I really believe reasonable discussion was abandoned long ago in this article. It seems there is quite a bit of agenda pushing and mockery going on here. The article is supposed to be about Young Earth creationism but one of the leading proponents is nearly a pariah to be mentioned here. The Ken Hamm vs. Bill Nye debate was succinctly eliminated. Bill Nye was respectful in his debate as was Ken Hamm yet it was quickly eliminated. Why would that not be relevant? I searched through the last 2 years of edits and kept finding that same pattern. Not supported then they list their reference and then someone says the source does not fit their guidelines. Well news flash it does not have to meet your guidelines as long as it is a credible source that covers the subject matter. It would only make sense that those who believe in YEC would be included in the references. Eliminating YEC doctrine and beliefs does not expand the knowledge of this subject but it eliminates knowledge. It as if some fear that others may be converted to YEC beliefs. And if they are, why should that be any ones concern unless they need to burn the information so they can more effectively push their own doctrine. I suggest a more open article that presents the YEC beliefs so readers can gain in their understanding. Even Bill Nye stated he learned something from Ken Hamm. And we can all learn if it was truly an open and fairly presented encyclopedic article. It is sad to see so much personal ideology masquerading under the misuse of wiki alphabet soup policies. The use of bureaucratic process to limit knowledge and understanding is disgusting and scary. The article could be much improved if many of the editors kept that in mind. 172.56.12.89 (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC) PS The title is not debunking YEC as that would be a much different article.

The "Criticism" section is a bit light on references, and could do with an edit to make it conform more closely to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, but apart from that the article seems to me to be pretty even-handed. What statements in the article do you disagree with? Also, have you read Wikipedia' Reliable Sources policy? -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Anome, I agree with 172.56.12.89 about this; the article totally reads like it's an attack on YEC and one would neutrally conclude that it's biased against YEC. For example, it's categorized under "Denialism" and "Pseudoscience", and if you have read the article, you will see things like "contradicted by scientific evidence from numerous scientific from numerous scientific disciplines that shows the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years, the formation of the Earth was 4.5 billion years ago, and life first appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago."

It's important to notice that these might not be the actual dates; therefore, since the dates are not absolute, we cannot call them "scientific evidence", but this is not my exact point. Of course, they fit into the naturalistic point of view, but this article talks about Young Earth Creationism, not naturalism.

What I suggest is the editing of such statements, to something more neutral such as:

"although it's accepted that the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years, the formation of the Earth was 4.5 billion years ago, and life first appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago."

This sounds more neutral and unbiased, in my honest opinion; and would allow readers to enjoy the article more freely, as if any reader tries to read the article now, they will immediately stop if they notice such attacks. The article in the meantime, in my honest opinion, doesn't give any useful information, because it's a mess.

I have tried making some edits, but they always kept getting reverted that Zarcusian has accused me of "pushing agendas" although my only point was to make the article neutral and acceptable for reading from both YEC or opponent parties.

This is unacceptable and goes against the Wikipedia rules. I suggest editing this article to match the neutral point of view, and remove the article from the "Denialism"/"Pseudoscience" categories, and just link the article to Young Earth Creationism category. There's no need to put it under science if that bothers. I would also suggest to freely allow creationists to express their beliefs, and cite their sources to present a reliable explanation from the YEC's point of view since this article is supposed to explain YEC, not attack them. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You are deleting references to Pseudoscience and Denialism without a consensus. You appear to be doing this to align the article with your point of view, that doesn't necessarily create a neutral article. The decision to categorize it under those two areas is based on a factual consensus, not mere opinion. I'm not attacking you, your beliefs, or Christianity whatsoever, nor do I believe the other people reverting your edits intend to. It's your choice to view those categories as an "attack". It's simply not an option to continue to delete those references on this page. Zarcusian (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Zarcusian, I understand that you are not attacking Christianity/Creationism/etc, but you don't know anything about me to claim that I'm doing this to align into my views. I basically posted my opinion, and I suggest improving the way this article addresses YEC in a more neutral way. Wikipedia is starting to get dismissed by a lot of readers due to the way it presents its articles, people no longer take the text in Wikipedia seriously since "anyone can edit them" and "it's no longer a reliable source". I don't know why you would disagree to help improve the article, do you have any actual reason? Giovanni Mounir (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Giovannimounir YEC is a belief held in stark contrast to the overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests it's not a viable theory for creation. In order to be a fair entry in the encyclopedia, it needs to be reflected as such. As YEC is not only improbable but perhaps impossible based on the scientific evidence we have available, it absolutely needs to be placed under Pseudoscience and Denialism. Many of us don't view this as an attack, but merely an accurate description based upon available information. An article not citing all criticisms of YEC would be an inaccurate entry. If you feel that the criticisms themselves should all be placed into a separate article, you may be on to something. Perhaps leaving this article as merely a description of YEC? I'd leave that for you to pursue. Either way, if your intent is merely to improve the article, I applaud your efforts, I'm simply stating my rationale for why it needs to be categorized as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarcusian (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The article must continue to tell the reader just how little respect is given to YEC by scholars. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, then you may feel free to include this frankly into the article, in a neutral way. Such as: "The young earth creationism view is not respected by scholars", citing this of course; but in my opinion, I don't think it would give any useful information to the reader because the scholars' opinion is not relevant to this article as it addresses YEC views, not what scholars think about YEC. This article is supposed to express the Young Earth Creationism view, not attack it. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that this article is about YEC and not about what its reception is. Of course we place this theory in context, which is that it is pseudoscience: a conclusion looking for justification in science. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, the article is clearly about YEC since this is the impression anyone would get by reading the article's opening: "Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief[1] that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago". This article, since it started by expressing what Young Earth Creationism is, should also complete expressing young earth creationism from the young earth creationist's point of view. If you want to include how scholars receive this point of view, create a new section under the same page which expresses how scholars receive the view, but not just list them randomly; it makes the article a total mess in my opinion. We should put in some more efforts to help improve this article instead of approving this mess. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To give a full explanation of the topic the arguments against need to be explained, especially since the evidence is overwhelmingly against YEC having any scientific validity. Compare e.g. phlogiston theory where the very first sentence explains that it isn't a current scientific theory. It would hardly benefit the reader to let the phlogiston article describe the theory, and have a separate article or a separate section with the arguments against the theory. For one thing, it might make it appear as if it was still being seriously discussed.

