Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 8

Where is the evidence?

There isnt any evidence for creationism here. I think a new article should be created called "Scientific evidence for Creationism". Refreshed...Refreshments (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's because there is no scientific evidence for creationism. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you proven that for yourself, or are you just taking other people's word for it? ;) T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(ps. in other words, have you run scientific experiments on this claim of yours yourself, or do you just have faith in other people's claims? I agree with Refreshments)

See scientific method, and feel free to point to peer reviewed publications providing "scientific evidence for creationism" which hasn't been thoroughly debunked. . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence for creation. There is plenty for evolution. Evidence of common descent is a fascinating article which details the evidence we have for evolution, and is extensivly referenced to peer reviewed publications.--Patton123 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Patton, you seem a bit ignorant to the facts. If there is no evidence, you don't have anything to worry about do you? Refreshments (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is a religious belief and as such is exempt from requiring scientific proof. For more, see Faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationism isn't just a belief. If the article has no basis in scientific evidence, then you don't have anything to worry about. The article wouldn't be proposed if there was no evidence supporting the view. Anyway, I'm going to see who I can get on my side for this project. gtg Refreshments (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide some valid scientific evidence, there is nothing to prevent you adding it to the article yourself. Please continue. TheresaWilson (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help me create an article called "Scientific evidence for Creationism"? Refreshments (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a VERY short article!! Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey nice name... How long is a piece of string tea pot? Refreshments (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Before an article is created, I would think there would have to be some indication that the evidence was extensive enough to merit a new article, rather than a section in an existing article. Having read rather extensively in the field of Young Earth apologetics and creation science, I'm simply not convinced that that's the case. A brief outline of the evidence you would like to include might be helpful; too often, people who claim to have "scientific evidence of Creation" actually turn out to be offering the same rehashed arguments from personal incredulity, or thoroughly debunked claims like Kent Hovind's "shrinking sun" argument. --BRPierce (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would love to help you, but I really have no time at least for the next few months. A person can say that creation science arguments have all been defeated, but only if you agree with the presupposition that my professor repeatedly gave in university (and many mindless drones unthinkingly repeat!), "Science doesn't have an answer, but it only means that it doesn't have an answer yet." (Hence one can say that people put faith in science, which for some reason doesn't appear to them as comically ironic). There are a few creation science arguments that certainly fall under that "cover-my-*ss excuse" and would be suitable for an article like this. I agree though, it needs to be built in a sandbox (or at least have some solid structure) prior to being posted or anti-creationists will jump all over it and it will be deleted quickly. Can it be added to this article? Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 20:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This comment is indicative of what I'm concerned might happen with such an article...the idea that "Creation science arguments" boil down to things that science doesn't have an answer for. Far too often, "Arguments for creation science" amount to "Pointing out that science doesn't have an answer for X." That's a false dilemma; the fact that science can't explain something does not automatically mean that it's evidence of a divine creator, and certainly doesn't mean that it's evidence that the God of Abraham created the world in six days. If such an article were built, it would need to be built around documented and verifiable evidence that supports the Creationist account--not around "God of the gaps" arguments. --BRPierce (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

True. You raise a good point. But we allow "Science-of-the-gaps" arguments, do we not? What is the theory of evolution if not that? It is full of gaps, and it certainly cannot prove its starting point. Is it then not a double standard not to allow (what you call) a "God of the gaps" argument? (Most) YEC's do not deny science's proofs -- they see these proofs as discoveries of the rule by which God governs the universe. What they deny are some of these theories and hypothesis if they do not fit in with a Creationists presuppositions. These theories are there because non-Creationists have their own presuppositions (I've stated one already -- "If Science doesn't know the answer, it just means that it doesn't know it yet -- that is a presupposition, it could be called faith. This is why some call Science a religion...).

What is true, is that a YEC will never find proof for the God of the Bible who created a universe in 6 days without appealing to the Bible. I realize this and accept it. Just like a YEC will never accept the big bang theory so will a non-Creationist not accept the Creation theory. However: the non-Creationist is allowed to give his/her perspective by appealing to and interpreting modern day science, and so I think that a YEC can give their perspective also by appealing to and interpreting modern day science.

Now this is what I don't have time to do, but I think would be valuable: To show that YEC's do not ignore, disbelieve, deny scientific proofs. And in fact they are confirmed in their beliefs by scientific proofs. Thus it would be an article looking at the Creationist's use of scientific proofs. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The approach to teaching "creation science" and "evolution-science" found in Act 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.

The two model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science "evidence" in support of Section 4(a).[1] dave souza, talk 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There you go Refreshments, Dave has provided you with a link above to valuable sources, as well as even the quote itself which can be used in a section in the article titled "Critique of Creation Science" (or something like that). Although, to repeat, the article would need to state clearly that its presupposition is the Bible. Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This talk of "getting people to help" and finding "evidence" is all very well, but what this proposed article really needs is reliable sources. Without those, the anti-creationists won't get a look in. The new page patrollers and anti-original research editors will eat it right up. But then, if there is evidence, you don't have anything to worry about do you? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, "faith-based" editing contravenes WP:NOR and evidence is always required. Our materialistic outlook leaves no room for the immaterial. . . dave souza, talk 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean "Where is the scientific evidence" right?

Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably interpreted by evolutionists and atheists/naturalists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

YECs maintain that scientists have collected the evidence for Young earth creationism but drawn the wrong conclusions from it. The shortest possible explanation to the question of 'where is the scientific evidence?' (as opposed to the unscientific evidence of science-of-the-gaps, faith, etc) would be the answer: "Its the same evidence." It is missing the mark to say "There is no scientific evidence for YEC", because the YECs, by the YEC's way of thinking, have precisely the same amount of scientific evidence as the scientists. --Zerothis (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Refreshments wishes scientific proofs for Creationism:

I think a new article should be created called "Scientific evidence for Creationism"

my first reaction is:

1. rename to Argument used for Creationism,
2. if you understand science, really, you should know that all "proofs" are tentative, and shall be scrutinized and checked forever, this is valid for Wikipedia too,
3. you are obliged to erect Creationism a theory, or as creationists tend to say just a theory, and you are obliged to consider evolution an equal theory scrutinized to exactly the same rules as Creationism,
4. you cannot apply religious dogma — religious dogma are not allowed within science, nor within Wikipedia, which means that you cannot apply some literal interpretations of the Bible and believe you will convince the other editors to adjust their opinions to you — especially not Evolutionist Christians like me, who all the time have to confront the troubles all Creationists are creating for persons with true faith (cf. 2 Cor 3:6 and consider!),
5. proofs aren't needed, since Wikipedia doesn't care about "truth", it cares very much about citations and reliable sources, and for such a topic as "Argument used for Creationism", any American selfstyled creation science guy will suffice for such a weird and apart topic,
6. IMHO, arguments against Creationism is very important, such as "Adam didn't have time to name all 10,000,000 species in 1 day", and "men have an even number of ribs, not an odd number",

I would like some enlightenment of the deteriorating Western Culture, but creationism and creationists makes this task virtually impossible. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the creation of an article called "Argument used for Creationism" is a great idea because it would allow creationists to feel like they have their views represented and it would allow macroevolutionists to see what creationists believe and a page where macroevolutionists can send creationists to in order to express their opinions (with reliable resources, of course.)Invmog (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your thought does, of course, propose a WP:POVFORK based on primary sources, and indeed unreliable sources at that. Not acceptable here, you might find another place more amenable. . . dave souza, talk 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One user in this section pointed out that science, as opposed to seeking to be a method of making verifiable, objective conclusions inferred from reality, is actually the opposite: a series of guesses to which we are gradually getting closer to the answer. When we consider what 'evidence' must constitute for this article, I think that we must follow regular argument form using logic and empirical proof. Regarding the first point, while it is true to say that science is a stepping-stone method in that, as we approach perfect information, we can find the perfect answer, this argument should specifically not be accepted as a proof by contradiction (in that since science cannot disprove Creationism's scientific validity, we should accept its interpretations of the evidence). The fact is that, from our current level of scientific knowledge and research, that the scientific community, which means via its expertise and not simply numbers, has found serious issues with the theory's objective validity. The main problem with the POV interpretations is that users are mixing up subjective values (i.e.) religious beliefs) and their interpretation with scientific modelling of objective problems (which purposely ignore subjective beliefs). While it is possible, therefore to criticise the scientific methods themselves, I believe any such critique of these methods as evidence should also be logically or empirically proven with reference to reliable sources. Only in this light should there be any acceptance of YEC scientific interpretation arguments as evidence. - Anonymous - 3:54am, 22 April 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.40.147 (talk)

Public opinion on YEC

After looking through the article, I was surprised to see that public opinion on YEC was only mentioned twice and a somewhat passing-- out of place way. Would it be a good idea to create its own section for it? The Squicks (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article on the Creation-evolution controversy in which public opinion polls are discussed at length, and in a proper fashion. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, it might be helpful to the casual reader to say how many people believe in YEC. For example, is it 40% of Americans? And is YEC mostly an American Christian idea?

We wouldn't need a whole section, but only a sentence or two with a link to the article on the Creation-evolution controversy in which public opinion polls are discussed at length. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Claims of discrimination in journals

Is there any evidence that YECs in general claim that their views are discriminated against, in scientific journals? I thought rather that this was a specific claim made only by advocates of Creation Science.

In my own extensive contact with YECs (I am an OEC by the way), I have almost always found that they considered Creationism a matter of faith, and so they didn't expect scientists who study things like the age of the earth to agree with what the Bible says.

So I'd like to change "Young Earth creationists claim ..." to "Some Young Earth creationists claim ..." in the third paragraph, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

The intro claims:

However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis.

I think citations are needed for such a bold statement (however true), and I think it is actually possible to find citations for this. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! There already was such a citation... OK, then I'll see if I can find more. And:

The statement actually claims that a vast majority of scientists believe creationism is false, the citation provided and the intro formulation have to harmonize. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Creationism is a 'position' that exists regardless of 'science'. It is a religious/faith position. YEC's are not claiming that it is a scientific position. ^rossnixon 01:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And creationists have been claiming (an unjustified) scientific merit for their religious position, from the scriptural geologists, Price, the Deluge Geology Society, Morris, right up to the current day. YECs ARE (almost ubiquitously) "claiming that it is a scientific position." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you are mistaken. Claiming scientific support for a religious position is just to give more credibility (mainly to people who haven't made up their minds) to the religious position, not to make it a scientific position. ^rossnixon 02:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

When creationists start claiming scientific vindication for their religious beliefs, it becomes an ostensibly falsifiable, secular statement with real-world applications. You can't claim to know how the physical world works AND rebuke all challenges, claiming to be "above" or "outside" science. And the fact that you think it's OKAY to claim something (with no real evidence) is frankly alarming to me. "Oh, it's just to help people make up their minds..." How does that not make it worse? Isn't that the textbook definition of propaganda? --King Öomie 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if one assumes that YEC is inherently religious and not scientific, it is still using falsifiable, objective arguments as part of its proof. These components should be and are completely up critique. - Anonymous, 22 April, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.40.147 (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How many Americans believe this stuff?

I frequently encounter people who express doubt that more than 10% of American adults accept YEC. So I thought it might be interesting to our readers to mention the figure of approximately 45% in the intro. (I'd rather say 2 out of 5, because it's less precise - or maybe a range like 40 to 45 percent.)

