Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive 1

Discussion

Conservative's edits

The total of those edits are given by this dif Objections to these edits include: 1) the removal of material discussing radiometric dating and starlight (it isn't clear to me why that material was removed given that the YEC responses are given). Second, he has thrown in a variety of quotes. Now, whether one calls these quotes quote-mines or not(they all are, but Conservative seems to dislike this term) a number of things are clear even ignoring issues of context, at least one of these quotes is out of date (1983 !) and none of them are at all relevant. This is an article about Young Earth Creationism. None of the quotes have anything to do with that since a) they aren't talking about YECism but possible issues with certain more standard scientific viewpoints and b) they don't alter the basic issues at hand such as the age of the earth(for example, whether or not we understand how "galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe" has nothing to do with the age of the earth or whether evolution took place or whether there was a global flood or anything else relevant to YECism. Furthermore, the citation given for these quotes is another Wiki, and wikis are inherently unreliable and not useful souring. 3) The added material is poorly organized; even if it were to be included, it makes no sense as an organizational matter to have in the introduction a long list of example quotes (and certainly not before basic issues like the global flood. Furthermore, since the end of the paragraph discusses what arguments they use, it would make far more sense to put it there. I must also register concern that Conservative has unilaterally protected this article after making his own changes. JoshuaZ 14:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Thank your for your feedback both in this talk page and on my discussion page. I used some of your feedback to edit the material. Secondly, CreationWiki sources the two quotes I used from CreationWiki. Thirdly, I believe that old earth creationist scientist such as Dr. Ross posit that the galaxies, planets, suns, etc were formed naturally as opposed to young earth creationists who believe they were created supernaturally at least for the most part. Third, radiometric dating discussion and starlight discussion can be found in one of the footnotes I cited. Conservative 16:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

To you second point A wiki sourcing anything is not reliable. It doesn't matter whether it is used for one quote, 10 quotes a thousand quotes or whatever. Wikis are not reliable and should not be used for sourcing. To your third point that the quote about planetary formation is relevant because Ross believes in natural planetary formation- we aren't talking about Hugh Ross here, we are talking about YECism. If we have an article about OECism then it might be relevant there. To your fourth point, yes they are mentioned in the reference but they are both important enough and major enough to mention in the article- in its current form it does not discuss at all the mainstream evidence and the YEC responses to that evidence; it is hard for me to see how that isn't important, especially in regard to radiometric dating. Nothing you have done here in any way deals with the issue that this bad organization having a large set of quotes in the middle before you get to basic issues like who supports YECism. Nor did you address the concern about the decision to protect the article. JoshuaZ 16:54, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Further problems with recent edits

At this point, you need to read almost a full page before one even finds out who actually supports YECism. At minimum, some of the evidence should be put in a later section so the introduction can be brief and actually give the relevant introductory details. JoshuaZ 16:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing.

The section detailing the popular acceptance had a note that the acceptance rate among scientists was around 5% (and the 5% number put inside a footnote). That has been replaced with the standard DI claim that the number of scientists skeptical of certain aspects of evolution is on the rise. First, there isn't any point to it in the footnote since it isn't supporting anything in the article. If it going to be here, it should be in the article. Second, the DI claim at best is about evolution and has nothing to do with YECism. C) removal of the number, especially replacing it with the DI's (essentially unreliable, usubsuntiated claim) gives a misleading pciture. JoshuaZ 18:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, we're getting slightly better now. Now, the DI part is still problematic. The DI 700 or so and all that has nothing to do with age of the earth or YECism. JoshuaZ 19:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I wrote: "However, the ranks of scientists openly rejecting evolutionary ideas (macroevolutionary ideas posit the earth is millions of years old) is currently on the rise. [1]

