This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Creationist cosmologies redirect. 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: 1 |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I suggest this: two sections one written by informed creationists and one written by informed opposition. There are a lot of misrepresentations in here and factual errors. For example it doesn't take much research to realize that the reason for rejecting the invalid astronomy was not to do with "painstaking observations" but because no working model could be developed with stellar objects like supernova within a 6000 light year radius (this is directly from the "answers book" produced by creationist organization Answers in Genesis").
Secondly as far as I am aware the sun and the solar system is believed to be 6000 years old by creationists. One of the supports they cite for this is (from an article in TJ) they believe that the sun would have changed significantly in intensity over a period of billions of years due to the evolution of it's core. Thirdly i don't see why the blue shift is a problem. If you have a blue shift and a red shift (from expansion) then you will get a total shift based on which shift is greater. Observations show a red shift so the conclusion (in this model) would be that the actual speed of the receeding galaxies is higher than the redshift indicates. Fourthly can you name me a single observation that supports the copernican principle? You claim that these observations exists. I am certainly unaware of them. The copernican principle is philisophical not based in evidence. To prove or disprove the principle one could make a string to construct a circle and check to see whether or not the ratio of the circumference of the circle to the length of the string is exactly 2pi. However to do this one would allegedly need a string 100 million galaxies long. I am unaware of this experiment ever taking place (source: undergraduate lecture from professer David Pegg). Finally I wasn't aware that there were solutions to the problems of dark matter or inflation. If what you're saying is true please keep it quiet as you would put a lot of physicists out of jobs ;). A recent article on quant_ph (arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0501066) even suggested a violation of the spin statistics theorem for neutrinos as a possible solution to the dark matter problem (Of course having a dirac spinor which was a boson would have unbounded negative energy states as an infinite number of particles could fill any state). So from the "vibe" of that article i hardly think the problem is solved. These are all the problems i can remember for now cheers
I've just been reading the article, and I find it to be a oddly written. It jubilantly tells us that "The current cosmological paradigm is built on painstaking observations" and that "These distances have been built on painstaking observations", which feels like it was written by someone who was just a little more than tired of having to explain it.
At one point it is suggested that "These types of arguments are meant to imply that discrediting the Big Bang will bring credibility to creationist cosmologies." One might just as easily conclude that discrediting the Big Bang model is inherent to creationist cosmologies. If the 'scientists' involved manage to prove their assertions, they will have effectively disproven the Big Bang model. Also, should they manage to directly disprove the Big Bang model, they should certainly have earned the respect of many scientist.
If this article is to be nothing more than a list of creationist viewpoints and a short note explaining their inadequacy, this article needn't exist. -- Ec5618 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
It is understandably difficult to be objective on a subject such as this. I do however feel that greater effort should be made, in the interests of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia and the schools of thought mentioned in this article, to have more informative and less argumentative articles and/or styles of writing. Informative decisions and arguments can only be made if all parties have access to non-partisan information. Then, and only then, can the intellectual discussions take place in the appropriate forums. Hvrensburg 18:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The section Arguments currently used by creationists should include the one based on so-called "short-term comets." soverman 20:25 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Since by the definition of the metre, it is inextricably linked with the speed of light, how can any change in the speed of light be "easily detected with modern electronic equipment?" Dan Watts 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that these suggestions are of the form of pseudoscience. We have an anon who currently disagrees. Would they be willing to explain here? -- ScienceApologist 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Gravitational Time Dilation actually is observed in GPS satellites. Gravitational_Time_Dilation#Experimental_Confirmation
AIG is a major creation institute and should have it site directly linked
The page is very light on sources, here's some:
The obvious one, talk.origins [1]
Another talk.origins source [2] - talk origins generally identifies the origins of the creationist claim as well, making them doubly efficacious.
Creation wiki article, light on sources and not really reliable as a source itself.
