its false. There's nothing here that's either false or motivated by bad faith, so don't post frivolous legal threats on the talk pages. Idag (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My last entry: "The Amish are believers in the Creation doctrine as given in Genesis in the Christian Bible, and as such, all of creation is viewed as God’s handiwork to be honored." is a para-quote from [8] which says (direct quote): "The Amish are believers in the Creation doctrine as given in Genesis in the Christian Bible (Hostetler 1993), and as such, all of creation (i.e., biodiversity) is viewed as God’s handiwork to be honored."

Why would such a simple and informative sentence with an internal link to Amish be removed by another editor within minutes? 50MWdoug (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you want to start an article that lists all the hundreds of denominations that subscribe to YEC, you should do so. But this article is not the place to do it. Sorry. Start with a list in a sandbox and build it up, with lots of properly cited references. --Filll (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation is not necessarily Creationism is not necessarily YEC. The Catholic church believes in creation, but does not believe in Creationism. Reasons to Believe believes in Creationism but does not believe in YEC. Filll: he hasn't even established that the Amish is one of the "hundreds of denominations that subscribe to YEC" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the source does say that the Amish believe in the Genesis account of creation and that they do not believe that evolution is responsible for today's biodiversity (for that is what the source paper is about). However, the source stops short of labelling the Amish faith as creationism, so including the material would be

synthesis. 2p Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The source says: "The Amish are believers in the Creation doctrine as given in Genesis in the Christian Bible ..." The "..." includes another reference and reiterates the Amish belief in Creation in terms of biodiversity. So this is not synthesis. Therefore, the Amish are a good example of YECs within our society, as an example, not a list, for our WP readers.50MWdoug (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Now I see another undo to the Amish entry, while this Talk is in progress. 50MWdoug (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, source doesn't say that they believe that world is young. As far as I'm aware they do believe in a young earth but we would need an explicit source saying so. And again, this page isn't here to list every denomination that is YEC anyhow. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The source says, "as given in Genesis", and Genesis has an ~6,000 year history up to Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeh (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Making that conclusion as a connection is

original research and given that OEC's also claim to be following Genesis that isn't enough to go on. JoshuaZ (talk

) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a conclusion, because Genesis itself is a recitation of the ~6,000 year history which the Amish believe, as cited in the Amish reference that has been removed before discussion. In other words, the Book of Genesis is the historical accounting of an uninterrupted timeline that is the basis for the Young Earth which is the name of this Article. Just read it, and you will see that is what Genesis describes.50MWdoug (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Very badly confused. Surely you are not serious?--Filll (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, OEC's make the exact same claim so apparently a group saying that it abides by the Genesis account isn't enough to figure out how old they think the earth is. The claim that "the Book of Genesis is the historical accounting of an uninterrupted timeline" is your phrasing not a phrasing in the source. And again, this isn't very relevant because this isn't a list of YEC denominations. Oh, and actually Genesis only goes through about 1600 years of history by a literal reading and actually getting this data doesn't come from "just reading it" but actually requires pretty careful note-taking. Anyways, I strongly suggest you read up on OECism and in the meantime drop this non-issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Genesis certainly does not say billions of years. Read literally, Genesis is in the thousands of years. As Wikipedians, should we not read sources literally? The initial entry I made is also to be taken literal for an encyclopedia. It's very clear to me that this entire Article should be deleted, because nothing can be entered in this Article that does not trash John or Henry Morris, www.icr.org, www.answersingenesis.org, or promotes the idea that: "Creationist are stupid". Nothing can be entered concerning the physics of time underlying both Evolution and Creation, as both use time progressing forward, apparently because a biophysicist-creationist editor conflicts with this not so hidden thesis of stupidity. Bye. 50MWdoug (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it is very hard to take any of this seriously. You must be kidding, surely. --Filll (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will make much a difference, but I'll point this out anyway. In the original Hebrew, "yom" -- typically translated as "day" in English -- does not necessarily refer to a 24-hour period. It can also be used to refer to a time period anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, or a vague "time period" of unspecified length. Given this ambiguity, it is entirely possible to read Genesis literally as saying billions of years.Bridnour (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are gap creationists that also claim to read Genesis exactly and still manage to accommodate billions of years. And there are also those who use different inertial frames, and manage to accommodate billions of years that way. But to be honest, this is all basically nonsense by someone who does not seem to know much, but wants to cause turmoil.--Filll (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Day-Age creationists believe likewise. For that matter, we have not even established that the Amish interpret Genesis literally, only that they believe the "creation doctrine" of it. Catholics also believe this doctrine without requiring a literal interpretation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused here. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? What do you think creationism is? What do you think Young Earth Creationism is? If you are being serious and not just trying to have a laugh by creating turmoil here, something is not adding up.--Filll (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that Nukeh/50MWdoug learn both the correct mechanics and the correct etiquette of RfCs. He used a non-existent template and a poorly worded & uninformative description. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed this from the front page, since we cannot accommodate all the links people want to place here:

• Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins--Filll (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Did Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Eusebius subscribe to literal 24 days or not?--Filll (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cited source states:

One of the earliest relevant passages is in Justin Martyr (c109-

165):

For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die,

we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression. ‘The day of the Lord is as

a thousand years’ is connected with this subject.

The implication is that each day was a thousand years – a kind

of early ‘age-day’ theory.

It makes no mention of Irenaeus & Eusebius however -- so even if they weren't literalists, we need a new source for them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If I can add - Origen and Augustine were the biggest proponents for an allegorical interpretation of Gen. 1-3, however they were certainly YEC's, believing the earth to be 10,000 years old or even younger. It seems funny to use them as proof against YEC in this article.

_{Drop a Line ޗ pls}

17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

here's the references:

* Origen: < 10,000 years, Celsus, 1.20

* Augustine: < 5,600 years, City 12.11

* Eusebius: 5,228 years, Chronicle

* Clement 5,592 years, Miscellanies 1.21

Self-published, promotional "sources" such as drdino.com, answersingenesis.com, and others on here are not reliable sources per

Well when dealing with FRINGE subjects, sometimes one has to use somewhat less than optimal sources to document the views of proponents of those FRINGE positions. That is just how it is.--Filll (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

These are the websites of prominent YECs. Therefore their views should be given

WP:PSTS) for their viewpoints. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

03:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing in policy against using self-published material by YECs to state what the YECs believe. This is, in fact, what

WP:SELFPUB says: that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to use such sources. silly rabbit (talk

) 11:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB prohibits such statements from being referenced from self-published or otherwise questionable sources, even in articles about themselves. If you've got a problem with that, perhaps you should take this up on that policy's talk page. 130.215.168.63 (talk

) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are failing to discriminate between the fact that they made these claims and the contents of them. The contents of the claims may be "contentious, unduly self-serving, or involves claims regarding third parties" but the fact that they made them is not. In any case these are not "personal websites" per

WP:SPS, so are not covered in any case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources are not only "personal websites". The sources in question may be acceptable to cite in this article, but claims which are contentious, unduly self-serving, or which involve third-parties, are not acceptable to cite from them. Read

WP:SELFPUB very carefully. It's the specific material being cited from questionable sources which is the issue, not, in this case, how it's stated in the wikipedia article. 87.181.211.85 (talk

) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a weird, nonconsensual, idiosyncratic reading of WP policy. And I think you will find you are wasting your time making it.--Filll (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by idiosyncratic and nonconsensual here. The rules are the rules. If you have a problem with them, the policies have talk pages. 85.99.246.140 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of "self-published sources" appears to be unreasonably expansive, in that it appears to encompass the websites of major creationist organisations. Further, these websites are not "questionable sources" for the opinions of these organisations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are questionable sources. The only reason they're allowed at all is the subject of the article. 83.150.117.52 (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

According to

WP:V, this article must have sources. Those who delete sources have an obligation to replace them with other sources. --Robert Stevens (talk

