This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Creationism: Young Earth creationism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as Top-importance). Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs (merged article)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Since 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]