Possibly tomorrow I'll try to add to it. WLU ( talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I just happened across this page. I think the editor's choice to redirect this page due to its lack of sources was fair. However a quick scan of the most recent version shows much useful material, and I hope that it will be recovered - with appropriate referencing, that is. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I hereby propose that c-decay, and re-propose that Starlight problem, be merged here. WP:MERGE rationales are: (2) 'Overlap' & (4) 'Context'. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the various cosmological ideas on this page have pretty good consensus responses. However, Lisle's phenomenological argument and Humphrey's magnetic field prediction are just stated without any rebuttal. It might be good to add some mainstream views on these; otherwise they would sound too convincing to readers.
This is particularly the case with respect to Lisle's claims. As far as I know, he argues that a difference simultaneity frame (using a location-based frame for Einstein's equations instead of inertial reference frame) allows the universe to be modeled in such a way that time and distance are directly related by c, so that light reaches any observer immediately from their point of view. A mainstream response to this, as well as any falsifiable predictions made by this model, would be good. 72.151.50.172 ( talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Some of the lines in this article are not up to Wikipedia's standard of impartiality. Whoever wrote these was a hostile source. For example: "As the technical sophistication of YECs increased over the years, new attempts to explain away the scientific evidence for the age of the universe of 13.7 billion years has also been incorporated. YECs now re-interpret phenomena such as galactic redshifts and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to fit into their beliefs."
1. The acronym "YEC" is meant to belittle. It's almost like calling a fundamentalist a "fundie" or a young-earth creationist calling a neo-Darwinian evolutionist a "NDE"..."Those NDE's are so sinful" 2. The tone is patronizing. For example this line: "As the technical sophistication of YECs increased over the years..." especially in light of the following - "new attempts to explain away..." 3. The line "...to fit into their beliefs." is definitely intended to be condescending - especially if a scientist wrote it. 4. and this line: "Robert V. Gentry, the creationist most famous for making frequently criticized claims..." (belongs in a criticism section) 5. Also..."Creationist cosmologies are criticized for being pseudoscientific (shouldn't that read "as being"?)by the skeptics that debate YECs as part of the creation-evolution controversy." Now that I read it, that entire sentence is just awkward. 6. In the "See also" section:
Astronomy Astrophysics Speed of light Biblical inerrancy Pseudoscience
7. Lastly, in the links section: "Barry Setterfield attempts to answer his critics."
I am not a Creationist but I am concerned about the quality of content contained in Wikipedia's articles. The minority views should always be given an unbiased and fair treatment precisely because of that - their minority status. These types of articles are always particularly hostile in their content.
72.92.3.153 ( talk) 06:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:DUE: even "in articles specifically about a minority viewpoint ... these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed 3 sections which were not properly referenced and I removed them as they appear to have been given undue weight. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with 2 of these removals, but I think that the John Harnett one can stay because it is backed by the major YEC organisations (eg. Answers in Genesis). I have put that one (and 2 others, which I think are similarly fringe) in a new subsection called "other theories" to help give correct the amount of weight given. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent additions to the 'White hole cosmology' section have aggravated a balance problem there, with the section being written (almost?) entirely from creationist perspectives (mostly Humphreys' own), in violation of WP:DUE. This material needs to be pruned and WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint added. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted the addition of a section devoted to scientific criticisms of the Big Bang. I don't believe this is relevant to the current article. Worse yet, it seems to me to be advocating a view which is clearly not contained in the sources, that "if big bang cosmology has received criticism, that invalidates the theory and opens the door for more 'robust' creationist claims". That is obviously absurd, so if we did include the content, we'd need to be very careful about avoiding those sorts of implications. Still, I could see us including content on creationist objections to the big bang, or science generally, or scientific criticisms of creationism, but I think this material is fundamentally misplaced. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jess, Big Bang is by far the consensus view of scientists. Those other theories are fringe, and have nothing to do with creationism anyway so do not belong here. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 14:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to suffer from the usual problems of lack of globalism, seriously underreporting the scale and extent of creationist cosmologies throughout human history. When all attempts to address this imbalance are summarily and routinely reverted on a variety of shifting pretexts, it becomes apparent that this is no accident, but that there is an organized and conscious attempt to keep the situation as underreported and "selectively informative" as possible. What I wrote above is a mere drop in the bucket in addressing the historiography of the situation. One source mentioned is the Suda article on "Tyrrhenians", another is the Bundahishn. Sources can also easily be found comparing the two. Rather than stick our fingers in our ears and say "we don't want to hear any of this and would rather pretend these doctrines never existed", why not take a route that has honour and present all of the verifiable and relevant facts simply as they are? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The source is not taken out of context; my edit summary describes what it is talking about; the fine-tuning of cosmological constants to allow for the building blocks and environments favorable to life. Do not remove it: it is a valid, reliable source (an academic journal, published by Cambridge) which states nearly verbatim (p. 117) what I am quoting it in support of. if you don't like it, I believe there's a mechanism on Wikipedia to ask for "verification of source" or to "dispute source". The source says what I quote it in favor of: "along with most other cosmologists" believe that the universe is finely-tuned. In the interest of neutrality, I added a proviso in my original edit: that non-theistic cosmologists often invoke the anthropic principle to explain this, but you found even that unacceptable. JohnChrysostom ( talk) 09:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in
several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life. This claim is made on the basis that existence of vital substances such as carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain physical parameters, and on the cosmological initial conditions. The analysis usually does not extend to more than these broad-brush considerations – that the observed universe is a ‘well-found laboratory’ in which the great experiment called life has been successfully carried out (Barrow and Tipler, 198?). So the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather, it is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires. Such fine-tuning is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition for biogenesis. Thus ‘anthropic’ reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted but is only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes in which life flourishes because biogensis occurs frequently, i.e. life
forms from scratch repeatedly and easily.
So this source does not support the bald claim that "most other scientists - this is called scientific consensus" "believe that the universe is ' finely tuned' for life". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel: if you hate science so much, then why don't you take yourself to somewhere that shares your preference for ignorant populist bigotry, like Conservapedia? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find a discussion on this? Neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I've read the article and it seems to comply admirably with this? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The "fact" that TO is "reporting on" in this case, is that the BBT Theory has "falsified" every religion in the world. You say that they are only reporting what scientists concluded. Please name the specific scientists who have reached this conclusion. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel:
If you want to play Don Quixote, I would suggest you find yourself a drama club -- the role is getting rather frayed-around-the-edges here. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's another issue. The title "Creationist cosmologies" suggests that it would cover any and all cosmologies that hold the cosmos was created by a creator - regardless of how it was done, or how long ago. Yet the first sentence defines (on whose authority?) a "creationist cosmology" as being the cosmology of a Young Earth Creationist (which isn't even always the same as a Young Universe Creationist, for that matter).
What about the cosmologies of Old Earth Creationists / Old Universe Creationists? Are they not "creationist cosmologies" as well? Or is it sufficient for the article to attack Young Universe Creationism, and thereby "disprove" all Creationism, including Old Universe Creationism, by implication? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Because of the title and repeated use of the phrase "creationist cosmology" without any qualification, it is confusing or misleading to make it sound like it is debunking *all* forms of creationism. Your assertion that "Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology" would be close enough for me, and not necessarily OR, since the sourced article on Old Earth Creationism already states as much. Retitling the article to "Young Earth Creationist cosmologies" and replacing the phrase "creationist cosmology" with "YEC cosmology" to make clearer to idiots like me what we are talking about, would also probably do the trick. As it stands, the opening sentence is the OR, since NO known source or reference defines "Creationist cosmology" as excluding OEC cosmologies and including only YEC cosmologies. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, the above comments by User:Hrafn were not added to a thread titled 'Enough of the Ad Hominems'. Any addition of such a title after the fact will be viewed as WP:REFACTORing. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The great irony here is that the YEC Cosmology I have seen articulated the most often, is not represented on this page at all. I will describe my understanding of it below, but sources will need to be found to build it into a section.