Is this a believable figure? If not, who disputes it, and what do other polls say? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, polls by Gallup ([2]) suggest that 18% of adult Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, so I don't see why it should be implausible that four in ten adult Americans believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The latter viewpoint is actively promoted by several relatively big organizations, whereas the former is not. Gabbe (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the same percentage of Germans and Britons believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. As far as the 45% figure goes, that reference mentions slightly different percentages from other surveys, ranging from 39% to 48%, so perhaps we should reword the statement in the article slightly. ClovisPt (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks on dinosaurs

1. The Lost World is a novel, and thus not a WP:RS. Additionally, AFAIK, it makes no claims about YEC views.

Ian Malcolm says three words about creationism in the novel; "That's just wrong." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

1. This piece of creationist swill makes no mention of the size of dinosaurs, other than in a footnote citing the above novel. Question: what kind of complete idiot cites a novel as a source for a purportedly scientific claim? Answer: Ken Ham.

   And the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   An "award" is not a "purportedly scientific claim" :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   For the record, many AAPG members were [insert expletive] pissed about that... though not about the Jurassic Park part, everyone loves Jurassic Park. Awickert (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2. "The Complete T. Rex, 1993, 124" is simply parroting Ken Ham -- not a reliable source.
3. The Smithsonian does not say that dinosaurs were small: "One of the most dramatic of these evolutionary changes occurred in body size. From their small ancestors, some dinosaurs reached sizes exceeding 35 meters in length and 50 tons in weight. In fact, most dinosaurs were relatively large—the average size of a Mesozoic dinosaur was about 100 kilograms, quite large compared with the average size of a Cenozoic mammal (about two to five kilograms). The earliest dinosaurs were among the smallest." 100kg is the weight of a large jaguar -- you wouldn't need too many of even the 'average' dinosaur (remembering for it to be the average, there'll be a considerable number both larger and smaller requiring housing) to take up a lot of room.

Given that all this is more-or-less sourced to a single Ken Ham footnote that, rather than giving a coherent hypothesis, lists a few bald facts/claims that give the (false) impression that a dinosaurs-in-the-Ark (as well as everything-else-in-the-Ark) scenario is feasible. WP:SELFPUB & "unduly self-serving" -- therefore not fit for Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: as the Smithsonian commentary demonstrates, "most people think[ing that] dinosaurs were huge" is not completely wrong -- many dinosaurs were huge. It's just that many many were smaller. For Ham's argument to work, he has to demonstrate how fitting both the many huge dinosaurs and the many many smaller ones onto the Ark would have been feasible. Simply citing the 'average' size and leaving it at that is lying by omission. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. This talkpage is not for (i) discussion of dinosaur eggs, the WP:Synthesis of an argument for the feasibility of Noah's Ark on the basis of them, or (ii) a WP:SOAPbox for the claim that a viewpoint, rejected in the early 19th century (see scriptural geologists), is some sort of Kuhnian paradigm shift, resisted by scientific inertia.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question I have is, what is the largest dinosaur egg ever found? I suspect that the large dinosdaurs were only large because they kept growing for hundreds of years. rossnixon 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Google is your friend. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Sure is. A quick search reveals one egg having a major diameter of 43 centimetres, found in Tiantai China. I recall seeing recently that a small 'species' of dinosaur has now been reclassified as a T.rex. Don't be surprised if many other 'separate' dinosaur species get merged in the future. rossnixon 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC) That's the irritating thing about scientists. They change their mind when new evidence becomes available, instead of sticking to their guns no matter what. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC) That is how science *should* work. It doesn't always happen like that. Long held paradigms, peer-pressure, inertia, group think, politics - all intrude too often. rossnixon 01:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Are Young Earth Creationists wrong?

I stopped reading after the first several paragraphs, because instead of learning about what YEC is, I'm hearing more about what its conflicts are with other currents of thought. There is more about Creation Science in the intro than about YEC. Then I hear that YECs made dubious claims about the origins of their own idea.

Can't we just start off with what YEC is, and how it developed? And move the conflicts and critiques down a bit? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, it would be irresponsible to present YEC without touching on its nature as pseudoscience. --King Öomie 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it still needs less conflict in this section...--Gniniv (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Per King Öomie, there is such a thing as flying in the face of the evidence, YEC does this, and it should be clear from the lead that this is the case (assuming this is the "section" you're talking about). At present, the lead consists of three paragraphs of which one critiques YEC. I could see a case being made that this latter paragraph is overlong/unwieldy, and that the latter qualification about its rejection by scientific bodies is overkill for a lead (i.e. that the paragraph should stop after "creationism has no scientific basis"), but that would be a style decision. Other than this, it would be simply wrong to remove criticism of YEC from the lead. If you disagree and have an alternative suggestion, outline it here. --PLUMBAGO 06:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Title of "Young Earth creationism"

There is ample evidence that seems to indicate a significantly younger age of for the earth. I would suggest either changing the name of this posting to "Young Earth Cosmology" or something to that effect and limit the information posted to scientific evidences only. The age of the earth and universe has nothing to do with existential explanations of WHY there is even matter to begin with Jlindsey2000 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"There is ample evidence ..." No, there is however ample evidence to suggest a Earth billions of years old. See the references listed in the article.

"I would suggest either changing ..." Young Earth creationism is the common name by which this topic is refered to by reliable sources.

"... and limit the information posted to scientific evidences only". What good would that do? This is an article about Young Earth creationism, and as such should deal with the entire phenomena, not just "scientific evidences".

