![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I brought this up ages ago but it seems that in that time the change we agreed on was reverted. If you bother reading the sentence below the table that gives the number of "scientists" that hold those opinions you would see that "scientist" is defined as "someone with a professional degree in science". This is an important distinction because some would define a scientist as someone with a pHd in science, or someone whose employeed to actively research some aspect of science. To avoid confusion and allegations of intentionally misleading readers the poll's definition of scientist should be emphasised. Eccentricned ( talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that the description of the poll in the article does not agree with the description of the poll in the reference [63]. The correct description for the group is not "US adults with professional degrees in science" but rather should be "scientists" in order to accurately describe the poll. Regardless, as noted above, this opinion poll is not really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article describing this subject and should simply be removed from he article. Mkwelborn ( talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —
I'm just wondering if creation should have a capital "C" in it or a lowercase "c". There seems to be no reason to regard it as a proper noun. I see some logic, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendation, in using a capital letter for the Creator, as this is a proper name. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there have been no responses, shall I conclude that the event of "creation" should indeed have a lowercase "c" since it is not a proper noun, whereas "Creator" should have an upper case "C"? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
While I'm sure that serious students of the topic enjoy the differences between YEC and Creation Science, I don't think that the two topics are, on their face, distinct enough to warrant separate articles. This entry is far too long and the authors have spent far too much time relating useless detail after useless detail (as well as the obligatory criticism of those details). Call a spade a spade: while YEC might mean the world to some editors, it's really just another footnote of creation science which, in turn, is just a footnote of theology. Let's strive for clarity, Wikipedians, and stop clogging the tubes with this overwrought prose. 98.219.34.116 ( talk) 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this previous entry belongs to me. I see that I'm still unable to edit this article, but as soon as I'm able to do so I will suggest that it be condensed and merged with the creation science article. If the stewards of this verbose article care to address that same verbosity then I would be happy to hear their arguments. EDITED TO INCLUDE SIGNATURE Highmind89 ( talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Christian Skeptic's claims are fallacious:
Whether separate articles are needed for YEC and pseudoscientific apologetics for YEC (i.e. 'Creation Science') is another matter. My impression is that there is insufficient overlap to warrant merging and more than sufficient RS information to support the two separate articles . Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
With Hrafn retired, please see MsTopeka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 ( talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Zuiyo Maru.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue of whether the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are admissible as sources for the beliefs of creationists has already been discussed in the archives at /Archive 5#Unreliable sources, where it was determined that there was nothing wrong with the sources. An anonymous IP, who is running under a Tor proxy (see [1], [2]) continues to remove these sources. Another (?) anonymous editor behind a Tor proxy has already disruptively and tendentiously attempted to stir up trouble here some time ago. If edit-warring continues, I will have the page semiprotected so that only established users can edit it. In the mean time, I suggest that the IP editor consider that the topic ban against Tor users who try to remove sources from this article remains in effect. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you were looking for Tor (anonymity network). I don't happen to agree with that consensus, by the way, but I offer my support anyway. My reasoning is that while it does INVOLVE a religious belief, the content being supported is not. For example, rather than saying that the opponents are prejudiced, why not simply accept that the see things differently... that THEIR faith conflicts with the YEC faith. I will look at the text, and see if I can offer a bit of help, if the war lets me. sinneed ( talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the wording, as its previous state would seem to me to violate wp:BLP. I believe the current wording is a neutral statement of the fact that the YEC organizations cited strongly condemn the lack of support. I would encourage you not to restore the old wording without careful consideration of wp:BLP. All the best, and I hope that helps. sinneed ( talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"For example," - this says that the following text is an example of a consensus. It isn't needed lead-in. My favorite English prof would yell "JUST SAY IT!"
"evidence-based facts" - Current, excellent theory. Not facts. Excellent evidence. How can people trust us when we mislead them?
"established" - false. Conclusions and theories are supported by evidence.
"derived experimental results" - derived is not correct. The results are the results.