That said, I think that the article is a bit light on the details of the YEC belief. I think that the article could use some fleshing out on the proposed mechanisms of e.g. fossil sorting in the flood, differing radioactive decay and fast speciation. It would give a fuller picture of what the YEC proponents believe. Sjö (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sjö, I understand what you are trying to say; but what I wanted to elaborate is that young earth creationists have reasons to refuse the opposing views, according to them; so what I'm saying is: why don't we include both the creationists' opinion + scientific opinion so that the reader can have both sides of arguments? For example, under the section Lack of scientific acceptance, you can read the following:

"For example, all YEC estimates for the age of creation are younger than measurements of the age of the most ancient pottery discovered, the year-by-year accounting of the record of tree rings, the age of ice cores, and the observation of any star more distant than 10,000 light years."

However, what I'm saying is to add the creationist's arguments to that as well, so it would be like, for example:

"For example, all YEC estimates for the age of creation are younger than measurements of the age of the most ancient pottery discovered *because they believe X* [citation], the year-by-year accounting of the record of tree rings *because they believe Y* [citation], the age of ice cores *because they believe Z* [citation], and the observation of any star more distant than 10,000 light years *because they believe M* [citation]."

The current article suggests that creationists deny the evidence without having a reason, and hence the category "Denialism", but what I'm saying is, according to creationists, they have arguments to refuse the evidence; so why don't we put both the creationists' opinion compared to the scientific evidence instead of just listing that creationists deny science? In my opinion, what I'm suggesting suggests a neutral point of view, instead of filtering out the creationists' interpretation of the scientific evidence, we should include them in this article so that the readers would enjoy reading the article from an unbiased point of view, and Wikipedia would earn back its reputation. I don't see why not, honestly. What are your thoughts? Giovanni Mounir (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is giving equal weight to both sides. That is not what neutrality is about. When there is dissent, Wikipedia always gives precedence to reliable sources. And reliable source here means the scientific consensus per WP:PSCI. This is giving due weight and prevents nonsense like our articles on the moon landing being half scientific and half about how it was supposedly faked. Neutrality does not mean treating everything in terms of half against and half opposed. It's proportional to its actual acceptance in reliable sources. And in this case, YEC is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community as a pseudoscience.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that Young Earth Creationists deny the evidence not because they have no reason: they have a reason, in that the evidence directly contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SOUL, I understand, but the scientific community has been wrong about numerous things in the past such as the flat earth assumption, but that's not my point. I agree that we should indicate that the scientific community doesn't agree with the YEC beliefs, but in the same time allow creationists to have a place in this article as to why they reject the claims of the scientific community. If the YECs arguments were truly against science, then we shouldn't worry about them being listed here; despite of being convincing or not. We will clearly state that the scientific community doesn't agree with YEC, but as well elaborate what makes YEC reject the scientific community claims too; this will allow both creationists and anti-creationists to have a neutral point of view of the topic instead of listing the scientific community opinion alone and then filtering out the YEC opinions about such data; because this is biased towards the scientific community but against YEC. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Obsidian Soul. The article must represent in a balanced fashion the very lopsided imbalance found in the literature, with YEC determined to be pseudoscience. If we are true to the imbalance found in the literature, then we are giving a neutral representation of the topic.