"The age of the earth and universe has nothing to do with ..." True, but how is that related with this article? Gabbe (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would posit that that name and editorial change would be counter-productive to those who support this... odd viewpoint. Reason being, the vast, vast majority of evidence that YEC has behind it has been completely debunked. If the time comes where we need to start worrying about the capabilities of the wiki servers, though, I certainly support cutting this page down to only viable scientific evidence. At last count, we could save probably 98% of the page's 60 KB. --King Öomie 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "evidence" comes from fundamentally - and usually deliberately - twisting actual empirical evidence to suit their conclusions. It is also fundamentally nothing more than a belief, which is why the word "creationism" is necessary to describe it. It is not any form of actual cosmology, considering that it rejects massive swaths if cosmological facts and evidences. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact many recent findings are validating some YEC cosmological hypotheses. I'm thinking specifically of 6 validated predictions of Carmeli’s Cosmological Special Relativity Theory (which YEC physics professor John Hartnett has expanded on) see short URL website is.gd/bnSrt ^rossnixon 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You can make any evidence appear to support YEC if you stop your analysis when the estimate hits 6,000-10,000 years of age. Dozens of branches of science, hundreds of years old, are able to exist because you're wrong. --King Öomie 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Note

I added a neutrality note due to this article being edited only from a anti-YEC viewpoint.--Gniniv (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not always. I edit it from a pro-YEC viewpoint. And we have to take relevant opinion into account on a 'relative weight' basis. ^rossnixon 02:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see a fellow YEC editor. You obviously have not seen this Gallup poll result that shows the "relative acceptance" of creationism versus evolution is not so tiny as people like you to think. (All I will say is it does not make me think of it as a fringe idea in our general population)... If you are really pro-YEC, we need more editors like you on the ongoing discussion of Talk: Objections to evolution (See link Gallup Poll Results)--Gniniv (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia content is mainly concerned with what the concerned 'expert' expounds on a subject. Therefore, poll results (which include the 'great unwashed') are only a 'novelty'. ^rossnixon 02:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that there's a whole world out there. this encyclopedia isn't solely a US project. TheresaWilson (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv — I think that you are confusing "reliably sourced science" with "anti-YEC". Neutrality at Wikipedia emphatically does not require an equal word count on viewpoints. It requires that they are given due weight in accordance with reliable sourcing. Since YEC purports to be science, it is judged by the standards of science, and on this count it is simply not supported by reliable sources. And this is not restricted to evolution, all of science has a problem with YEC: anthropology, astronomy, chemistry, fundamental physics, geology, etc.

Now, rossnixon presents this above as some sort of conspiracy of experts, but science is an open-house in which any and all ideas are up for open debate, and no-one likes to upset establishment applecarts more than scientists. So if an idea, for example evolution, has stood the test of time, that's because no-one has been able to find evidence to overturn it. If they had, competing scientific journals would be clambering over one another to publish ahead of their rivals. As it happens, evolution as an idea has itself evolved (and continues to evolve) to accommodate new evidence. But, thus far, there is no evidence that challenges its central tenets. Being unwaveringly grounded in one particular literal interpretation of one religious book, YEC certainly hasn't contributed to the debate. --PLUMBAGO 09:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IS there consensus for "myth" to be changed to "narrative?"

IP and Til Eugenspiel are pushing through the change from "creation myth" to "creation narrative." It's a creation myth. It's not NPOV to change it. Auntie E. (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that there is also a message at the top of the article now, stating that it needs to be expanded beyond just the US. How curious, at one point I added a whole referenced section about how YEC is the stated position of the Oriental Orthodox Churches of the Middle East, but it looks like someone was uncomfortable with "allowing" that information here. It's not like they're really stopping the info from getting "out there", because fact is, you can easily find info like that anywhere else BUT on wikipedia. Which is exactly the kind of thing that is giving Wikipedia the reputation for being the one-sided POV-pushing backwater that it is becoming. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While I believe it does lean a bit too much toward the biased side to use the term "myths," one of the definitions my Oxford English Dictionary uses to define "myth" is, A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. That seems to apply here, though "narrative" does carry less negative connotations. @Til, I'm not sure why it was taken out, but I think it would've been appropriate to include it (however, I haven't seen it).—DMCer™ 00:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Til, did I remove something about Oriental Orthodox Churches? If so, it was inadvertent, I apologise. If not, I don't see why you commented on it here. Auntie E. (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree there is no consensus for a change of terminology, and given the policy WP:RNPOV, guideline WP:WTA#Myth_and_legend, main article creation myth and an overwhelmingly clear consensus against a change of terminology at other pages (like Talk:Creationism), I doubt there ever will be a consensus for change. Until such time as those things all change though, this particular article should remain consistent with the rest of the project. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While using the word Myth may technically be correct, the use of it in anything concerning Christianity has negative connotations that ALL Christians find offensive. Those who insist on using myth, know this, and they intentionally use it to slap Christians in the face. This makes WP guilty of the intent to insult all Christians. Those who want to use Myth represent a small minority of the USA and the world with big heads of how important they are. Narrative is a perfectly neutral word and does not have negative connotations. Trabucogold (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"narrative is not the story itself but rather the telling of the story". TheresaWilson (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of myth with respect to Christianity is not matched to the use of it in Hinduism, Bhudhism or Islam (which is practically nill). and according to Dictionary.com Narrative means.

–noun

1. a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.

2. a book, literary work, etc., containing such a story.

3. the art, technique, or process of narrating: Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

–adjective

4. consisting of or being a narrative: a narrative poem.

5. of or pertaining to narration: narrative skill.

6. Fine Arts. representing stories or events pictorially or sculpturally: narrative painting. Compare anecdotal (def. 2). Trabucogold (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While either "myth" or "narrative" would be technically correct, since "myth" is so often (mis)used in a pejorative way in everyday speech, why not go with "narrative?" In creation myth the use is appropriate as the article is more concerned with technical aspects of religious literature. Here the focus is on the pseudoscience known as YEC, rather than theology or biblical literature, so it seems either would do; "narrative" is more likely to be understood in the proper sense by the casual reader, so I think it's preferable in this context. Agathman (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RNPOV. The context is clear here and there is an abundance of supporting wikilinks available to anyone unsure. Avoiding terminology is not neutral. Ben (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's rich! Using insulting terminology is NPOV! And the pope is Jewish. No wonder WP has such a bad rap. Editors twist WP policy to fit their biases and insult whom ever they want and think they get away with it. The problem is that the general public is not gullible. They see all this and know that WP is being used by bigots. Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC

Specific words have specific meanings. 'Myth' has a 'negative connotation' because it implies something that it believed in and not scientifically grounded - which is true of YEC. Additionally, I think the use of 'narrative' is simply an attempt to make a euphemism of what is essentially, by definition, a myth and therefore is a violation of POV. However, I have yet to see any argument of why 'narrative' should be used except that it is 'offensive'. WP is not meant to be politically correct but reflect the truth. Therefore, I would personally agree to a change to 'narrative' if there are some proper, logical reasons why it should be, not because of personal sentimentalities. People are not bigots because they fail to agree with your opinion based on the facts. - Anonymous, April 22, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.40.147 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that "myth" is insulting in itself; the only problem is possible confusion of its informal and formal uses. According to WP:RNPOV, "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion." My problem with the usage here is that I don't see that the context has been established. What does the term "myth" achieve here that "narrative" would not? Or conversely, how can we establish the context more clearly so as to reduce the chance that it will be misread in the informal sense? Agathman (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading the first two sentences of this article (before the word myth is encountered), I can't see how it could possibly be made more explicit that we're dealing with a religious topic. Ben (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the current lede is rather redundant: it says "Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[3] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Hebrew text of Genesis as a basis for their beliefs.[4][5] Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis as historical fact." The second sentence adds nothing except the idea that some adherents think this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world. It then reiterates the idea from the previous sentence. We could combine the two by saying "Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Hebrew text of Genesis as a basis for their beliefs. Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world." Tighter, just as informative, and the whole "myth" issue is irrelevant. Agathman (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we can do better:

Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis as a basis for their beliefs. Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world.

I'm not too happy with that second sentence though. Regardless, the creation myth article is clearly relevant here, and attempts to avoid referring to it are ridiculously POV. Ben (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, including the link the the Genesis creation myth article is a valid reason for having the terminology here. I'm not wild about the second sentence myself; I was just trying to preserve the current sense. Actually, I don't think it's "some adherents". AFAIK, all YECs hold that evidence from the natural world supports their view -- that's why it's pseudoscience rather than purely a literalist religious view. How about Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe evidence from the natural world supports the idea that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, consistent with a literal interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis. Agathman (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem with this though is that it doesn't give any weight to the perceived authority of the text (as a sacred text). I'm certain there exist YECs who hold the position on that criterion alone. As you say though, many then look for (and claim) evidence supporting the position, but this is after the fact. I'm about to head home, so I will think about it between now and later on tonight. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We may need to look for sources here. I agree that the authority of the text is at the root of YEC in all cases; however, the phenomenon of YEC seems always to contain claims that the physical evidence agrees with the text. As I said earlier, it's pseudoscience because it claims scientific validity; there aren't (I don't think) any YECs who say "Genesis is true and scientific evidence doesn't matter." The whole phenomenon actually presumes that science is the only sure way to truth, and then tries to co-opt the perceived authority of science to bolster a literal reading of the text. Let me see if Numbers has anything to say on this, or perhaps Ian Barbour. Agathman (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not making a point, but just pointing out that "narrative" is used in Flood geology also.—DMCer™ 11:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's immaterial to me whether we use "narrative" or "myth". I think Ben has a point that we do need to link to Creation according to Genesis, but now that I look at it, that article doesn't actually use the term "myth" much. How about Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who adhere to a literal interpretation of the story of creation found in Genesis, holding that God created the earth in six 24-hour days, and arguing that this claim is supported by evidence from the natural world. Agathman (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted a footnote to clarify in which sense the word "myth" is used in the article. Is that an improvement? Gabbe (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't be using footnotes in this way. Agathman, I think the article should clarify what the belief is before the source of the belief is given. At this point, I still prefer

Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis as a basis for their beliefs. Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world.

We can strengthen the last sentence by replacing "Some" with "Adherents generally believe" if you prefer. Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a footnote is inappropriate. However, I'm again not convinced that "myth" need be included in the passage at all, now that I've seen the Creation according to Genesis article that the passage links to. The article describes the Genesis story/stories as an "account", and only uses the term "myth" well down into the text, in very specific context. Given the principle of least astonishment, there's no reason the link to that article should contain the term "myth". So I have to say that insistence on this term in this spot is unwarranted, and others would do just as well. Agathman (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the creation myth article is relevant in that article too, so I've modified the article. Ben (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" has been the favored term of opponents of Christianity, to label the beliefs of millions of Christians, since at least the French Revolution - despite the fact that many Christians and others have repeatedly stated that it is offensive. They aren't about to give up trying to get the Bible declared a "myth" any time soon. The concept of "neutrality" means nothing to these people, because to them, their POV is the only one that counts. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this logic of escape. Either you are claiming YEC doesn't reflect natural science and therefore is not objectively criticisable or that it is historical fact and therefore is objectively criticisable. You cannot claim beliefs are not subject to reason and then explicitely make objective conclusions from these beliefs. The dennotation of the word at hand should be more important than its connotation. Myth fits the creation description of the YEC proposal more correctly than narrative. I think we should be finding a logical reason for using narrative, not just to cater to the feelings of a minority.

Ben: You say that "we shouldn't be using footnotes in this way". WP:FN says that footnotes may be used "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article". Gabbe (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I like Agathman's proposed text before the outdent above as a solution to the issues raised. It also bypasses the need for a note.—DMCer™ 21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Gabbe. DMCer, story is a woefully inadequate substitute for myth. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