) 09:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also see no problem with the sources as a whole. Why can a major Creationist thinktank not be used as a

WP:IAR), and it stretches the limits on interpretation to see how it violates the letter of the rule. That said, if there are specific statements that the IP finds unsuitably referenced, then he/she should bring these up for discussion here and attempt to provide better references. But citing policy against the consensus here as grounds for summary deletion and edit-warring is completely unacceptable. silly rabbit (talk

) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I ought to contribute here, since I think I originally provided those sources. I don't believe that the sources violate

WP:SELFPUB because they are not really making claims about third parties ("those scientists are censors and persecutors because they cannot accept challenge") but about themselves ("we are being persecuted and censored for our beliefs"). I also suspect that (from the scientific institutions' point of view, the statements are not contentious so much as they are laughable. Considering the spirit, rather than the letter, of the policy, the creationist organisations are only making a statement of their own opinions, and I believe that as such they should be considered reliable sources. I hope that the intent of WP:SELFPUB is not to prevent us citing organisations making comments about anything outside those organisations - otherwise we would only be able to cite the International Society of Navel Gazing

.

That said, if the consensus is that these sources are in violation of WP:SELFPUB, the solution is not to hack away the text that they are cited for, but to find better sources for that text. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the

WP:DE against the overwhelming consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a middle ground here. I think the views of creationists are certainly important to mention in an article about creationism and don't see anything obviously wrong with the sources presented. However, is the lead of the article really the place to be saying that creationists are feeling marginalised? The overwhelming consensus is that these are fringe views not supported by evidence. That can go into the lead since there's a huge section on it later on in the article. Mentioning this particular view of creationists in the lead, however, seems to give undue weight to that view when it doesn't get much if any discussion in the main body of the article. I think moving the information out of the lead would appease the IP and improve the article NPOV standing. GDallimore (Talk) 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with

undue weight

. More generally, the final paragraph of the intro could do with rewriting and tightening up (and having its one "interesting" reference, Buckna 2007, corrected). How's about this ...

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Young Earth creationism is unsupported by observations or any independently-derived experimental results over a multitude of scientific disciplines, and that it has no scientific validity. This is reflected in the absence of Young Earth research within professional science journals, and in the statements by numerous international science organisations^[1]. Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in journals or among such organizations is due to discrimination and censorship^[2].

Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a (generally regarded as unjustified) feeling of persecution is a fairly basic component of the YEC (and wider

Right-wing Authoritarianism for how this mindset fits together). I therefore think that documenting this 'persecution' is a valid component of the article. I have no objection to moving things around to achieve balance, I do however object to the claim that we can't cite YEC groups for their own opinions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

According to an above section of the Verifiability policy:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

Therefore it would seem that any source promoting Young Earth Creationism qualifies as "questionable." Thus, per SELFPUB, the article must not refer to contentious claims, unduly self-serving claims, or claims regarding third-parties from such sources. 139.78.78.183 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment to other editors: see this diff from two days ago. Comment to IP: please read

WP:V. silly rabbit (talk

) 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Per above, if this is considered to be an acceptable use of promotional sources, then

Shall we consider the letter or the spirit of this policy on self-published sources?

I don't think that the sources should be regarded as questionable at all. They are the official websites of the respective organisations; hence, they are the most reliable sources we have regarding the positions of those organisations. While it's true that the claims are made of third parties, they are unnamed entities ("the scientific establishment", etc) rather than corporations or individuals that might want to file suit for damages, so there's no great cause for concern that we do harm by repeating their statement. I would even go so far as to say that the allegations are not contentious, in that I don't think that anyone is particularly interested in contending them (laugh, yes; contend, no). Essentially, I don't think that cries of "they are censoring us" are so serious that they need to be censored.