The article can never be turned into a convincing argument for YEC. Yes, it can accurately describe YEC beliefs, including the reasons they publish to explain their beliefs. But it should not be twisted to give the impression that science supports the belief. Instead, they start with a religious belief, and then they work backwards trying to find some scientific basis. One of the definitions of pseudoscience is exactly that: trying to fit the evidence into a previously determined conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please understand that this is not a scientific page, but a page about a "religious belief" as clearly stated in the opening of this article; but if you were to add the scientific community opinion, then I don't understand why you don't add the creationist's interpretation alongside that. It doesn't matter which one is convincing, because if it matters, then it would be a bias. What do you think? Giovanni Mounir (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think we should give the reader the chance to have a look at both sides of arguments briefly, and let them decide which one is convincing; and this is what I think neutrality is; since both radiometric dating and the YEC's age of the earth is based on assumptions. I'm not saying that the radiometric dates doesn't fit into the naturalistic point of view, but I'm saying that since both of them are assumptions anyways, we should present the reader with both sides of arguments, including the scientific community and scholars opinion, and let the reader decide. I'm sure this will be acceptable for both creationists and anti-creationists, from an unbiased point of view. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. We are not going to let the reader decide. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If we were to ignore or sugarcoat the fact that Young Earth Creationism has an extensive pseudoscientific and science-denialism aspect, then the page would become unfairly biased, especially since it is explicitly and specifically because of the religious beliefs of Young Earth Creationists that leads them to involve themselves in pseudoscience and science-denialism.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, I understand. If that's your point, then please disregard my suggestions. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform the reader by presenting referenced facts, only.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but the issue is that we don't have the ability to know which side presents the facts, they are just assumptions that cannot be validated directly through actual experiments and absolute scientific data, the only way we can validate the claims is by predictions but sometimes both opinions can predict the same thing; that's why I suggest presenting both sides of arguments. For example, the article currently provides the scientific community's opinion as fact, but what if the scientific community's opinion is not the fact? We don't have the ability to know, to be honest; and that's why I recommend both sides to be presented, but it seems that Binksternet isn't happy with the suggestion; so please feel free to disregard it. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:crystalball to make predictions with, especially predictions that would unfairly favor Young Earth Creationists. Furthermore, it is not just the scientific community's "opinion" that Young Earth Creationism is regarded as pseudoscience and science denialism, it is due to the very actions of the Young Earth Creationists, themselves, that YEC is regarded as pseudoscience and science denialism. To ignore this would be to grant an inappropriate bias towards YEC, ala WP:FRINGE--Mr Fink (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That, and the way to counter the charge of "(this) article reads like an attack on Young Earth Creationists and their beliefs" is not to turn the page into a pro-propaganda article that conveniently omits all of the less pleasant aspects of Young Earth Creationism and all of the unpleasant things Young Earth Creationists have done to support their beliefs, either.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr Fink, I unfortunately don't think you get my point. I'm not saying "let's support YEC, they have had enough attacks", but what I'm saying is: Wikipedia should be an unbiased source of information; and the current version of the article reads as an attack instead of a formal article which gives the reader information. The current article's style reads as it is currently biased against YEC, I'm not saying let's remove the "biased information", but saying let's present the information in a better way so that the article would be acceptable for both parties; so instead of saying:

"YEC is contradicted by numerous scientific sources [citation], ...."

We can say something that reads more formal, such as:

"it's accepted by the scientific community that .... [citation], ....."

And this is my whole point. The expressions read as an attack, but if we could use better, more formal and professional expressions to express the same point in a better way, I believe this will be both acceptable for anti-creationists and creationists alike. If you disagree with this, then you may feel free to disregard my suggestion. This is my first suggestion, the second one is that instead of providing the scientific community's opinion alone, let creationists have a place in the article as well. So instead of saying:

"it's accepted by the scientific community that .... [citation], ....."

We can present something like:

"although it's accepted by the scientific community that ....[citation], creationists believe that... [citation] dismissing the scientific community's claims" (this is an example)

Because from the article's opening, YEC is about a "religious belief", and we should all respect everyone's beliefs no matter what. I hope you get my point, but if you disagree with both points, then please feel free to disregard them. I just felt I should join the discussion and explain why I don't prefer the current version. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The best way forward with this series of observations by Giovanni is to add some text explaining more clearly what are the beliefs/reasoning of the YEC crowd. I do not accept that the notional "attack" language should be diminished or softened. So leave that part alone and gather some high quality sources describing the YEC viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Re the above suggestions on "it's accepted by the scientific community that...": There is no equal-time at Wikipedia. This website uses technology developed by science, and we are each typing into devices and connecting over networks that use technology developed by science. The word "science" just means "stuff that works". The Earth is very old, and that fact is supported by a zillion observations from unrelated areas—read the article. Articles say "the Earth is (appproximately) a sphere"—they do not say, "it's accepted by the scientific community that the Earth is (appproximately) a sphere". Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, that's totally not my point. No one can deny that the Earth is round/sphere, because that's observable and we have actual scientific data to prove it. We can literally and absolutely prove that the Earth is round/a sphere; however, what I'm saying is that radiometric dates, from a honest neutral point of view; are not absolute. The radiometric dating method works on a few major assumptions, and if it turns out that an assumption is wrong, the dates derived are most probably wrong, or affects the actual date (even if by a small percentage). As far as I know, radiometric dating can work on things of known history; it cannot however derive a proper dating from substances that are too young or substances of unknown history. This is however, not my point at all; what I'm basically saying is: to make sure that both creationists and anti-creationists would actually give some attention to this article, I suggest softening the expressions used in this article and more honestly presenting the facts. For example, it's claimed that the age of the earth/universe is absolutely known, however, from a honest scientific point of view, we cannot be sure as I have explained earlier that such methods depend on assumptions. I'm not attacking the radiometric dating method, it's actually useful in so many cases especially when the substance we are dating is of known history; I'm however stating that we don't know either the source/origin of the universe nor do we know the source/origin of the earth, and therefore they are of unknown history especially that it was speculated that our Earth's physical conditions were very different from today, radiometric dating will not work properly if such speculations are true since most of its assumptions are derived from today's physical environment. Please also understand that the age of the universe/earth is not relevant to the science that made our laptops/cellphones/etc; I have to be honest, but although that I love such category of science which tries to explain our past from the current observations, most of it relies on assumptions making it distinct from the current absolute science which we can experiment and observe. I'm however not going to scientifically argue about the issue as this is irrelevant, but will repeat what I exactly suggest. Here are my suggestions:

1. Allow creationists to have a place in the article - we should present the creationists' opinion about such matters and what the scientific community says about the evidence; so that the reader would have both sides of arguments into one page, and this would be extremely useful, even for the average person, not forgetting to cite both the creationists' opinion and the scientific community's of course. If you disagree with this, please reply stating why.

Agree: Giovanni Mounir (talk)

Disagree:

2. Present the facts as accurately as possible and avoid bias - we should show the facts that we are certainly sure of and use the best expressions available in order to present the facts as it is and avoid the usage of expressions that would give a biased insight to the reader. For example, instead of saying that "it's confirmed that the universe is X billions of years", we can say "it's accepted that the universe is X billions of years" and instead of saying that "the earth is X billions of years" we can say "the accepted earth's age is X billions of years", because as I have elaborated earlier; the current earth's age is not certain knowing that even the dated rocks to derive this age were not from the earth, but rather from the moon. Please understand that I'm not attacking radiometric dating, I personally enjoy radiometric dating and the researches involving radiometric dating, but I'm stating that instead of pushing what we think is true, we should only present what we know to be certain. If you disagree, please respond stating why.

Agree: Giovanni Mounir (talk)

Disagree:

To make things easier for everyone, I have made these pseudo-fields above next to each suggestion, you may feel free to put your name by inserting 3 tildes into the appropriate pseudo-field (sorry, I don't know how to make fields yet!). If you disagree, please explain why and we may work on it together! Thanks to everyone who participated/will participate for being part of this. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not going to start voting on this because (1) we operate on consensus, not voting and (2) WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is not subject to local consensus so a decision on this page not to follow it would be irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, no, I didn't say let's vote; I said that to make things easier, I have made the pseudofields above where you can show whether you agree or disagree with each claim and stating why between parentheses so that it would be easier to track and understand why one disagrees with the suggestions, instead of losing the point in the comments. Secondly, I honestly cannot understand your second point, but as it appears and as per the Wikipedia guidelines, since that the YEC is viewed to be pseudoscientific according to the scientific community, then it should be categorized under pseudo-science; and in this case, this is not a big problem, we can still try to soften the expressions and present the information from a neutral point of view. What are your thoughts about this? or do you wish to leave the current article as it is? Giovanni Mounir (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Softening" the article would violate WP:NPOV, which requires that pseudoscience be unambiguously identified as such. VQuakr (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying let's not identify the article as pseudo-science, I said let's use better and more professional expressions to express exactly what we are trying to say; you can say "this view is pseudo-scientific", and this is not a problem in this case; but what I said was to present the facts as they really are. If pseudo-science means something not agreed upon by the scientific community, then we should indicate that this view is pseudo-science (not agreed upon by the scientific community). What I mean however by facts is when you claim that the universe is X billions of years old yet what we have are speculations; so instead of saying "the universe is X billions of years", we should say frankly "it's accepted that the universe is X billions of years" since it all depends on the scientific community, and we all know that it's speculation. I'm not claiming that it doesn't fit into the naturalistic point of view, but please read my previous comments to understand my point. If you still disagree, please elaborate why. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Most people would have gathered by now how little support there is for their suggestions. Your poll is not needed: it's already clear that the majority here are not interested in softening the language. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not exactly a poll but I understand, in this case; I think we can agree on keeping it the way it is, although I don't think it's a good idea as it might appear to be offending to this "religious belief" (as clearly stated in the opening of the article), and I thought Wikipedia had a rule to respect all religious beliefs. Thanks for everyone however for taking the time to discuss this. You may mark this as solved Giovanni Mounir (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view" does not mean softening the language to assuage certain people's feelings, as that will run a strong risk of violating a neutral point of view.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Giovanni Mounir, wikipedia is not concerned in the least about protecting the tender sensibilities of religious believers (please see Talk:Muhammad/images for tons of discussion on offending religious beliefs). Our goal is to present information as accurately as possible. What I think you don't understand is that softening the language in this article would introduce a non-neutral point of view. This is not simply a pseudoscience. There is essential no academic debate on the topic. This issue of the dating of the Earth and the dating of the Universe is a settled debate, as far as the mainstream science is concerned. To portray the issue as anything but that is doing a disservice to our readers. As I see it, you have made a good faith suggestion to the community to soften the language in this article to bring it in to some kind of perceived "balance". Your suggestions has received zero support and many others have voice opposition.--Adam in MO Talk 06:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is a member of Creation Science and Creation Science is a subcategory of Pseudoscience, why not just remove the Pseudoscience category since the article is already there by inheritance, especially since Pseudoscience is a contentious label? Captpossum (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, done then.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls Biblical archaeology a "branch of the archaeological sciences". The Society for American Archaeology refers to "biblical archaeology, which seeks evidence and explanation for events described in the Bible". Opinions of Biblical archaeologists are used as sources for statements of fact in some Wikipedia articles. Creation paleoarchaeology has as much (or little) claim to be "branch of the archaeological sciences". Keith McClary (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Archeology != Paleontology -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As requested by Theroadislong in this article's history on 25 March 2015, I am requesting consideration for the modification in this diff, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&diff=653499852&oldid=653102816, to remove the alternate text of the link: [[Genesis creation narrative|creation myth in Genesis]]. Since the cited reference does not use the word "myth", it should be avoided as a contentious label, especially given the significant number of people who still hold YEC to be true according to the third paragraph of the article. Thank you for your consideration. Captpossum (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The word myth here is used in the academic sense Creation myth... symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it, so not sure why this would be contentious? Theroadislong (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section say something about the YEC distinction between "observational science" and "historical science"? As it stands, the article seems to imply that YECs reject science outright, when in actual fact their arguments are a bit more nuanced than that. Molpies! (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give an example of such nuanced arguments?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm only really thinking of their distinction between "observational" and "historical" science here. Molpies! (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"the article seems to imply" - Actually, no. The article lists some of the scientific facts YECs disagree with. It is pretty obvious that there are other scientific facts they accept. That is not "nuanced", it is the usual stance of pseudoscientists: "if it disproves my worldview, it's untrue".