However, the article to which we're linking here uses the term "narrative", not "myth" -- so why don't we use "narrative"? Agathman (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The article title is creation myth, and this article can not avoid using the term since it's so obviously relevant - the belief rests on a creation myth. Also, as I noted above, I've since adjusted the Creation according to Genesis article to include this obviously relevant link. We don't use "narrative" for Christian articles and "myth" for all others. Such an action would clearly not be neutral and is against WP:WTA#myth_and_legend. If you think the term narrative should be used throughout the project (and not just Christian related articles), then by all means take that up at Talk:Creation myth or something, but such a decision should not be made on this talk page. Ben (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The line we're talking about, I believe, is this one from the lede: Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis as historical fact. The phrase "creation myth found in Genesis" in this passage is currently linked to the Creation according to Genesis article, not to Creation myth. And Creation according to Genesis, though it does have a "see also" link to Creation myth, refers to the Genesis creation account as "narrative."Agathman (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's deal with this one point at a time. The Creation according to Genesis article has been partially updated. Are we agreed? Ben (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to add something that sounds off topic, but I hope it clarifies this. What if I was to write on the Michael Jackson article an account of his doctor's description as a myth, would I be seen as a neutral editor? Certainly not. While I cannot prove whether what his doctor said was true, I can prove that it was said by adding a source, such as a news article, like a legitimate encyclopedia would be able to provide. If this is to be a compendium of knowledge from all members of the globe, it should at least show some respect for all members of this globe. Contributor: Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.207.66.192 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Were there an account of his doctor's description that was more than a mere story or statement, but was shown in reliable expert sources as having the qualities of myth, then it could be appropriate. Creation myth is a symbolic narrative, not a mere factual account and certainly not a falsehood which seems to be your misunderstanding of this terminology in its proper technical meaning. Carry on, dave souza, talk 20:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-Neutral?

Why is this presented as non neutral? it talks about what YEC is and why it's anti-scientific. I see no lack of neutrality in this, imo that non neutral tag should be removed.189.140.64.231 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I agree with you, since I don't see any thing that screams non-neutral. Someone probably added the tag because they thought the article should present the hypothesis as theory . elektrikSHOOS 18:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Religiously motivated editing"

The editing that I introduced was for these reasons: (1)Genesis creation narrative was intended to make the reference reflect the change to the title of the article which was extensively discussed with this consensus being reached. Just trying to introduce a bit of uniformity to Wikipedia. (2) What is being talked about is not creation myths in general, but specifically the Genesis myth. (3) There is no reason to have two identical links to Creation myth so close together. (4) Deluge was intended to make a link to an appropriate article. If you want to change it to deluge myth, fine by me, but why remove the link altogether? BTW, I don't understand how (2), (3), and (4) could be understood as being "religiously motivated". How about WP:Assume good faith? TomS TDotO (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it's simply a question of WP:OVERLINK. Every word and concept doesn't necessitate a wikilink. Gabbe (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That addresses point (4), which I agree is debatable. I would point out that there remain links to Tower of Babel, Fall of man and Creation myth (two links!). And I suggest that the title Noah's Ark is not the most likely place someone would look for a discussion of the Biblical deluge myth (it took me a little bit of searching to find this link), so it is more helpful than many links. I think that I am as irritated by overlinking as most people, but this seems to me to be rather benign, unless someone can explain why this is just too much. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism is belief in a creation myth. If you think something is overlinked, you should de-link, not revert to a version with different text. Noloop (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence addresses my (1) and (2), and I respond: Young Earth creationism is belief in a particular creation myth, and I'd suggest that if there is to be a link, it should be a link to the Wikipedia article which describes that myth, rather than a generic article on creation myths. That article happens to have the title Genesis creation narrative. If you don't like that title, then join in the debate at Talk:Genesis creation narrative to see if you can get that title changed (again); or, maybe, make a link like this: [[Genesis creation narrative|Genesis creation myth]]. I am willing to change my mind (or to concede that I don't have a consensus).

It seems to me that your second sentence is in agreement with me about (4).

Does anybody disagree with me about (3)? TomS TDotO (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article isn't determined by what links we want. It's natural for the article, at times, to refer to creation myth generally, and it's appropriate to link to creation myth at those times. Noloop (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Both references to "creation myth" which are linked to are references specifically to the Genesis creation myth. And the first of these references goes on to mention the "fall of man" and the "tower of Babel", and nobody is complaining about links in those two cases. If you want this to be about creation myths generally, then delete the references to the fall of man and the tower of Babel. If you don't like the title of the article about the Genesis creation myth, if you think that that reference is changing the text to fit the link, then there is a very simple way of doing that: [[Genesis creation narrative|Genesis creation myth]]. Absolutely no change to text. And it helps the interested reader in finding the Wikipedia article on the Genesis creation myth which is being talked about at this point. (Rather than pointing the reader to an article on creation myths in general, which is of peripheral interest.) What's wrong with that?

Does anybody have any reason for having two links, very close together, to "creation myth"? If that isn't overlinking, I don't know what is. Nobody seems to want to defend this.

Why is a link to an article on the Genesis flood excessive, when links to the fall of man, the tower of Babel, and creation myth (twice) are not?

All I'm trying to do is make some minor cosmetic changes to improve the article, and I'm accused of bad faith which seems to poison the well for anything that I suggest. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YEC is a type of creation myth. That information is not of "peripheral interest." It's part of how the information is organized and defined, providing a broader context for understanding. You might is well argue that mammal is of "peripheral interest" in the article on cats. Noloop (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article on creation myths is not of peripheral interest, then neither are the articles on the Genesis creation myths and on the deluge. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the objections are to what I did. Therefore I am going to make the changes again, but one at a time to see what objections each one draws. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

question about sanctions

I am not trolling. This is a genuine question. I don't understand the "sanctions" warning that has been placed here. Can someone explain? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It basically means that due to the especially sensitive nature of this article's subject and its high potential for abuse, admins can be more judicious than normal with topic-bans and blocks. So when editing, try to be a model Wikipedian. If you click through to the page on General Sanctions it will talk about what they are and why they exist. elektrikSHOOS 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Myths

I want to make some changes to this sentence in the article, but want to discuss them here first:

For the vast majority of YECs, an allegorical reading of the Genesis creation myth, the Fall of man, the deluge myth, and the Tower of Babel would undermine core Christian doctrines like the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There are some difficulties with the wording, it seems to me.

(1) Is the word "Genesis" here modifying all of (a) "creation myth", (b) "Fall of man", (c) "deluge myth", and "Tower of Babel"? Or is the phrase "Genesis creation myth" a unity in parallel to (b), (c), and (d)? It seems to me that while the Tower of Babel is unique to Genesis, there are many myths of creation and deluge. But YECs are specifically interested in the Genesis-based versions of these.