For want of a better nomenclature, it could be described as "Young Earth, Old Universe". It interprets Genesis 1 as follows:
The first two things it says were created, are Day (light) and Night (darkness). Then it says quite clearly, "And the evening and the morning were the first day". This "first day", the interpretation goes, was probably not an "earth day" of 24 hours as we know it, because the Earth as such didn't appear until the third "day". It was just a period of light and darkness, the only things yet in existence, swirling around each other like a primordial Yin and Yang if you will, and this first "day" could well have been billions of "earth years" in duration, for all the narrative implies.
This isn't my original interpretation; the idea that these "days" were not earth days of 24 hours each is one of the most commonplace YEC interpetations there is, as far as I know. Why is it not represented anywhere in this article? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 19:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The sentence
"Setterfield's proposal was that the speed of light (c), was infinite in the past, but has slowed substantially over time."
appears in the c decay section. Norman and Setterfield have never said that the speed of light was infinite at any time, only that some others who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago thought so. See the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the forward to their 1987 paper (in http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.120.25 ( talk) 03:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely tried to improve the article, but I've lost it. If anyone out there is watching, please help. PiCo ( talk) 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest some sources - representative ones, not just individuals with personal theories? What exactly do creationists believe about the form and nature of the universe - finite, closed, flat, what? PiCo ( talk) 12:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The article lead, while discussing Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists, stated "the underlying motivation for both is a fear that science, by denying a role for God in the origin of the world, removes the purpose for mankind's existence." I have removed that unsourced statement from the article. That statement is just as silly as Christians saying that atheists really do believe in God, but their motivation for being atheists is a fear of eternal damnation. It is improper to assign motivations to someone else. Clearly, the reason the YEC and OEC believes what they believe is because that is how they interpret the bible, which to them is the final authority of truth. Please do not restore that faulty motivation-assigning statement without citing reliable sources. 24.22.75.14 ( talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creationist cosmologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Creationist cosmologies redirect. 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: 1 |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I suggest this: two sections one written by informed creationists and one written by informed opposition. There are a lot of misrepresentations in here and factual errors. For example it doesn't take much research to realize that the reason for rejecting the invalid astronomy was not to do with "painstaking observations" but because no working model could be developed with stellar objects like supernova within a 6000 light year radius (this is directly from the "answers book" produced by creationist organization Answers in Genesis").
Secondly as far as I am aware the sun and the solar system is believed to be 6000 years old by creationists. One of the supports they cite for this is (from an article in TJ) they believe that the sun would have changed significantly in intensity over a period of billions of years due to the evolution of it's core. Thirdly i don't see why the blue shift is a problem. If you have a blue shift and a red shift (from expansion) then you will get a total shift based on which shift is greater. Observations show a red shift so the conclusion (in this model) would be that the actual speed of the receeding galaxies is higher than the redshift indicates. Fourthly can you name me a single observation that supports the copernican principle? You claim that these observations exists. I am certainly unaware of them. The copernican principle is philisophical not based in evidence. To prove or disprove the principle one could make a string to construct a circle and check to see whether or not the ratio of the circumference of the circle to the length of the string is exactly 2pi. However to do this one would allegedly need a string 100 million galaxies long. I am unaware of this experiment ever taking place (source: undergraduate lecture from professer David Pegg). Finally I wasn't aware that there were solutions to the problems of dark matter or inflation. If what you're saying is true please keep it quiet as you would put a lot of physicists out of jobs ;). A recent article on quant_ph (arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0501066) even suggested a violation of the spin statistics theorem for neutrinos as a possible solution to the dark matter problem (Of course having a dirac spinor which was a boson would have unbounded negative energy states as an infinite number of particles could fill any state). So from the "vibe" of that article i hardly think the problem is solved. These are all the problems i can remember for now cheers
I've just been reading the article, and I find it to be a oddly written. It jubilantly tells us that "The current cosmological paradigm is built on painstaking observations" and that "These distances have been built on painstaking observations", which feels like it was written by someone who was just a little more than tired of having to explain it.