The "distinction between "observational" and "historical" science" is just a way of saying "the laws of nature only work this way when I am looking, and I was not looking before I was alive, so everything that happened before my birth is unknown. Ergo God." --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Young Earth creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050831002608/http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu:80/geography/hutton/hutton.htm to http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/hutton.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024045851/http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm to http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I just edited the article to read "scientifically-determined estimated ages of the Earth and of the universe". Something can be both "scientifically-determined" and an estimate, which these are, because there is a degree of uncertainty associated with them. "Scientifically-determined" refers to the method by which these estimated figures were generated.

I've also rounded the age of the universe to 3 significant figures, as "13.8 billion years". The exact error bars for the figure are impressive, but putting them here detracts from the main point that 13.8 billion >> 10,000 years.-- The Anome (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I am far from defending YEC interpretation, attempting to reconcile the P and J different creation accounts in Genesis 1&2. But it is incorrect to say that there is a matter of "translation of tenses". There are no tenses in the sense of English grammar in Biblical Hebrew. Rather there are aspects of the verb. So when Genesis 2 says, some time after the account of the creation of Adam, that God created animals, the Hebrew verb which is translated "created" is in the perfect. There is no way by simple change of the form of the verb to distinguish between what English does with the simple past ("created") vs. past perfect ("had created". I know of no way to get this across in this article, yet alone introduce the scholarly debates about how to treat this. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Young Earth creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110119080838/http://www.dictionary.net:80/jewish+calendar to http://www.dictionary.net/jewish+calendar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060427143852/http://www.drdino.com:80/articles.php?spec=115 to http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=115

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A number of these surveys detailing public acceptance of evolution/belief in creationism are highly outdated. Many are from the 80s and 90s, so they can hardly be considered relevant. These sections should be updated and edited to fit with newer surveys. Cheers. Iheartthestrals (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Young Earth creationism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030729055405/http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Hutton/Hutton.htm to http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/hutton.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030729055405/http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Hutton/Hutton.htm to http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/hutton.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030419055650/http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10 to http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024045851/http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm to http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024045851/http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm to http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason the widely cited Gallup poll is such an outlier. The poll is flawed with a leading question and conflates YEC with Evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsquid (talk • contribs) </ref>http://www.surveypractice.org/index.php/SurveyPractice/article/view/119/html</ref>^[1]

But here's a very rational and scientific group that confirms the results of the poll: https://ncse.com/news/2014/06/latest-gallup-poll-evolution-0015653. So I don't agree that the poll is so flawed that it should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

They do not confirm the results or methodology of the poll. What I posted is an actual review on the academic rigor of the study. [1] Lipsquid (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this question may sound naïve, but, when this section states that Creationists are flawed because they start out with the belief that supernatural creation is fact, doesn't that statement overlook that Evolutionists start out with the belief that evolution is fact? I mean, if you, as a scientist reject one view completely, then that is a bias. Creationist literature is very clear in their admittance of this bias; however, Secular literature often presents itself as if it were without bias. This statement is not meant to be provocative, but rather to point out that the wording of this section of this article is misrepresenting reality: everyone is biased, and all work done is done with a bias. How strongly that bias effects the research is variable, but there is always bias.Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We all have our biases and so does Wikipedia. This statement is also not meant to be provocative, just an explanation about the viewpoint that the article is written from - i.e. Creationism is baseless and "anti-science" therefore it is not meant to be presented to be on an equal intellectual footing with Evolution. Fair or not, this is how the article, and similar ones, are written. Ckruschke (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'd just like to point out that many people who believe in God the Creator also accept the evidence for billions of years of life on Earth. But Wikipedia is not the place to argue the age of the Earth. There are plenty of places for that. Wikipedia is committed to present the consensus of the experts, and the consensus is clear. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am just saying that I believe the wording could be improved, I am not trying to argue that the article make major revisions, or that it argue in favor of creation. What I am saying is that, to say the reason that YEC is flawed is because it starts from that point of view is to say that, no matter what evidences they may have, they will still be wrong. Regardless of YEC's classification by Wikipedia as 'pseudoscience'/'fringe content', I would still revise that particular statement. One can say that YEC has no scientific grounds to argue on, and that would be a valid argument to make; however, as I stated earlier, the wording of that phrase is such that it attacks YEC for its religious aspect, rather than for the content of its arguments.Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Creationism starts with the belief that supernatural creation is a fact. Data is interpreted as coming from creation. Science approaches this from the opposite direction.