(2) Is there some reason why the word "myth" is only attached to "creation" and "deluge"? I suggest that it be used either for all of these, or for none, or only once in reference to all of them?

(3) There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Genesis creation narrative about what the proper title for the article is. It seems to me that there is an emerging consensus that the title is going to be retained. There are a couple of other differences between the relevant Wikipedia articles and this sentence which should be tidied up.

I therefore propose that this sentence be reworded to something like this:

... an allegorical reading of the Genesis creation narrative, the Fall of Man, Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel would undermine ...

If people feel that these changes violate WP:OR, I would suggest:

... an allegorical reading of the myths of <nonwiki>Genesis creation, Fall of Man, Genesis deluge, and the Tower of Babel would undermine ...

I trust that it is obvious that I am not adamant about these suggestions and I am willing to discuss them. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the second one. I don't like the first one not because of OR but because Noah's Ark is too descriptive. (The vague wording of 'deluge' myth was probably chosen because similar stories exist in other cultures and religions.). elektrikSHOOS 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I like the first one more because throwing the myths bit at the beginning makes it too wordy, and it's already implied the stories would be myths if they're being read allegorically. elektrikSHOOS 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture innapropriate for article

A direct quote from the article, "Most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel" -- yet the picture at the top of the article depicts Adam and Eve with belly buttons..... Perhaps a new picture could be found? Hazelorb (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

copyediting

I just glanced at this article because I was citing it elsewhere, and I noticed there are some significant writing problems. What caught my eye first was the repetitive use of YEC (that's not really an accepted acronym, so far as I know, and it is overused because a lot of the article is 'listish', which is stylistically poor. I'm going to tag it and put it on my todo list (I'll get to it if no one else does); I just wanted to leave a note about why I'm tagging it. --Ludwigs2 22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

origin vs. "decline"

The defeat of Plutonism doesn't mark the "decline" of YEC, it marks its birth. Before any evidence on geological timescales was available, it was also impossible to be a "young earth creationist". "Creationism" is an ideology that developed as a reaction to the progress of scientific research, and part of a controversy that didn't even exist before. Before 1800, Neptunism was a respectable scientific hypothesis, it wasn't "creationism".

A sure sign that YEC didn't exist before the 19th century is the fact that there wasn't even a term for it. In fact, the term emerges only in the 1970s, because it was (apparently) only then that the "creationist" camp began to articlulate itself into a "young earth" vs an "old earth" wing. --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because there isn't a term for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist yet. There were no terms for some diseases until they were discovered, but they still existed. YEC as defined in this article did exist long before the 1970s, it was just not named as such. You could argue that someone should edit to clarify, but I think most people understand what is meant by the decline of YEC. --69.196.173.198 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Age of the Earth

"While there is some evidence for a small degree of variability in decay rates, the significant variation in decay rates required by Young Earth creationists is not supported by scientific evidence."

This is patently false. Nuclear reactors work by greatly (significantly) reducing the half-lives of fissionable material. Either reword the sentence to say something different, or allow "generally" back in the sentence. Dan Watts (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear reactors work by greatly (significantly) reducing the half-lives of fissionable material. Source for that please. Or am I misunderstanding something here? Vsmith (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you're not misunderstanding. By trying to connect the effect of nuclear reactors to radioactive decay to YEC chronology, Dan is simply attempting WP:SYNTH here. It's also unclear where the "Holy Nuclear Reactors of Radiometric Doom" occur in Genesis; surely they'd have to exist to artificially age the Earth's stockpile of radioisotopes for Dan's scheme to work. Or were they washed away in the Flood? --PLUMBAGO 06:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. This is also being thrashed out over at Dan's talkpage.

Would this statement be more acceptable?

"While there is some evidence for a small degree of variability in decay rates, except perhaps for rhenium which has been measured to decay at a rate nine orders of magnitude faster if stripped of all electrons, and nuclear reactors work by causing accelerated nuclear decay with moderated neutron fluxes, the significant variation in decay rates of specific radioactive materials required by Young Earth creationists is not supported by scientific evidence." Dan Watts (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Too wordy. There is insufficient variability in decay rates (currently observable/testable) for it to be mentioned at all in this article, unfortunately. ^rossnixon 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Nine orders of magnitude (currently observable/testable, see www.geochronometria.pl/pdf/geo_27/Geo27_05.pdf ) decrease is "insufficient"? Wow! I thought that I had seen tough standards before, but this is truly amazing! Dan Watts (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that we have at least 2 secondary sources to back up the contested statement. What you've presented here appears to be synthesis of information presented in a primary source, which is considered original research. What you'll need to do is find reliable secondary sources which say exactly what you're claiming themselves. Jess_talk|_edits 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So, is there a reason, other than this sentence was not written by me, that this:

"While there is some evidence for a small degree of variability in decay rates, the significant variation in decay rates required by Young Earth creationists is not supported by scientific evidence." is not WP:SYNTH? Dan Watts (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because we have reliable sources that say so. Also, please try to assume good faith. Thanks Jess_talk|_edits 02:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to try to assume good faith. I looked at the reference and saw nothing concerning "evidence for a small degree of variability in decay rates", so again, how is the quote above not WP:SYNTH? Dan Watts (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I wrote that sentence to replace a synthy edit by Dan. Anyway, to pay for my sins, how's about this alternative wording of this article section. I've tried to remove any synthy elements in the previous text, as well as trim and combine the previously messy paragraph structure. I think that the sourcing more accurately reflects the contents of the various citations. Anyway, I will replace the current text with this tomorrow unless there are good reasons for not doing so. --PLUMBAGO 08:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and typically base their range of Earth ages using the genealogies of Genesis and other dates in the Bible, similar to the process used by James Ussher when he dated creation to 4004 BC. This contrasts with the age of 4.54 billion years estimated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating. Mike Riddle, writing for the Young Earth creationist apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, states that radioactive decay rates are not constant and thus challenge the validity of scientifically-accepted radiometric methods. While there is evidence for variability in decay rates, it occurs under particular circumstances in nature, tends to be of limited quantitative importance, and can increase rather than decrease the decay rate. Further, radioisotope-derived ages have been verified many times using both independent and different radiometric methods, and by consistency with a number of non-radiometric dating methods. Scientists also point to serious flaws in the RATE study of radioisotope dating undertaken by a team of Young Earth creationists."