The fact is that the effort in question is a very publicized effort and more scientists are signing on. Conservative 19:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Um, that this is a very publicized effort yes, the rest holds no water. First, claiming that the numbers are on the rise because more people have signed the same petition is illogical- to show a rise, one would need to show that the number of people at any given time were more than the number prior. One would presumably do that with some sort of sampling, not a compiled list. Second, this still has nothing to do with YECism. One could completely agree with that statement and still not be a YEC (heck, one could still be a mainstream scientist who completely accepts evolution and still sign that statement if one thinks that neutral drift, sexual selection and other ways of modifying the gene pool are sufficiently important). Furthermore, one could completely disagree with basic evolutionary biology claims and still not be a YEC (take Hugh Ross for example). On the whole, putting the DI's claim here is both misleading and irrelevant. JoshuaZ 20:07, 1 March 2007 (EST)

55% - macroevolution

The gallup poll did not say that 55% of scientists accepted "macroevolution" indeed macroevolution was not mentioned anywhere in the poll. The poll showed that 55% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" and 39% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." This gives a total of 96% accepting descent from a common ancestor (which is what I think the editor meant by "macroevolution" in this context). 22:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your input. Conservative 22:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

Schaller found that lionesses do 90% of the hunting and lions (males) only 10%. Furthermore the female leads the cubs to the freshly killed animal. (Rudnai 1973) This seems inconsistent with the Bible:

The lion tore enough for his whelps. (Nahum 2:12)

I didn't see how this source discredited science's claims about lions. Plus, you don't always have to be right the first time, you know. Science changes with new information. Until then, the best is done with what evidence is present. Muchodelcrazy 00:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Unproofed theories are not wrong theories

Hi, I am new in Conservapedia. I think the most trouble thing here is that unproofed theories are equalized to wrong theories. But this ist wrong! Only falsifized theories are wrong.

Young Earth Creationism is a great Idea. It solves all the roblems about "time" before 6000 B.C. But it is very very complex. It needs a creator. And this creator has a high complexity. Most scientists look for the simplest solution for a problem, not any.

Einstein for example searched for the simplest way to solve relative speed and found a way in last century. It is a theorie, not the truth. It has not been falsifized jet. So we can trust. So did Darwin. He tried to find a simple solution for flora and fauna. And he found a very simple theorie, that has not been falsifized jet.

Yound Earth Creationists try to falsifize the theory. But to falifize you need proofs. Not the lack of proofs. Not to find something is not a proof that is not there. Sorry, we have to work harder to make Young Earth Creationism to a theory to be proud of. It has to be the simplest imaginalble!

It took Einstein and his colleagues years to figure out relativity, believe me when I say both the math and the concepts behind it are extremely complicated. Whereas creationism can be explained in, well, how fast can you say "God did it"? (It took me less than 2 seconds)

Here are two links for proof of relativity:

Hafele-Keating experiment and later experiments with more accurate clocks

GPS and relativity

Middle Man

If you think that creationism can be adequately described as "God did it", you have no idea of creationism. Philip J. Rayment 04:17, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, "God magically did it 6000 years ago, in 6 days". (8 seconds)

Middle Man

If that is intended to prove that you do have a reasonable idea of creationism, you have failed miserably. Philip J. Rayment 23:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

What else is their, except for misquotations and claims that the Devil put fossils in the ground to mislead us?

Middle Man

Neither of those things. Spend a month reading articles here and you should have a reasonable idea. Philip J. Rayment 00:37, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Proof

First off im an Admited Liberal and non Christian, just getting this out of the way. I have read your facts on Evolution and your facts on Creationism. I just have one question throghtout Evolution your editors and writters CONSTANTLY show the lack of evidence supporting Evolution, while when talking about Creationism you blame all lack on the fact that few scientists support the claim. Here is my quetion where is your proof. If Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct then there should be evidence besides the Holy Bibles or books or scripture, take all Religion out of the argument and either prove that Creationism has as much evidence as the THEORY of EVOLUTION (yep theory not hard fact) and you will have a case but at no time in any writtings that i have seen or lectures i have heard has any evidence, besides GOD says so, been given to support your claim. Evolution though and theory that the earth is older then a hand full of thousdand years has been given evidence through proven scientific research. I would like to point out that the church has been fighting scientific theory for a long time including the earth is round and that the stars in the night sky are far away and not just jewls hanging right above our planet, or even that the planet earth is the center of the universe. and finaly that if God created everything how come the practice of Jewdism only seemed to appear after man became a hunter/gatherer tribe set giving up a portion of there nomadic ways and appeard in a comunity that animal husbandry became comon showing a need for a "shepard to watch his flock" thats it just show some proff of your theory