"without any contradiction from scientific evidence" - pointless and OR. The numbers vary, they *MUST*. We have inferences, averages, and consensus. Claiming exact numbers, 100% agreement, etc. is false and destroys credibility. There is no excuse for it.
"that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" - Why not hit the low end and say "more than"? Then there *ISN'T* any contradiction. There most certainly is for the 4.5 billion number. What's a few hundred million either way? Just longer than humans have been walking around, that is all.
"common primordial origin" - primordial is just for effect. Indicated: common origin. Inference: primordial. For all we know it all died off and new stuff came along. Maybe more than once. Why not stay to things that are easy to defend?
sinneed ( talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
At http://www.interacademies.net "© Copyright 2005-2008 IAP. All Rights Reserved." appears on short study to apply to the text in the lead-in copied from http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
If not, it needs to be documented, and really, the fact that it is quoted should be shown by quotes at least. They deserve credit.
If so, it needs to be rephrased. This certainly explains the pedantic wording.
sinneed ( talk) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"^ Christianity and Judaism being the two major religions for which Genesis is canonical."
This statement appears to be cited as a wp:reliable source in the lead-in. Killing it. Perhaps it should be a parenthetical phrase? sinneed ( talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Finding a copy of the cited source shows no mention of "Young Earth" or "Creationism" anywhere in the book. sinneed ( talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Does sinneed have a source for any non-Christian or Jewish young earth creationists? I honestly can't see a legitimate reason to fight for this tag (especially a cite for the nonexistent word "only") unless one had some sort of evidence these people actually exist. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've notice spots where the YEC topic flips around from being a subject YE Creationism to it being a reference for people YE CreationISTS". I believe this article should not be a forum to take pot-shots at people, but should keep to a distanced view by discussing the subject matter and not discussing adherents. A business like approach is to address the subject not the people. Less personal that way on a heated topic. Kristinwt ( talk) 09:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Can anybody point to a prominent form of YEC that is not closely associated with claims that the scientific community generally regard as pseudoscientific? By YEC, I am meaning viewpoints since the geological discoveries of the 17th century that made the age of the Earth an issue, and particularly those views coming after the popularisation of Biblical literalism and adoption of the label 'Creationism' in the early-to-mid 20th century.
Given George McCready Price, The Genesis Flood, ICR, AiG, etc, etc, the overlap between YEC & its pseudoscientific claims would appear to be complete. This would appear to be in contrast to Gap creationism and Day-age creationism, which hew to a more accomodationist path, finding theological solutions to accommodate the scientific discoveries of their day.
I would therefore recommend the re-inclusion of the 'pseudoescience' cat. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a passage in the article which states, without citation, that
The only supporting statement given is a quote from one Coptic Orthodox cleric.
I believe this statement is dubious – first, the Oriental Orthodox churches are autocephalous/independent, so for the above statement to be true, YEC would have to be the official position of all the national churches that make up the Oriental Orthodox Communion. Second, I see no proof that any of these churches have taken an official, church-wide position on evolutionism versus creationism, Young Earth or otherwise.
Basically, unless some back up references can be produced, this section needs to go. Peter G Werner ( talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic until a reliable source can be found linking Trinitarian theology to YEC |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Do Young Earth creationists have any particular beliefs about the Holy Trinity ? I am surprised that Trinitarian beliefs about Creation are not included in the creationism series, since it is of course the orthodox Nicean teaching about who God is and what he does. Having a Trinitarian view of Creation means that the Father is Creator, the Son is Creator and the Spirit is also Creator ; but there is only one Creator. The Athanasian creed provides the basis for much of the Trinitarian creation theology. ADM ( talk) 01:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are looking for a connection between the creation of 'all things' and trinitarian beliefs that I would suggested to start with commentaries on these verses. As a basic starting point, one trinitarian view of this verse would have Word (note it's capitalization) being a title for The Son, God being God the Father, and and the verbs 'made', 'shines', and 'through' implying the Spirit of God. As a matter of personal opinion, assigning creation to one of these rather than all of them would be the same as saying leaves of a Euphorbia milii create glucose and not giving any credit to the vital roots and stems.