P.S. Even if no-one likes the text above, note that I've tidied the citations up, so will at least import those to the article. --PLUMBAGO 08:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that reference actually supports 'decrease' the decay rate, however shows the opposite behavior. Dan Watts (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're completely right. I got that back to front. The half-life is increased since the decay rate decreases. An estimate of age using this radioisotope would suggest a younger age than its true age. I should have written the sentence clause as "... and can decrease decay rate and make samples appear younger (rather than older) than they actually are". Regarding your second point, and the Bosch et al. (1996) paper, that appears to relate decay to the conditions inside stars (or storage rings). Again, it has little to do with the age of the Earth, but it might be a useful cite in support of the earlier point about "particular circumstances" under which decay rate is altered. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I hadn't realised that an isotope's half-life could be altered to this degree before. Anyway, in light of it, the text I've written above is over-simplified and misleading, I'll have another go at rewriting the text later. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the second point, lightning comes with temperatures (30000 K) sufficient to strip off ~50 electrons of Rhenium without stellar interiors or storage rings. Dan Watts (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a source for that, right? To go back to where we started, it's this line of argument that's gotten us into this protracted discussion. Constructing a chain of reasoning from the temperature of lightning (source A), to mechanisms for electron-stripping rhenium (source B), to the radioactive decay of electron-stripped rhenium (source C), to YEC age of the Earth requirements for radioisotopes (source D) is certainly possible, but it's synthesis plain and simple. If this chain is qualitatively and quantitatively important, then there will be reliable sources out there that make it for us (especially on an issue as important as the age of the Earth), thus avoiding the need for us to conduct original research. Furthermore, while there may be YEC sources out there which make this precise argument, they will need to be balanced by those from boring, old mainstream science that present the (overwhelming) contrary evidence. Like, for instance, that rhenium in rocks can't be struck by lightning; that different isotopic methods agree with one another; that radiometric dating agrees with non-radioisotope dating methods; that YEC-compliant accelerated radioactive decay would melt the Earth; etc. Anyhow, I'll try to get back to editing my alternative paragraph above tomorrow. --PLUMBAGO 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My remark concerning lightning was to show for discussion a condition that was other than "the conditions inside stars (or storage rings)." I will attempt (except for discussions e.g. "rhenium in rocks can't be struck by lightning") to add to articles only information with acceptable, unsynthy references. Dan Watts (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but can you explain how that's different from the issue at hand? Namely, the editing of the article to include material about decay-altering processes that cannot reasonably affect radiometric dating of the age of the Earth. That's where all this started, and the lightning example seems pretty similar to me. Anyway, how's about this version of the "offending" sentence in the article?

"While there is evidence for variability in decay rates, this occurs under particular circumstances in nature that are not relevant to radiometric dating."

To my mind it covers all of the relevant bases. The first clause of the first sentence can be supported by the examples of decay variability; the second by TalkOrigins sources ([3], [4]) plus sources that they cite. --PLUMBAGO 07:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in case it gets obscured by subsequent edits, I've replaced the text in this section of the article with that described above. I've edited the "offending" sentence to that immediately above. I hope this (a) makes the section more coherent, and (b) properly contextualises the variability in decay rates. It is important for WP:NPOV that readers are aware that this variability, while demonstrable (if not entirely understood; cf. the Earth orbit example), has little to do with radiometric dating. --PLUMBAGO 16:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rhenium-osmium dating, since they use it, should have something to do with the age of the earth. Specifically the isotope that has been shown to vary 9 orders of magnitude in half-life and they remark that the change of half-life by any specific ionization is calculable. So I would agree on the importance of reader awareness. Now, how to cause awareness without synth? Dan Watts (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the text includes the caveat: "this occurs under particular circumstances in nature that are not relevant to radiometric dating". From my reading around, which is not exhaustive, this seems a reasonable summary. Certainly, there appear to be plenty of papers that use Rh-Os dating, and I've even come across one or two that acknowledge the effect of being "electron-naked" on decay rate and radiometric dating (e.g. this one by F. Bosch). But none of the papers I've seen appear to be suggesting anything that's pertinent to the situation here (i.e. that the radiometric-derived age of the Earth is in jeopardy). From which I infer that radiometric scientists believe that rhenium atoms do not normally experience conditions that increase their decay rates (i.e. the sentence clause above). The Bosch paper I mention above also says: "It has been recognized since a long time that the number and configuration of electrons bound in the atom can significantly alter beta decay lifetimes". This suggests that (a) the effect you describe is well-known, and not likely to soon revolutionise radiometric dating; and (b) that this particular effect only occurs in atoms that experience beta decay (the ⁷Be story, also cited here, has complications as well). Neither of which point to the phenomenon of increased rhenium decay having relevance to radiometric dating of the Earth.

This information, set alongside your suggestion about increasing "awareness without synth", begs the question about what kind of awareness you're after. In the absence of any supportive sources, it would be misleading to draw attention to enhanced rhenium decay without also making it clear that it is not believed to play any significant role in radiometric dating (i.e. like the text already does). I think the kind of awareness you're after will need some serious sources to back it up. Ones that I've yet to see in the literature, and ones that can't be substituted with those from the likes of AiG and fellow travelers. --PLUMBAGO 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. In the meantime, I've tidied up the description of rhenium decay over at rhenium-osmium dating so that the large decrease in half-life is explicitly mentioned. It's a very interesting phenomenon regardless of its radiometric dating significance (or otherwise). --PLUMBAGO 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)