45% support

The article currently states: "Roughly 45% of the United States population identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists, and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years." Neither of the citations support that statement. As far as I can tell, the relevant surveys showed that 45% of Americans believe that God created man about 10k years ago in his present form. Nothing indicated anyone's beliefs about the age of the Earth nor the labels people apply to themselves. While all YECs do believe that man was created within 10,000 years, that doesn't imply that all people who believe that man was created within 10,000 years are YECs (believe the Earth was also created then and identify themselves as YECs).

Since the article is locked, I can't reword it, but something more accurate would be:

Roughly 45% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago, which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism.

MrBob 01:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Bob. That sentence was put in by a evolutionist. LOL Conservative 03:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

This article is a travesty

Citing to "bloodletting" as an example of science's major failures is beyond ridiculous, and using it as proof of how fluctual science is, well, that's even worse. Honestly, I don't know why Conservative is an admin; the edits here are shockingly bad. Can an unbiased admin have a crack at this article...

PLEASE?--AmesG 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Medical science is part of science. Conservative 02:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Alchemy is wrong? Well there goes the hope of hot fusion!Cracker^talk 17:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is one of the reasons for Conservapedia. To have articles without liberal bias. It should stay as it is. I'm sureConservative knows what he is doing.

JC 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Cracker, the two are ever so slightly different... I can't tell from your sarcasm whose side you're on :-).

Also, JC, the purpose of Conservapedia is not to be biased towards Christianity: it's to allow Christians to air their views on equal footing with other views. Am I right? Teach the controversy?--AmesG 17:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the things that bother me about this site is that the articles don't define what the subject is so much as getting straight to the refutation about why it's wrong. And yes, AmesG, I do understand the difference betwixt alchemical and nuclear transmutation. Cracker^talk 17:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. Leave the Christian views on an equal footing as they are.

JC 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Equal footing does not mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--M 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

You're a bit slow responding to that comment! What misinformation is in the article? If I agree, I will remove/modify/clarify it. Philip J. Rayment 07:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

(M's reply has been moved to a new section below (Misinformation) for clarity.)—Philip J. Rayment

The current article clearly denigrates evolution below the place it enjoys in the scientific canons, based on inane arguments that don't deserve to be placed here. --AmesG 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry if my failure at understanding sarcasm insulted you, Cracker!!! Not my intent!! I was just confused...--AmesG 17:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This whole project is a travesty. I've never been accused of being a liberal, but I can't beileve any educated, honest person would support this project. I don't understand how this project's critics can take it so seriously. Im sure you've all read the article on evolution. Like I said before the creators and supporters of this project are embarrassing themselves. - Jirt 20:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The 6,000 year time estimate must be wrong. Stonehenge is older than that. --Commandment9 21:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but that's where you've fallen for the Worldwide Evil Science Conspiracy's vile deception. Someone who read the Bible says that it says the earth is only 6000 years old, so any so-called 'discoveries' that contradict that are EVIL LIES BY SATAN fnord.

You know, this is a typical example of the bias so many anti-creationists have. There are two contradictory claims, but rather than test both claims to see which one (or both) is wrong, they simply use one claim to disprove the other claim. I could just as logically claim that the estimated age of Stonehenge must be wrong, because the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

But it must be true - Conservapedia says so on http://www.conservapedia.com/Stonehenge , honest. Maybe years lasted longer in the old days and they're only going faster know because the earth has sped up or something, a bit like how a year felt like forever when you were a child but they just fly by now. --Commandment9 21:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

spent time proofreading

I received a short note regarding this article concerning some suggested improvements in grammar among other things. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some areas where the article could be improved. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. Conservative 02:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