|
Much like the lunar landings hoax, I'd like a section added that deals with some of the major claims of the YEC that prove the earth is young.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Hoax_claims_examined
For example, the lunar dust theory (and how was supposed to be a lot more than NASA expected) has been proven wrong time and time again, yet it is still commonly referenced. Another is the antarctic ice core samples, and how the YECs compare it to snow fall layers in the arctic (antarctic is a desert). Sedimentary layers that are deposited at a common intervals, the change in magnetic fields of the Atlantic ocean floor and there are living TREES that have been dated to be older that 10,000 years. 70.75.51.202 ( talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
<<Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[2] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account.[1][3]>> Genesis does not mention hours or define a day as 24 hours, the 24 hour day was not invented until the 4th day. Therefore believing that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days is NOT taking the Hebrew text literally, so as a fundamentalist I object to this distortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.151.136 ( talk) 00:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is frankly misleading (or at least irrelevant) to use Dei Verbum as a way to attack YECs. First of all, Dei Verbum is a very conservative document which literally claims that God himself wrote the Bible. It goes way beyond the typical infalliblity position and actually cites a good deal of material in favour of the inerrantist view. It discusses the nature of divine revelation and does not try to explain what creation exactly is or why God was doing what he did at this particular moment in earthly terms. It is also a very magisterial interpretation of Scripture which privileges the works of the Church Fathers above the private interpretations of Protestant scholars, be they fundamentalist or not. ADM ( talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do the images of Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Throckmorton Guildersleeve ( talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This EL:
In fact, as far as I can see, the link makes no explicit mention of 'young earth'. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Muslims also believe in the creation of the earth by God, and that there are some of them who hold to the Young Earth creationist view. Would it not be prudent to include them in the trio of the three religious groups that show at least some support for this view?
The situation: An anonymous IP has been placing this category up in the "See also" section. It has been removed at least 3 times that I can tell, and this IP places it right back. Most recently it was then place back by an established User, who criticized the another editor for taking it down, even though it is within Wikipedia guidelines, and even though they left reasonable and instructive comments on the IP's page. Therefore I have moved it here to place it up for discussion to stop the edit war that is brewing.
Question for discussion: Does Denialism belong in the See also section? Cheers, T Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 21:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we put the link back in now? Or is the POINT still being made? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Aunt E., stop being so arrogant. Why do you have to be so? I have put a comment on Smage's talk page telling him/her about this and I think that he/she should be given time to respond why he thinks that this should not be here -- you've barely allowed an hour. Believe it or not, this article has survived a long time without that wiki-link and I'm sure it can last another day out of common courtesy to other editors.
T Berg
Drop a Line ޗ pls
22:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, I was trying to solve a conflict between two other editors in a simple manner. I have seen it moved to talk pages before and it has worked, and so I was doing the same. I had only good intentions (see
here, and
here) - which was to allow the anonymous IP's edit to stand without having a User keep deleting it and calling it vandalism (as was happening). It is also true, I initially called it vandalism several days ago (AuntE. only gave 1 side of the story and spread this half truth around:
Here), but I apologized for it to the IP (I was hasty in my vandalism patrol), and this was my attempt to make it up to that IP:
When I noticed that it kept being labeled as vandalism, I moved it here in order to form a consensus, so that it could stand in the article. I did it this way, because I wanted to assume good faith with the User who deleted it, which is what I hadn't done originally with the IP who added it. Unlike others who came here for the sole purpose of being "cantankerous" and looking to create an edit war ( see here), I was trying my best not to step on toes in a very, very minor occurrence that has been blown out of the water by some who otherwise have no interest in this article. However, it's done. Let's leave it alone. T Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