At one point it is suggested that "These types of arguments are meant to imply that discrediting the Big Bang will bring credibility to creationist cosmologies." One might just as easily conclude that discrediting the Big Bang model is inherent to creationist cosmologies. If the 'scientists' involved manage to prove their assertions, they will have effectively disproven the Big Bang model. Also, should they manage to directly disprove the Big Bang model, they should certainly have earned the respect of many scientist.
If this article is to be nothing more than a list of creationist viewpoints and a short note explaining their inadequacy, this article needn't exist. -- Ec5618 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
It is understandably difficult to be objective on a subject such as this. I do however feel that greater effort should be made, in the interests of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia and the schools of thought mentioned in this article, to have more informative and less argumentative articles and/or styles of writing. Informative decisions and arguments can only be made if all parties have access to non-partisan information. Then, and only then, can the intellectual discussions take place in the appropriate forums. Hvrensburg 18:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The section Arguments currently used by creationists should include the one based on so-called "short-term comets." soverman 20:25 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Since by the definition of the metre, it is inextricably linked with the speed of light, how can any change in the speed of light be "easily detected with modern electronic equipment?" Dan Watts 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that these suggestions are of the form of pseudoscience. We have an anon who currently disagrees. Would they be willing to explain here? -- ScienceApologist 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Gravitational Time Dilation actually is observed in GPS satellites. Gravitational_Time_Dilation#Experimental_Confirmation
AIG is a major creation institute and should have it site directly linked
The page is very light on sources, here's some:
The obvious one, talk.origins [1]
Another talk.origins source [2] - talk origins generally identifies the origins of the creationist claim as well, making them doubly efficacious.
Creation wiki article, light on sources and not really reliable as a source itself.
Possibly tomorrow I'll try to add to it. WLU ( talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I just happened across this page. I think the editor's choice to redirect this page due to its lack of sources was fair. However a quick scan of the most recent version shows much useful material, and I hope that it will be recovered - with appropriate referencing, that is. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I hereby propose that c-decay, and re-propose that Starlight problem, be merged here. WP:MERGE rationales are: (2) 'Overlap' & (4) 'Context'. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the various cosmological ideas on this page have pretty good consensus responses. However, Lisle's phenomenological argument and Humphrey's magnetic field prediction are just stated without any rebuttal. It might be good to add some mainstream views on these; otherwise they would sound too convincing to readers.
This is particularly the case with respect to Lisle's claims. As far as I know, he argues that a difference simultaneity frame (using a location-based frame for Einstein's equations instead of inertial reference frame) allows the universe to be modeled in such a way that time and distance are directly related by c, so that light reaches any observer immediately from their point of view. A mainstream response to this, as well as any falsifiable predictions made by this model, would be good. 72.151.50.172 ( talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Some of the lines in this article are not up to Wikipedia's standard of impartiality. Whoever wrote these was a hostile source. For example: "As the technical sophistication of YECs increased over the years, new attempts to explain away the scientific evidence for the age of the universe of 13.7 billion years has also been incorporated. YECs now re-interpret phenomena such as galactic redshifts and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to fit into their beliefs."
1. The acronym "YEC" is meant to belittle. It's almost like calling a fundamentalist a "fundie" or a young-earth creationist calling a neo-Darwinian evolutionist a "NDE"..."Those NDE's are so sinful" 2. The tone is patronizing. For example this line: "As the technical sophistication of YECs increased over the years..." especially in light of the following - "new attempts to explain away..." 3. The line "...to fit into their beliefs." is definitely intended to be condescending - especially if a scientist wrote it. 4. and this line: "Robert V. Gentry, the creationist most famous for making frequently criticized claims..." (belongs in a criticism section) 5. Also..."Creationist cosmologies are criticized for being pseudoscientific (shouldn't that read "as being"?)by the skeptics that debate YECs as part of the creation-evolution controversy." Now that I read it, that entire sentence is just awkward. 6. In the "See also" section:
Astronomy Astrophysics Speed of light Biblical inerrancy Pseudoscience
7. Lastly, in the links section: "Barry Setterfield attempts to answer his critics."
I am not a Creationist but I am concerned about the quality of content contained in Wikipedia's articles. The minority views should always be given an unbiased and fair treatment precisely because of that - their minority status. These types of articles are always particularly hostile in their content.