This article is ridiculous

Do we want credibility? Do we want to be taken seriously in the world? Do we want to get rid of the loony liberals that are ruining our country? Then we need--at a bare minimum--to accept the basic laws of physics. This article is a travesty, and it is one of the reasons why "conservative" has become synonymous with "bat s*** crazy." Can someone with half a brain and a decent understanding of the universe please fix this? Conservative should not mean "idiot," it should simply mean "conservative." Edmund Burke would be disgusted by you YECers. Scientz 10:50 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is ridiculous as it stands. The article should restrict itself to decribing YEC, not refuting evolution...that is for another place.

Also, you state statistics that most Americans believe this, and that most scientists dont, then go on to say that consensus doesnt make it so. So, I guess if the Americans that were polled agree that YEC is true, that it is, and if most scientists agree that it is false, well, they be godless wizards, see Leviticus 20.Palmd001 21:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

• I am not a YEC so I am glad this article is locked. Since I have nothing contribute to a Young Earth article, I may proceed to edit Old Earth articles without a fair and balanced rebuttal here. Teresita 18:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

• Excuse me, it's not locked. But only the beautiful people can edit it: [2] Not cool at all, gentlemen. Teresita 00:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Unprotected subpages

I propose a technical solution: use an undocumented feature of templates to create editable subpages. I introduced this technique at Wikipedia, and it's used quite a bit for their administrative pages (see transclusion, which I'll write eventually).

Anyway, just click on the "edit" button on the right side of any section under "Draft" at the top of this page. --Ed Poor 08:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Theory of Evolution - The Resurrection

Regarding the last few edits, which copy-pasted entire sections from Theory of evolution:

Seriously, is this article becoming "Theory of Evolution II"? Conservative's new playground now that he may only do minor changes to Theory of Evolution?

I guess that sorta proves all the critics right - large part of that article weren't about evolution at all. It's just modular creationist talk. --Sid 3050 19:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Title does not fit content

There has got to be more content about YEC itself, but this article spends most of it's time refuting evolution. We already have an article for that (Criticisms of the theory of evolution). This should be a scholarly explanation of YEC, not a evo-bashfest. I'd love to add YEC-bashing to the Theory of evolution article, but I am one of the editors who thinks it is necessary to show restraint. Just a thought... --Hojimachong^talk 19:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems that much of this article is actually lifted almost word for word from the 'evolution' article. Tsumetai 19:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I suppose I don't have to point out the logical fallacy in using an evo article to create a YEC article. I don't even know where to start with explaining how wrong that is. Ban me now, Ban me now!--PalMD^talk 19:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There we go. All the stuff which appears in the 'evolution' article is now gone. Perhaps some of it is better here than there, but I'll leave that for the YECs to hash out for themselves. Tsumetai 19:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

many of the major reasons why people reject the theory of evolution are the same reasons they accept young earth creationism. I see no problem with overlap. Conservative 22:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Perhaps that means that the evolution article shouldn't defer to one perspective, then?-AmesG_yo! 22:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I have no idea what you are saying. Conservative 22:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

The converse is a concern I have expressed to you. I am just arguing that if the YEC viewpoint is represented so very well here, maybe it shouldn't all be on the evolution page, but instead have a reference FROM the evolution page to this page. To cut down on server size and be better organized.-AmesG_yo! 22:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The panel already ruled on the theory of evolution article AmesG. It is not being gutted. Conservative 23:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

It was totally worth a try. I'm sure if we came to a consensus, though, they would respect it.-AmesG_yo! 23:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but there will never be a consensus (or even a proper discussion that may lead to one) since a few sysops will shout "THE PANEL HAS DECIDED! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT! END OF DISCUSSION! ANDY AGREES!" before things can get going. Add to that the resignation after the Panel's decision, and you got a dead article, basically. *shrugs* --Sid 3050 20:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Anyone Notice...