In science, existing data is used to craft theories to explain all data. Theories are tested with experiments that challenge the theories. Newton's theory of universal gravitation was flawed, Einstein's theories replaced it. His theories are open to refutation, revision and replacement (but are good enough to predict where Mercury will be 10 years from now and build a GPS system that works). Data that runs counter to his theories means the data, its interpretation the theory or all three are wrong. Evolution and the theory of evolution are similar. They might be right or wrong and science seeks to challenge, revise or replace them. A scientist who disproves evolution is up for a Nobel Prize. Wikipedia is science oriented.

Creationism says life was created by a supernatural being and interprets all data in light of this unalterable base. Data that runs counter to special creation is either incorrect or must be re-interpreted. The theory is not subject to refutation, revision or replacement. A creationist who disproves Creationism is no longer a creationist. Conservapedia is Christian fundamentalism oriented. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to go on about this on Wikipedia, but I have to point out that this article is about Young Earth Creationism (YEC), not about the denial of evolution, and not about the belief in God the Creator. Doesn't this article make that clear? TomS TDotO (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Young Earth creationism "the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in the Bible's Book of Genesis and believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days." That pretty much requires denial of the theory of evolution and belief in YHVH. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The two ideas are nominally distinct, but, their proponents have long ago braided the two together, so that now, one inescapably entails the other in the same way the concept of water being wet inescapably entails the concept of hydrogen bonding.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Young Earth creationism. 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:

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030419055650/http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10 to http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=115

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Refutation denying ignoring dismissing or what? The majority of scientists are probably not directed lay affected in their research and teaching, no more than they are affected by astrology or moon-landing deniers. A nuclear physicist may not be aware of the denial of well-established nuclear physics. So what is the proper descrption of the majority of active scientists? TomS TDotO (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC) TomS TDotO (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There was no such thing as Kansas Gravity Trial. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Or as Kansas relativity hearings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

should they or did they happen? TomS TDotO (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, but the Kansas evolution hearings did happen. That article deals, in part, with scientific consensus on the matter. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not see the current statement ("The vast majority of scientists refute young Earth creationism.) as being verifyable. My guess would be that most scientists haven't said anything about Young Earth Creationism any more than most scientists have stated that there isn't a vast undersea kingdom ruled by mermaids or that the Apollo Moon landings were not faked. I would, however, be fairly easily convinced that most scientific reactions to Young Earth claims have been refutations. In other words: Most scientists have not said anything about YE claims. Those scientists who have said anything about the claims have called them nonsense on stilts. I don't know if we can find a reliable source stating that, though. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Verification means in this case for us WP:RS/AC (showing the scientific consensus, not polling scientists). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. We cannot say "the vast majority of scientists" refute YEC because we do not have a source that says that. "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." [WP:RS/AC]]

Surely we can find a source that makes a general statement to the effect that the consensus is that this is nonsense. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Level of support for creationism has some data. TomS TDotO (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There is disagreement about the sciences to name which are incompatible with Young Earth Creationism. Let's talk it over, rather than edit war. Should we mention astronomy rather than cosmology? Should we mention chemistry, or physics, both or neither? My opinion is that cosmology is too restrictive. YEC tells us that there has been less than 10,000 years since the beginning. Cosmology deals with billions of years. But We don't have to get into cosmological times to find difficulties with YEC. The problem of light travel time arises within distances within the Milky Way and neighboring galaxies - the famous SN 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud, for example. As far as chemistry, yes, there are dating methods using chemical properties, but IMHO they are of lesser importance and scope than those using radioactivity. But I don't want to be pushy about this. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all the opening sentence that the vast majority of scientists refute YEC makes no sense it should be changed to something along the lines of "The overwhelming majority of scientists deny the theory saying it is incompatible with science". Second of all the header should be changed from scientific refutation to scientific criticism, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's purpose isn't to present an opinion as fact and to say "this theory is wrong and this is right". Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism is not a theory it is a religious belief and Wikipedia sides with science in these matters, NOT pseudoscience. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No modern scholar believes that the Torah originates from the time of David or Solomon? I recall that Richard Elliott Friedman proposed that J was a princess in the court of Solomon. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the first change because it was even more biased, but the article as written is biased. The article is describing a religious belief; the fact that it's contrary to generally accepted scientific principles is accepted. You don't need to have references "scientists disagree with this" quite so often.