72.92.3.153 ( talk) 06:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:DUE: even "in articles specifically about a minority viewpoint ... these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed 3 sections which were not properly referenced and I removed them as they appear to have been given undue weight. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with 2 of these removals, but I think that the John Harnett one can stay because it is backed by the major YEC organisations (eg. Answers in Genesis). I have put that one (and 2 others, which I think are similarly fringe) in a new subsection called "other theories" to help give correct the amount of weight given. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent additions to the 'White hole cosmology' section have aggravated a balance problem there, with the section being written (almost?) entirely from creationist perspectives (mostly Humphreys' own), in violation of WP:DUE. This material needs to be pruned and WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint added. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted the addition of a section devoted to scientific criticisms of the Big Bang. I don't believe this is relevant to the current article. Worse yet, it seems to me to be advocating a view which is clearly not contained in the sources, that "if big bang cosmology has received criticism, that invalidates the theory and opens the door for more 'robust' creationist claims". That is obviously absurd, so if we did include the content, we'd need to be very careful about avoiding those sorts of implications. Still, I could see us including content on creationist objections to the big bang, or science generally, or scientific criticisms of creationism, but I think this material is fundamentally misplaced. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jess, Big Bang is by far the consensus view of scientists. Those other theories are fringe, and have nothing to do with creationism anyway so do not belong here. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 14:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to suffer from the usual problems of lack of globalism, seriously underreporting the scale and extent of creationist cosmologies throughout human history. When all attempts to address this imbalance are summarily and routinely reverted on a variety of shifting pretexts, it becomes apparent that this is no accident, but that there is an organized and conscious attempt to keep the situation as underreported and "selectively informative" as possible. What I wrote above is a mere drop in the bucket in addressing the historiography of the situation. One source mentioned is the Suda article on "Tyrrhenians", another is the Bundahishn. Sources can also easily be found comparing the two. Rather than stick our fingers in our ears and say "we don't want to hear any of this and would rather pretend these doctrines never existed", why not take a route that has honour and present all of the verifiable and relevant facts simply as they are? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The source is not taken out of context; my edit summary describes what it is talking about; the fine-tuning of cosmological constants to allow for the building blocks and environments favorable to life. Do not remove it: it is a valid, reliable source (an academic journal, published by Cambridge) which states nearly verbatim (p. 117) what I am quoting it in support of. if you don't like it, I believe there's a mechanism on Wikipedia to ask for "verification of source" or to "dispute source". The source says what I quote it in favor of: "along with most other cosmologists" believe that the universe is finely-tuned. In the interest of neutrality, I added a proviso in my original edit: that non-theistic cosmologists often invoke the anthropic principle to explain this, but you found even that unacceptable. JohnChrysostom ( talk) 09:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in
several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life. This claim is made on the basis that existence of vital substances such as carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain physical parameters, and on the cosmological initial conditions. The analysis usually does not extend to more than these broad-brush considerations – that the observed universe is a ‘well-found laboratory’ in which the great experiment called life has been successfully carried out (Barrow and Tipler, 198?). So the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather, it is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires. Such fine-tuning is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition for biogenesis. Thus ‘anthropic’ reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted but is only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes in which life flourishes because biogensis occurs frequently, i.e. life
forms from scratch repeatedly and easily.