That this is almost the same article as evolution?-AmesG_yo! 22:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*downgrades the headline level* Yes. *points at upper two sections* And Tsumetai's deletion of the duplicate material juuuust got reverted. --Sid 3050 22:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Verb number should agree with the number of the subject in a sentence. I would fix the first sentence, but, well.... And for the sake of parallelism, the evolutionary age of the universe should also be included.--All Fish Welcome 18:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I've fixed the first sentence; thanks for pointing that out. The evolutionary age of the Earth is included, in the first sentence; I don't follow what you are getting at there. Philip J. Rayment 19:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess you figured it out, since you added the age of the universe on 21 April.--All Fish Welcome 00:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

No I didn't. I changed one word[3]. Philip J. Rayment 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Misinformation

(Continuation of a discussion starting in This article is a travesty, above. I have also reformatted M's posts a little—Philip J. Rayment.)

Sorry if I'm posting on a dead comment; I was just skimming Conservapedia briefly before I left for class this morning. As for misinformation, there's a few things...the section on transitional fossils is simply disgraceful, for one thing. No mention whatsoever of ancestral whale fossils, the early mammal ancestors (as they split off from reptiles), the elephant or horse ancestral lines, or the australopithecines or other fossil hominids...and the two that it does mention, Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik, it dismisses for no good reason. (Referring to Archaeopteryx as a 'perching bird'...and completely disregarding the fact that it possessed teeth and a reptilian tail, for one thing!)

There also seems to be some copy-pasting going on, as I've seen the following text verbatim in several different articles:

According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists. This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.

If a Christian scientist can work on experiments involving evolutionary principles (as the great majority of genetics or biological experiments do), why is it assumed that any scientist, no matter their personal beliefs, will actively try to discriminate against valid research?

(There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not.

Conservapedia is supposed to be about an accurate and balanced viewpoint, isn't it?)--M 09:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to double-comment, but I just noticed that there's at least one instance of inaccurate quote-mining on this page. Here's the quote by Mark Ridley in the entry:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

And here's the complete quote:

`In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

`So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.' (page 831)

`These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature.' (page 832)

He's being misquoted, with the apparent intent of making it seem like a respected zoologist is saying the opposite of what he actually means.--M 09:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of what you list there is not misinformation per se, but omission of information that you think should be there. That's something quite different.

I'd say that the reason that the article doesn't have the fossils that you mention (whales, early-mammals, elephants, horses, hominids) is that there are no such transitional fossils between different kinds of creatures. (That is, for example, there are fossils that appear intermediate between different types of horses, but not between horses and something else.)

You say that it dismisses Archaeopteryx for no good reason, but you are wrong for several reasons. (1) It is not dismissing Archaeopteryx, it is quoting Alan Fedducia dismissing Archaeopteryx. (Admittedly the footnote does not make that clear, but if you look at the reference, you can see that. I'm in the process of improving the footnotes.) (2) So what that it had teeth? Some other extinct birds had teeth; that doesn't make it transitional. (3) It did not have a reptilian tail—it had the tail of an Archaeopteryx! That it might have some similarities to a reptilian tail doesn't make it a reptilian tail and doesn't make it transitional. Besides, I don't know of any reptile that had feathers on its tail!

As for Tiktaalik, you haven't explained what is 'not good' about the reasons.

Discrimination is not "assumed"; it is well documented.

"There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not". As do you. Perhaps there are none?

Conservapedia is supposed to be about an accurate viewpoint; I'm not so sure about the balanced bit. Philip J. Rayment 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

How is the quote out of context? It is being used to show that fossils do not support evolution, not that there is no support at all for evolution. The "missing" part of the quote is talking about other evidence; it doesn't change the first part where he talks about fossil evidence, at least by my quick reading.

Philip J. Rayment 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Quote Mining

In regard to E.J.H. Corner's quote, here is the rest of it:

"The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.

"Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh).

Please remove the quote from the article or add it in its entirety.

