Talk:Young Earth creationism
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Jibal in topic More Scientific Arguments used by Creationists
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Young Earth creationism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
More Scientific Arguments used by Creationists
editSince this article describes what creationists believe, would it not be helpful to describe more of their arguments against evolution? For instance, there is nothing in the article that describes the rapid deterioration of the earth's magnetic field as evidence of its age, no any mention of the organic tissue found within some dinosaur bones. It may be that these ideas are not accepted by mainstream science, but since this article is about Creationists specifically would it be beneficial to mention them?Cofefe2 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Any addition to the article needs reliable independent sources evaluating the significance of the point to be added, and showing how it has been received by majority expert opinion to meet WP:PSCI policy. See WP:PSTS for the caution needed when dealing with primary sources. There are lots of creationist arguments against evolution, see Gish Gallop, it's not the purpose of this page to examine them all: see TalkOrigins Archive for that. . . dave souza, talk 07:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Their arguments are not "scientific", they are just crap. Wikipedia is not the place to spread disinformation, so none of it belongs here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Actually Wikipedia is neutral, Hob Gadling. If you are editing out certain voices because of your POV, that's a problem. dave souza's answer is sufficient for this thread.Ckruschke (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
- Our POV is NPOV, and I've linked to policy about how we deal with unscientific crap and / or disinformation. Trust we're all on the same page here, so no problem. Cheers, . dave souza, talk 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that some of us are not on the same page: they want to include unreliable crap, calling it "certain voices". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- As Winston Churchill once said, "You can't throw a rock at every dog that barks at you." If I got wrapped around the axle about every piece of nonsense crap that people tried to foist upon Wikipedia, I'd be a basket case. Just do your job and let the unwashed masses call names. Live longer... Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
- It seems that some of us are not on the same page: they want to include unreliable crap, calling it "certain voices". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Our POV is NPOV, and I've linked to policy about how we deal with unscientific crap and / or disinformation. Trust we're all on the same page here, so no problem. Cheers, . dave souza, talk 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Actually Wikipedia is neutral, Hob Gadling. If you are editing out certain voices because of your POV, that's a problem. dave souza's answer is sufficient for this thread.Ckruschke (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
The Voice of the entire article is not science against science, but Religion vs. Science. The article is inherently biased. 73.87.154.87 (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's hard to see what point you're making or how it supports the claim that the article is inherently biased. and such sweeping claims are not helpful--point out a specific error or violation of policy. Jibal (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The topic is debated with science on both sides of the debate. Opposing science is not misinformation. White washing with a single point of view or unproven scientific thesis is not a scientific way to approach a scientific debate. 73.87.154.87 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your opinion is 1. based on false rumors, 2. irrelevant. Reliable sources say that YEC is bullshit, and reliable sources are stronger than you. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- What "debate"? This is an encyclopedia article about Young Earth creationism, not a debate. Such sweeping and vague claims are not helpful--point out a specific error or violation of policy. Jibal (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
For the validity of sources used in this article, scientific journals should be used when possible instead of quoting from college textbooks where a singular author's point of view is used. 73.87.154.87 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good luck finding reliable or reputable source from the last 90 years that can truthfully state that "Young Earth Creationism" is a valid science or a valid opposition to science.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Such sweeping and vague claims are not helpful--point out a specific error or violation of policy. Jibal (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Earth is actually around 6,000 years old? Source: https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/
- Comment: Yes, it really is.
Created by ValuedSalah11 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC).
- Article is ineligible for inclusion as a DYK as it is not newly-created (unlike the Earth!) and the hook itself does not link to the article. Also, sorry, but Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source. Good try, though! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Next week - DYK the Earth is flat. Who knew. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