YEC involves the denial of wide swathes of science -- evolutionary biology, palaeontology, geology, nuclear physics (underlying much of geochronology), astrophysics and cosmology immediately come to mind. The category would therefore seem to be accurate. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I brought this up ages ago but it seems that in that time the change we agreed on was reverted. If you bother reading the sentence below the table that gives the number of "scientists" that hold those opinions you would see that "scientist" is defined as "someone with a professional degree in science". This is an important distinction because some would define a scientist as someone with a pHd in science, or someone whose employeed to actively research some aspect of science. To avoid confusion and allegations of intentionally misleading readers the poll's definition of scientist should be emphasised. Eccentricned ( talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that the description of the poll in the article does not agree with the description of the poll in the reference [63]. The correct description for the group is not "US adults with professional degrees in science" but rather should be "scientists" in order to accurately describe the poll. Regardless, as noted above, this opinion poll is not really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article describing this subject and should simply be removed from he article. Mkwelborn ( talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —
I'm just wondering if creation should have a capital "C" in it or a lowercase "c". There seems to be no reason to regard it as a proper noun. I see some logic, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendation, in using a capital letter for the Creator, as this is a proper name. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there have been no responses, shall I conclude that the event of "creation" should indeed have a lowercase "c" since it is not a proper noun, whereas "Creator" should have an upper case "C"? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
While I'm sure that serious students of the topic enjoy the differences between YEC and Creation Science, I don't think that the two topics are, on their face, distinct enough to warrant separate articles. This entry is far too long and the authors have spent far too much time relating useless detail after useless detail (as well as the obligatory criticism of those details). Call a spade a spade: while YEC might mean the world to some editors, it's really just another footnote of creation science which, in turn, is just a footnote of theology. Let's strive for clarity, Wikipedians, and stop clogging the tubes with this overwrought prose. 98.219.34.116 ( talk) 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this previous entry belongs to me. I see that I'm still unable to edit this article, but as soon as I'm able to do so I will suggest that it be condensed and merged with the creation science article. If the stewards of this verbose article care to address that same verbosity then I would be happy to hear their arguments. EDITED TO INCLUDE SIGNATURE Highmind89 ( talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Christian Skeptic's claims are fallacious:
Whether separate articles are needed for YEC and pseudoscientific apologetics for YEC (i.e. 'Creation Science') is another matter. My impression is that there is insufficient overlap to warrant merging and more than sufficient RS information to support the two separate articles . Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
With Hrafn retired, please see MsTopeka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 ( talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Zuiyo Maru.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue of whether the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are admissible as sources for the beliefs of creationists has already been discussed in the archives at /Archive 5#Unreliable sources, where it was determined that there was nothing wrong with the sources. An anonymous IP, who is running under a Tor proxy (see [1], [2]) continues to remove these sources. Another (?) anonymous editor behind a Tor proxy has already disruptively and tendentiously attempted to stir up trouble here some time ago. If edit-warring continues, I will have the page semiprotected so that only established users can edit it. In the mean time, I suggest that the IP editor consider that the topic ban against Tor users who try to remove sources from this article remains in effect. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you were looking for Tor (anonymity network). I don't happen to agree with that consensus, by the way, but I offer my support anyway. My reasoning is that while it does INVOLVE a religious belief, the content being supported is not. For example, rather than saying that the opponents are prejudiced, why not simply accept that the see things differently... that THEIR faith conflicts with the YEC faith. I will look at the text, and see if I can offer a bit of help, if the war lets me. sinneed ( talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the wording, as its previous state would seem to me to violate wp:BLP. I believe the current wording is a neutral statement of the fact that the YEC organizations cited strongly condemn the lack of support. I would encourage you not to restore the old wording without careful consideration of wp:BLP. All the best, and I hope that helps. sinneed ( talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"For example," - this says that the following text is an example of a consensus. It isn't needed lead-in. My favorite English prof would yell "JUST SAY IT!"
"evidence-based facts" - Current, excellent theory. Not facts. Excellent evidence. How can people trust us when we mislead them?
"established" - false. Conclusions and theories are supported by evidence.
"derived experimental results" - derived is not correct. The results are the results.