Middle Man

Why? You haven't explained what's wrong with just quoting the part that's quoted. Philip J. Rayment 02:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The above paragraph wasn't displaying properly -- it looks like four spaces is wiki markup for preformatted text, or something. I changed the spacing and added an initial quote mark to the second paragraph for readability.--All Fish Welcome 23:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

A single leading space is wiki markup for preformatted text. The extra spaces are redundant. Philip J. Rayment 02:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

E.J.H. Corner supports evolution here, but he admits it would seem illogical to the unprejudiced (someone who's never heard of evolution and the science behind it), he then poses a question this unprejudiced person could have asked, and warns evolutionists that they can expect many such questions, and should be prepared to answer them.

He then says that temperate textbook plants enough are not enough to support evolution, but he points out that many tropical plants do provide support.

BTW: Mark Riddley has been misquoted .

Michael Denton is an evolutionist now . Middle Man

He does not define "unprejudiced" as "someone who's never heard of evolution and the science behind it" (although I might agree that someone who has heard of it is therefore "prejudiced" :-) ). "unprejudiced" is a synonym for "unbiased". He is simply saying that if we look at the evidence, without imposing personal views (such as evolution) on the evidence, the evidence favours special creation. He doesn't pose a hypothetical question; he makes a point about how an unbiased person would see the evidence, and that evolutionists need to have answers to such objections, but that actually answering such objections will prove difficult (i.e. implying that there is no good answer). In summary, the quote is not out of context at all, but accurately conveys the point he is making.

I don't believe that he is saying that tropical plants do provide support. Rather, he seems to be saying that temperate plants do not provide support, and evolutionists should therefore look to tropical plants in the hope of finding support there.

Mark Ridley has not been misquoted, despite the desperate attempts of anticreationists who seemingly can't understand what they are reading. Talk.Origins' extended quote shows that Ridley is an evolutionist who believes that evidence for evolution exists, but who admits that such evidence does not come from the fossil record. This article quotes the part about the fossil record not providing evidence, and in doing so is not misquoting nor quoting out of context.

In fact, this is a classic example of why I give anti-creationist claims of creationists quoting out of context no credibility.

There have been previous claims of Denton changing his mind, which he subsequently denied, so I'd be a bit wary on this one. And the linked article (review) indicates that it is the reviewer who thinks that Denton changed his mind, not an admission of such by Denton himself. Also, I've always understood Denton to be an evolutionist who was game enough to admit that the evidence wasn't there to support evolution. If he has now found what he considers to be sufficient evidence, that doesn't mean that he is "now an evolutionist" in the sense of having just become one.

Philip J. Rayment 23:08, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Conflict of Interest?

Conservative appears to be the primary editor on this page, and also the editor who has a hammer lock on the Evolution page. Isn't this an inherent conflict of interest? I appreciate that the purpose of this wiki is to present the conservative spin on things, and not necessarily the objective truth, but surely having a single person's POV coloring two diametrically opposed articles is contrary to that mission. Stile4aly 22:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Didn't you know? The "conservative spin" IS "the objective truth". :-)

Seriously, it's not a conflict of interest to edit two articles with opposing viewpoints. If that was the case, it effectively means that only conservatives could edit some articles and only liberals could edit other articles, etc.

Philip J. Rayment 03:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I take your point, and if Conservative's purpose was to make both articles accurate then I would agree with you. But clearly he is pushing some form of YEC agenda, presenting YEC as at least on par with if not superior to evolution, and avoiding criticism thereof, and inserting long debunked creationist "critical analysis" into the evolution article while removing supporting evidence. This smacks to me of conflict of interest. Stile4aly 07:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

But YEC is superior to evolution! And I disagree that the creationist stuff has been debunked (although I'm not saying that absolutely none of the stuff Conservative has put is has been debunked; I haven't checked every single bit).

However, I'm not make a general defence of the way that any particular editor (other than me!) has presented something. There's always room for improvement, and if you have any specific concerns that you don't feel comfortable changing yourself (or can't because an article is protected), please mention them and I'll either incorporate them or explain why I don't agree. (The Theory of Evolution article is an exception, though, because my reading of the Panel's decision is that no changes should be made to the main body of the article without their approval.)

Philip J. Rayment 09:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Eternal Universe?