Needless to say, any editor could end this debate quickly and constructively, by providing secondary sources that verify the material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ETA:I just noticed my earlier post where I said the same things, albeit worded differently. "Clearly" this matter could do with some outside input, because it's not moving as things stand; it's just going round and around in circles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the campaign by our IP friend, against

There can be no question from (Hostetler, J. A. 1993. Amish Society. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 4th ed.,435 pp.) that the Amish are YECs in that they believe Genesis literally. An academic debate over YEC is fine, but this YEC article crosses the line into an area that singles out a segment of our society and represents their views as something less than encyclopedic. Your quoted fellow Wikipedian: "our IP friend", above, has a real name and edits as such. Doug Youvan (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It can also be argued from physics that there is no proof that time moves forward. Hence, using "science" to debunk Creation is absurd, because Creation, Big Bang, and Darwinian evolution all follow a time course. Note the use of the word "thought" in the following WP quote T-symmetry:

"It is important to stress that this time reversal violation is unrelated to the second law of thermodynamics, because due to the conservation of the CPT symmetry, the effect of time reversal is to rename particles as antiparticles and vice versa. Thus the second law of thermodynamics is thought to originate in the initial conditions in the universe."

"Science" is introduced into this YEC article only to the extent that the physics of time can be avoided, and with complete disregard for citing any physics that would explain open thermodynamic systems that record and evolve information. There is no such science.

One is left with the impression that this YEC article is an ignorant hate article targeting people who don't even use computers, such as the Amish.Doug Youvan (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Doug are you admitting that you were the IP editor (editing from 212.7.31.170, 84.217.88.185, 75.73.233.115, 83.150.117.52, 85.31.187.131, 61.135.253.185)? If so, you were in rather flagrant violation of
   WP:3RR
   .

I always edit from a single username, nukeh, and I now sign my name with my real name. Doug Youvan (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. If you had provided the Hostetler citation (preferably with a quote here on talk), you would not have run into much resistance to including the Amish in the list of YEC denomination. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (
   WP:V
   )
2. Your claim that "Hence, using "science" to debunk Creation is absurd, because Creation, Big Bang, and Darwinian evolution all follow a time course" is itself absurd. The fact that, at a highly theoretical and hypothetical level, time doesn't have to take the direction that it does, does not change the fact that it is observed to have the direction that it does. As all observation of reality is founded on this observation, your denial of it amounts to little more than solipsism.
3. Describing this as an "ignorant hate article" (just because we enforce
   WP:AGF
   .

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not concerned with whether "it can be argued" that the reversal of time's arrow has an effect on science's treatment of YEC. The only thing that matters to us is whether it has been argued, in a

nor is it the place to try to convince other editors of them. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am good and confused. But at least we have an account and some admission of sockpuppeting and possibly violation of 3RR. I still think that the business about Time's Arrow is a mess. Where is a quote from a YEC about this?--Filll (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is a quote from a scientist that "time moves forward", citing an equation? If you are going to argue Science debunks God, then lets see the fundamental science from a string physicist that time moves forward. Again, Creation and Evolution both recite a time course. Doug Youvan (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From Second_law_of_thermodynamics: The second law is a law about macroscopic irreversibility, and so may appear to violate the principle of T-symmetry. Boltzmann first investigated the link with microscopic reversibility. In his H-theorem he gave an explanation, by means of statistical mechanics, for dilute gases in the zero density limit where the ideal gas equation of state holds. He derived the second law of thermodynamics not from mechanics alone, but also from the probability arguments. His idea was to write an equation of motion for the probability that a single particle has a particular position and momentum at a particular time. One of the terms in this equation accounts for how the single particle distribution changes through collisions of pairs of particles. This rate depends of the probability of pairs of particles. Boltzmann introduced the assumption of molecular chaos to reduce this pair probability to a product of single particle probabilities. From the resulting Boltzmann equation he derived his famous H-theorem, which implies that on average the entropy of an ideal gas can only increase.

