Talk:Young Earth Creationism

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to dislike this term) a number of things are clear even ignoring issues of context, at least one of these quotes is out of date (1983 !)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!

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)

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)

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)

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)