I already brought this up at the Universe article, but I'm gonna ask it again.

What is a statement about an eternal universe doing here, no one believes in an eternal universe, certainly no evolutionists or astronomers.

MiddleMan

Creationist assert both the universe is not eternal and that is was created supernaturally and that the first and second law of thermodynamics points to the universe being supernaturally created. Conservative 20:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Historically some have believed in an eternal universe, so it's probably worth mentioning on those grounds alone. And this seems to suggest that perhaps some still do. Philip J. Rayment 11:13, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, but it's no valid claim against evolution, since evolutionists don't believe in an eternal universe, also the claim that it points toward a supernatural creation is based on a grave misunderstanding: a simplification that says disorder will increase.

Actually entropy is a little more abstract and the second law of thermodynamics means something like this: the universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are above average concentrations of energy left. This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past: there are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

An eternal universe would also need an influx of hydrogen into the universe, because the original supply would have been depleted long ago by fusion inside stars.

MiddleMan

The 2nd law is something that I thought I understood, and I still think that I largely do, but I'm probably a bit fuzzy on the exact details when it comes to disorder, so I won't dispute you on that.

But isn't that getting a little bit off the topic? We were talking about an eternal universe. I agree with you that such a thing doesn't make sense, but the point is that some believed it and I gather that some still do, so it is worth addressing.

As for the "misunderstanding", perhaps (and I'm speculating here) the editor who put in the bit about thermodynamics is arguing that the 2nd law indicates that the universe had a beginning (with which you agree) and that this could only be by a supernatural creation. Thus putting those two points together, the 2nd law points to a supernatural creation. This without bringing "increasing disorder" into the equation.

Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This is excactly why there must be something wrong with the present models of energy, I belive in an eternal univesre and that it would equalize after so and so much time just sounds to stupid to me. It would also sound like it lacked any purpouse at all, as what reason would god have to create a world which was allready designed to one day loose all its capabillity to manifest?

I think the thing that will crush the classical idea of entropy will be the fact that the unobserved created, the spirtual and timelike dimmension is the real orgin for all of the momvemnt on the physical realm, and therefore is not limmited to itself only. --Nabroon 18:12, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

A beginning? Yes.

A supernatural beginning? No way of knowing --> pointless speculation --> not science. MiddleMan

If the 1st and 2nd laws indicate that the natural universe had a beginning, then it must have been caused by something outside of the natural, i.e. by something super-natural.

On the other hand, there is no way of knowing what caused the supposed Big Bang, which means that is pointless speculation, and therefore not science. Yet I don't see anti-creationists criticising the Big Bang for that reason! Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

You think way too pre-relativity, time and space are connected and foldable: time is not absolute! Besides, if everything needs a cause in linear time, then why doesn't that supernatural being need an origin and cause as well? MiddleMan

I know time is not absolute, but I don't know how that affects what I was saying. Not everything needs a cause; only things that have a beginning need a cause, and God has no beginning. Ultimately something must be eternal, in order to provide a cause for things that have a beginning, else you get into endless regression. Philip J. Rayment 23:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Age of the earth

In my own discussions with creation scientists, it seemed to me that the ages usually considered were from 6,000 years (of course), but up to about 20,000 years (where anything beyond would make the magnetic fields too strong). It seemed about 10,000 years made the most sense. The apparent skipping of some generations in the Genesis geneology gives some variation to how old the earth could be (and of course the precedent in other parts of the Bible of compressing geologies). I am wondering, since I don't see this view represented here, if anyone else has heard similar time tables? Thanks Learn together 10:58, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Back in the 60s and 70s, figures of "up to about 10,000" were bandied about (I don't recall 20,000), allowing for there being some gaps in the genealogies (although the gaps would have to be very large), but creationists have since pointed out that the chronogenealogies of Genesis, in contrast to the normal genealogies of, for example, Matthew and Luke, don't allow for gaps. Creationists usually seem to stick to 6,000 years these days, and about the only mention I see to 10,000 years are people quoting older references. Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)