As far as specific changes, I don't see why the textual origin of Genesis matters at all here. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But the thing is, it's a religious belief that grounds itself in the deliberate opposition to science because its adherents repeatedly state that the only "good" science anything that agrees with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and that adherents routinely clash with scientists about this all the time.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll agree to disagree and ignore this article. I note (partially in jest) that the Jesus article manages to avoid pointing out that there are no scientifically proven cases of men rising from the dead after three days. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's because there is no strong movement suggesting that men rise from the dead and that it's a scientific fact that they do. If there were, we might have to include references to the contrary. Sjö (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a quote from The Gift of Scripture by the Bishops of England but the article makes it seem as if the Catholic Church holds the position that the Bible is only innerant in matters of Faith and Morals which it doesnt. So I think we should change it a bitIlikerabbits! (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Young Earth creationism. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nsta.org/159%26psid%3D10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Skimming through the fourteen years of this article's history, I see that until late August 2017, the first sentence called YEC a religious doctrine, religious belief, or (briefly) a form of creationism. Recent edits by an IP and, somewhat surprisingly, an experienced editor, have cast it as pseudoscience. Religious belief is not science. Despite creationists' attempts to argue otherwise, science is not religious belief.

Anyone paying attention to this topic is likely to be aware of the type of apologetics which wraps itself in the vocabulary of science. That is the part we justifiably call pseudoscience, and it appears in this article's second paragraph, where "creation science" is mentioned.

One more time, with feeling: although some apologists may use sciencey language in attempts to defend fundamentalist religious belief, that religious belief is not, in and of itself, pseudoscience. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that I agree that YEC is a faith movement which promotes pseudoscience rather than "being pseudoscience" itself. Pseudoscientific arguments are used to justify the fundamentalist dogmas derived from a literalist reading of scripture they consider sacred and without error. —PaleoNeonate – 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I made the first revert of Just plain Bill and the consensus version is the one he reverted to and the pseudoscience mentioned in a latter paragraph in the lead was the agreed upon version reached after much discussion. The change made by the IP editor in late August was indeed the deviation from long standing consensus. I apologize for causing confusion, that was my error. I hope this will close the discussion, I will spend the rest of the day wearing my dunce cap... 2602:304:788B:DF50:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The piece of elbow macaroni lodged in my ear is telling me there is no need for penance on anyone's part. If your head feels chilly, you don't need my permission to wear whatever cap you like. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

When labeling the argument used by the 'Believers in flood geology', the current version stated that their arguments were often 'framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions'. Carleton is the reference used to support such a claim. However, when I checked the reference itself, it was an article stating its point of view without providing any further explanation or evidence. Instead, it just stated that 'Their arguments are detailed and often refer to scientific evidence, but may use it incorrectly'. I, as a reader, find it not satisfactory enough. I wonder whether someone could help to clean this up and provide more informative and credible sources, or revise the current statement. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.63.131.235 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Another potential source, which discusses Young Earth Geology in the context of pseudoscience: ^[1]. More are also easily found in other related articles, or searching. —PaleoNeonate – 18:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the extra source. However, this piece of article did not point out any flaws in the argument used by the 'Believers in flood geology', either. I agree that there may be some other related articles if someone just google for it, but I think one of the prominent merits of Wikipedia is that statements need to be backed with appropriate sources instead of just citing some article that does not provide any solid evidence or argument. Without appropriate support of that original statement '..., though often framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions', I think it is more appropriate to revise it to '..., but some people consider them being framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions.'^[2] I am a newbie regarding editing wiki pages, and again, thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.63.136.107 (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary for the article (or selected reliable sources) to go in details about why it's misleading (only to summarize), but improvements are always possible. There's the existing section "Scientific refutation"; we of course already have articles about mainstream science (including plate tectonics, age of the earth, evidence of common descent, etc). About flood geology, its own article has more details (including another source about pseudoscience^[3] and the section Flood geology#Modern geology and flood geology). —PaleoNeonate – 06:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that the book of Genesis doesn't give a date for creation, making the first sentence of the section rather pointless. ("The first major comprehensive draft of Genesis was composed by the Yahwist in the late 7th or the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian captivity, with later additions made by the priestly source in the post-exilic period.") The biblical date for creation is arrived at by adding up numbers stated and implied from Genesis to Daniel - it comes out at exactly (not "about") four thousand years. I suggest re-writing the section using the article Chronology of the Bible. PiCo (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea for a rewrite based on chronology of the Bible, worth noting it's not necessarily adding up numbers, as in Ussher's attempt at historical analysis. Other beliefs included Premillennialism with the belief that the 6 days of creation prefigured 6,000 years from creation to the return of Christ, followed by a thousand year Millennium... so history was compressed into a preconceived timespan, with 4,000 years a significant point. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that between 18 and 40% of Americans believe in YEC. But what of other countries? The theory cannot be limited only to Americans. Are there any surveys or reports on support for the theory in other countries.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If you find them in reliable sources, you're welcome to put them forward for this article. I note it already has a figure showing "Views on human evolution in various countries." . . dave souza, talk 11:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I updated the number from the latest credible survey. The U.S. number is reported currently at 34%. Evangelical Christians are the most likely to support YEC and evangelicalism is a very American movement. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That survey did not discuss YEC in particular. I moved the content to the creationism article. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You wrote here "It is definitely creationism, read the article:" I agree that it is creationism, and as I noted, I moved it to the Creationism article (diff of addition there). This article is about a type of creationism - young earth creationism - and that survey didn't discuss YEC. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I put it back because we were looking for an updated study and it is inline with past statistics. I noticed you did not remove "A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally" That also has nothing to do with YEC, in your strict view. If anything the latest study looks to say that 30% has ticked upwards to 34% in the past 6 years. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Pew piece says nothing about literal interpretation. The only place "34" appears is "The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.". Stop misrepresenting the source, please. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Gallup poll. I didn't misrepresent anything, "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" definitely implies creation, don't be dense. I agree it does not specifically address YEC. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This Video gives (referenced?) percentages for other countries. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we not mention the "lunar bukkake hypothesis?" This is the YEC theory (the creationists don't call it that of course) that attempts to explain the origin of the large numbers of craters on the moon appearing in just the last 6,000 years, as well as comets. While it has been debunked, it essentially says that when the flood began, part of the earth's crust fell down on underground aquifers and shot some of the water out into space, some of which splattered on the moon's surface. It's pretty obvious that this theory exists, as well as the fact that it is impossible, so we really need to cite it to put it in? 2600:1004:B16D:1745:81F0:DE24:C3BE:28B3 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Several problems pile up on this one. First and foremost, the apparent lack of independent reliable sources presenting it as a significant aspect of YEC means we have nothing to say about it.