The assumption of molecular chaos in fact violates time reversal symmetry. It assumes that particle momenta are uncorrelated before collisions. If you replace this assumption with "anti-molecular chaos," namely that particle momenta are uncorrelated after collision, then you can derive an anti-Boltzmann equation and an anti-H-Theorem which implies entropy decreases on average. Thus we see that in reality Boltzmann did not succeed in solving Loschmidt's paradox. The molecular chaos assumption is the key element that introduces the arrow of time. Doug Youvan (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about time moving forward, or temporal symmetry, or CPT or integrability of differential forms. This article has nothing to do with science debunking God. This article has nothing to do with string theory or M- branes. This article is about a form of creationism of a particular type. If there are YEC that have used this example, then for about the gazillionth time here, provide a source. We cannot use this material without a source.--Filll (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article has nothing to do with science, but it has a section 4.1 called "Scientific", so let's agree to remove that section and end this debate. Doug Youvan (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. Wikipedia is developed by consensus and I do not think you have made a compelling case, nor do you have consensus. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The "science" criticism section has to be there, because science has discovered that these beliefs are false. Though, oddly, the section doesn't seem to go into the scientific falsification of YEC: it's mentioned elsewhere in the article (including the lead), but not there. We have mention of the non-scientific nature of YEC presuppositions and methodology, but not the fact that many of their specific claims have been debunked. --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

{{

Reading through some of this article, I immediately noticed the use of the abbreviation "YEC" in reference to "Young Earth creationist". Ignoring the fact that no other articles I've seen use abbreviations in this manner, I still shudder at the thought that the abbreviation is applied inconsistently throughout the article, and therefore, I would like to see all instances of "YEC" replaced with "Young Earth creationist". Of course, if there is policy backing up the use of the abbreviation, I will happily revoke my request. —Dinoguy1000 18:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the acronym YEC on many other sites, standing for both Young Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationist and similar things: [9][10][11][12][13].--Filll (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Compact Disc come to mind as other examples (though admittedly the computing sector is very acronym-happy). I could go either way, here... it seems a bit of a mouthful to repeatedly hammer out "Young Earth creation(ist|ism)" for every in-line mention, but at the same time using the acronym in section headings bothers me just a touch. – Luna Santin (talk

) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should have clarified in my original comment, my major problem with the abbreviation is not so much the fact that it's used (regardless that it may not have the same level of recognition as the above examples), but the fact that it's used inconsistently. Throughout the article, the full term and the abbreviation are interchanged more or less randomly, even within the same section. And I'd have to agree, I don't like seeing it in section headers either, it makes the article feel rather lazy. —Dinoguy1000 00:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's also being used for both "creationism" and "creationist(s)" I think, though I don't know if that's a problem right off. As you say, remaining internally consistent sounds good. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does have a problem with regard to inconsistent usage of Young Earth Creation(ism/ist) vs YEC, most probably due to its piecemeal creation. This is however a style issue, and not a sufficiently urgent problem that it requires an 'edit-protected'. We would be making better use of our time by trying to develop a consistent consensus policy (especially as this would also be applicable in other creationist articles: OEC/DAC/etc). Do we want to:

• Use Young Earth Creation(ism/ist) throughout?
• Use Young Earth Creation(ism/ist) once, and then YEC throughout the remainder?
• Use some other scheme (e.g. Young Earth Creation(ism/ist) first use in a section, YEC in the remainder)?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given those three options, I'd favor the second or third with no particular preference. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aah, sorry about that, I don't actually have much experience contributing to articles that have been fully protected (for whatever reason), so I really don't have much of a feel for what does and doesn't warrent an edit-protected request. As such, I've revoked my original request for now.

As to the options of how to handle the abbreviations, I'd partially agree with Luna that the last two options sound preferable, but I would be more biased towards the middle option myself – although it could be argued that this would be similar to linking to a term, in that my understanding is that the term should be linked only once in the main body of the article. Aplied to abbreviations, it wold mean that the abbreviation should be introduced with the term, and then the abbreviation used through the rest of the article. —Dinoguy1000 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just added the {{notaforum}}-template to this article. Comments that do not demonstrate a direct relationship to the topic of 'Young Earth Creationism' and to improving this article are liable to be archived/userfied/deleted without discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)