"without any contradiction from scientific evidence" - pointless and OR. The numbers vary, they *MUST*. We have inferences, averages, and consensus. Claiming exact numbers, 100% agreement, etc. is false and destroys credibility. There is no excuse for it.
"that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" - Why not hit the low end and say "more than"? Then there *ISN'T* any contradiction. There most certainly is for the 4.5 billion number. What's a few hundred million either way? Just longer than humans have been walking around, that is all.
"common primordial origin" - primordial is just for effect. Indicated: common origin. Inference: primordial. For all we know it all died off and new stuff came along. Maybe more than once. Why not stay to things that are easy to defend?
sinneed ( talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
At http://www.interacademies.net "© Copyright 2005-2008 IAP. All Rights Reserved." appears on short study to apply to the text in the lead-in copied from http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
If not, it needs to be documented, and really, the fact that it is quoted should be shown by quotes at least. They deserve credit.
If so, it needs to be rephrased. This certainly explains the pedantic wording.
sinneed ( talk) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"^ Christianity and Judaism being the two major religions for which Genesis is canonical."
This statement appears to be cited as a wp:reliable source in the lead-in. Killing it. Perhaps it should be a parenthetical phrase? sinneed ( talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Finding a copy of the cited source shows no mention of "Young Earth" or "Creationism" anywhere in the book. sinneed ( talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Does sinneed have a source for any non-Christian or Jewish young earth creationists? I honestly can't see a legitimate reason to fight for this tag (especially a cite for the nonexistent word "only") unless one had some sort of evidence these people actually exist. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've notice spots where the YEC topic flips around from being a subject YE Creationism to it being a reference for people YE CreationISTS". I believe this article should not be a forum to take pot-shots at people, but should keep to a distanced view by discussing the subject matter and not discussing adherents. A business like approach is to address the subject not the people. Less personal that way on a heated topic. Kristinwt ( talk) 09:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Can anybody point to a prominent form of YEC that is not closely associated with claims that the scientific community generally regard as pseudoscientific? By YEC, I am meaning viewpoints since the geological discoveries of the 17th century that made the age of the Earth an issue, and particularly those views coming after the popularisation of Biblical literalism and adoption of the label 'Creationism' in the early-to-mid 20th century.
Given George McCready Price, The Genesis Flood, ICR, AiG, etc, etc, the overlap between YEC & its pseudoscientific claims would appear to be complete. This would appear to be in contrast to Gap creationism and Day-age creationism, which hew to a more accomodationist path, finding theological solutions to accommodate the scientific discoveries of their day.
I would therefore recommend the re-inclusion of the 'pseudoescience' cat. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a passage in the article which states, without citation, that
The only supporting statement given is a quote from one Coptic Orthodox cleric.
I believe this statement is dubious – first, the Oriental Orthodox churches are autocephalous/independent, so for the above statement to be true, YEC would have to be the official position of all the national churches that make up the Oriental Orthodox Communion. Second, I see no proof that any of these churches have taken an official, church-wide position on evolutionism versus creationism, Young Earth or otherwise.
Basically, unless some back up references can be produced, this section needs to go. Peter G Werner ( talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic until a reliable source can be found linking Trinitarian theology to YEC |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Do Young Earth creationists have any particular beliefs about the Holy Trinity ? I am surprised that Trinitarian beliefs about Creation are not included in the creationism series, since it is of course the orthodox Nicean teaching about who God is and what he does. Having a Trinitarian view of Creation means that the Father is Creator, the Son is Creator and the Spirit is also Creator ; but there is only one Creator. The Athanasian creed provides the basis for much of the Trinitarian creation theology. ADM ( talk) 01:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are looking for a connection between the creation of 'all things' and trinitarian beliefs that I would suggested to start with commentaries on these verses. As a basic starting point, one trinitarian view of this verse would have Word (note it's capitalization) being a title for The Son, God being God the Father, and and the verbs 'made', 'shines', and 'through' implying the Spirit of God. As a matter of personal opinion, assigning creation to one of these rather than all of them would be the same as saying leaves of a Euphorbia milii create glucose and not giving any credit to the vital roots and stems.