YEC presents many problems from a scientific standpoint and YEC believers produce multiple "solutions" to each problem. There is no conceivable way to presents all of the problems, much less all of the proposed solutions in an encyclopedia article. Instead, we first reduce the list to those problems and proposed solutions discussed in independent reliable sources. Next, we reduce or coverage based on the weight of the coverage (e.g., sources discuss erosion of landscape (such as the Grand Canyon) more often than the formation of subsurface helium by radioactive decay, so we discuss landscape erosion more than helium formation). - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This hypothesis in general is part of hydroplate theory, but it is really the only theory that has ever been created by YECs to explain how the large number of craters on the moon showed up in such a short amount of time (but doesn't really explain craters on the far side of the moon). It appears to have originated from a young earth creationist who operates a YouTube channel called NephilimFree, but may have been accepted by other YECs since then.2600:1004:B123:F724:B1DE:7112:E619:5FE8 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

So mention of this should be expunged from this article because it's giving WP:UNDUE attention to a youtube crackpot with a limited audience?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"YouTube crackpot with a limited audience" is not necessary. It's the lack of reliable sources discussing the theory. Wikipedia discusses lots of crackpot ideas -- to the extent that they are discussed in reliable sources. Pick any well known conspiracy theory, alternative to medicine, etc. and we have an article on it. Usually all the reliable sources have to say it that it's nonsense on stilts and some coverage of the more obvious errors, but it's still there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the #Christian fundamentalism and belief in a young Earth section, statements attributed to Numbers were the opposite of what the source said. I've made a start on correcting that. The #History section began with long lists Dating creation which give no explanation of what modern YEC is, so I've begun trimming them. Think more work is needed. . . dave souza, talk 11:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit confused me. OEC "holds literal interpretations of Genesis which are compatible with the scientifically determined ages of the Earth and universe."

How are literal interpretations of the "days" of the creation story (literally 24 hour periods) compatible with science (billions of years from Big Bang to Sun to Earth to life on Earth)?

I assume "literal" shouldn't be there, but the source wasn't making the intent clear. I am not debating the accuracy of the belief, simply the wording which does not seem to make sense.

Further, the source citation is weird, apparently referring to two publications.

"The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999, online version revised 13 February 2018."

The web page does not have page numbers (and is certainly nowhere near 25 pages), does not give a volume numbers, dates, etc. Is this supposed to be two sources, wrapped into one confusing ref? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, on the first point, multiple sources make the point that Old Earth Creationism was developed by churchmen, such as the devout Evangelical Thomas Chalmers around 1800, to reconcile increasing geological evidence with a literal reading of Genesis. For example, Paul C. Gutjahr (2017). The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 218–219. ISBN 978-0-19-025884-9. The appeal of Chalmers's gap theory is obvious: one could have an ancient Earth and a literal six-day creation all in one nice-and-neat exegetical package. For the first few decades of the nineteenth century, this was the dominant form of Genesis-geology reconciliation.. The Genie Scott reference makes it clear that what's now the predominant form of YEC isn't fully literal. To make it clear that literalism applied to gap theory as well as day-age, I've added an additional link to McIver, Tom (Fall 1988). "Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism". Creation/Evolution. 8 (3): 1–24. We can allow geology the amplest time . . . without infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record – that gives a lot more info about the context.

The Scott reference had been formatted previously to refer to its original publication, but the link led to an updated page at "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". NCSE. 13 February 2018.. To avoid confusion, I've reformatted it as purely a web link to the NCSE page. Hope that helps to clarify things, . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)