So this source does not support the bald claim that "most other scientists - this is called scientific consensus" "believe that the universe is ' finely tuned' for life". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel: if you hate science so much, then why don't you take yourself to somewhere that shares your preference for ignorant populist bigotry, like Conservapedia? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find a discussion on this? Neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I've read the article and it seems to comply admirably with this? Theroadislong ( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The "fact" that TO is "reporting on" in this case, is that the BBT Theory has "falsified" every religion in the world. You say that they are only reporting what scientists concluded. Please name the specific scientists who have reached this conclusion. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel:
If you want to play Don Quixote, I would suggest you find yourself a drama club -- the role is getting rather frayed-around-the-edges here. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's another issue. The title "Creationist cosmologies" suggests that it would cover any and all cosmologies that hold the cosmos was created by a creator - regardless of how it was done, or how long ago. Yet the first sentence defines (on whose authority?) a "creationist cosmology" as being the cosmology of a Young Earth Creationist (which isn't even always the same as a Young Universe Creationist, for that matter).
What about the cosmologies of Old Earth Creationists / Old Universe Creationists? Are they not "creationist cosmologies" as well? Or is it sufficient for the article to attack Young Universe Creationism, and thereby "disprove" all Creationism, including Old Universe Creationism, by implication? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Because of the title and repeated use of the phrase "creationist cosmology" without any qualification, it is confusing or misleading to make it sound like it is debunking *all* forms of creationism. Your assertion that "Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology" would be close enough for me, and not necessarily OR, since the sourced article on Old Earth Creationism already states as much. Retitling the article to "Young Earth Creationist cosmologies" and replacing the phrase "creationist cosmology" with "YEC cosmology" to make clearer to idiots like me what we are talking about, would also probably do the trick. As it stands, the opening sentence is the OR, since NO known source or reference defines "Creationist cosmology" as excluding OEC cosmologies and including only YEC cosmologies. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, the above comments by User:Hrafn were not added to a thread titled 'Enough of the Ad Hominems'. Any addition of such a title after the fact will be viewed as WP:REFACTORing. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The great irony here is that the YEC Cosmology I have seen articulated the most often, is not represented on this page at all. I will describe my understanding of it below, but sources will need to be found to build it into a section.
For want of a better nomenclature, it could be described as "Young Earth, Old Universe". It interprets Genesis 1 as follows:
The first two things it says were created, are Day (light) and Night (darkness). Then it says quite clearly, "And the evening and the morning were the first day". This "first day", the interpretation goes, was probably not an "earth day" of 24 hours as we know it, because the Earth as such didn't appear until the third "day". It was just a period of light and darkness, the only things yet in existence, swirling around each other like a primordial Yin and Yang if you will, and this first "day" could well have been billions of "earth years" in duration, for all the narrative implies.
This isn't my original interpretation; the idea that these "days" were not earth days of 24 hours each is one of the most commonplace YEC interpetations there is, as far as I know. Why is it not represented anywhere in this article? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 19:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The sentence
"Setterfield's proposal was that the speed of light (c), was infinite in the past, but has slowed substantially over time."
appears in the c decay section. Norman and Setterfield have never said that the speed of light was infinite at any time, only that some others who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago thought so. See the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the forward to their 1987 paper (in http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.120.25 ( talk) 03:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely tried to improve the article, but I've lost it. If anyone out there is watching, please help. PiCo ( talk) 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest some sources - representative ones, not just individuals with personal theories? What exactly do creationists believe about the form and nature of the universe - finite, closed, flat, what? PiCo ( talk) 12:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The article lead, while discussing Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists, stated "the underlying motivation for both is a fear that science, by denying a role for God in the origin of the world, removes the purpose for mankind's existence." I have removed that unsourced statement from the article. That statement is just as silly as Christians saying that atheists really do believe in God, but their motivation for being atheists is a fear of eternal damnation. It is improper to assign motivations to someone else. Clearly, the reason the YEC and OEC believes what they believe is because that is how they interpret the bible, which to them is the final authority of truth. Please do not restore that faulty motivation-assigning statement without citing reliable sources. 24.22.75.14 ( talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creationist cosmologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)