|
Much like the lunar landings hoax, I'd like a section added that deals with some of the major claims of the YEC that prove the earth is young.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Hoax_claims_examined
For example, the lunar dust theory (and how was supposed to be a lot more than NASA expected) has been proven wrong time and time again, yet it is still commonly referenced. Another is the antarctic ice core samples, and how the YECs compare it to snow fall layers in the arctic (antarctic is a desert). Sedimentary layers that are deposited at a common intervals, the change in magnetic fields of the Atlantic ocean floor and there are living TREES that have been dated to be older that 10,000 years. 70.75.51.202 ( talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
<<Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[2] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account.[1][3]>> Genesis does not mention hours or define a day as 24 hours, the 24 hour day was not invented until the 4th day. Therefore believing that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days is NOT taking the Hebrew text literally, so as a fundamentalist I object to this distortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.151.136 ( talk) 00:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is frankly misleading (or at least irrelevant) to use Dei Verbum as a way to attack YECs. First of all, Dei Verbum is a very conservative document which literally claims that God himself wrote the Bible. It goes way beyond the typical infalliblity position and actually cites a good deal of material in favour of the inerrantist view. It discusses the nature of divine revelation and does not try to explain what creation exactly is or why God was doing what he did at this particular moment in earthly terms. It is also a very magisterial interpretation of Scripture which privileges the works of the Church Fathers above the private interpretations of Protestant scholars, be they fundamentalist or not. ADM ( talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do the images of Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Throckmorton Guildersleeve ( talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This EL:
In fact, as far as I can see, the link makes no explicit mention of 'young earth'. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Muslims also believe in the creation of the earth by God, and that there are some of them who hold to the Young Earth creationist view. Would it not be prudent to include them in the trio of the three religious groups that show at least some support for this view?
The situation: An anonymous IP has been placing this category up in the "See also" section. It has been removed at least 3 times that I can tell, and this IP places it right back. Most recently it was then place back by an established User, who criticized the another editor for taking it down, even though it is within Wikipedia guidelines, and even though they left reasonable and instructive comments on the IP's page. Therefore I have moved it here to place it up for discussion to stop the edit war that is brewing.
Question for discussion: Does Denialism belong in the See also section? Cheers, T Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 21:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we put the link back in now? Or is the POINT still being made? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Aunt E., stop being so arrogant. Why do you have to be so? I have put a comment on Smage's talk page telling him/her about this and I think that he/she should be given time to respond why he thinks that this should not be here -- you've barely allowed an hour. Believe it or not, this article has survived a long time without that wiki-link and I'm sure it can last another day out of common courtesy to other editors.
T Berg
Drop a Line ޗ pls
22:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, I was trying to solve a conflict between two other editors in a simple manner. I have seen it moved to talk pages before and it has worked, and so I was doing the same. I had only good intentions (see
here, and
here) - which was to allow the anonymous IP's edit to stand without having a User keep deleting it and calling it vandalism (as was happening). It is also true, I initially called it vandalism several days ago (AuntE. only gave 1 side of the story and spread this half truth around:
Here), but I apologized for it to the IP (I was hasty in my vandalism patrol), and this was my attempt to make it up to that IP:
When I noticed that it kept being labeled as vandalism, I moved it here in order to form a consensus, so that it could stand in the article. I did it this way, because I wanted to assume good faith with the User who deleted it, which is what I hadn't done originally with the IP who added it. Unlike others who came here for the sole purpose of being "cantankerous" and looking to create an edit war ( see here), I was trying my best not to step on toes in a very, very minor occurrence that has been blown out of the water by some who otherwise have no interest in this article. However, it's done. Let's leave it alone. T Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
YEC involves the denial of wide swathes of science -- evolutionary biology, palaeontology, geology, nuclear physics (underlying much of geochronology), astrophysics and cosmology immediately come to mind. The category would therefore seem to be accurate. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)