Talk:Young Earth Creationism

From EvoWiki

This article on young earth creationists is grossly exagerated. Clearly the work of an atheist. You need to present articles that state the facts, leave the atheistic opinions out of it. --65.2.145.240

Care to give an example of what you think is wrong with it? I mean, which part is only opinion? --tk (t) 14:16, 21 Jul 2005 (BST)

What TK said. Exactly which bits of this article are "atheistic opinion"? How about the opening sentence, "Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism which accepts a literal, historical interpretation of the creation story in Genesis." -- is that "atheistic opinion"? Is it just "atheistic opinion" that YECs usually believe the Earth to be, at most, 10K years old... or that YECs thinkthe Earth was created in six 24-hour periods... ot tha YECs reject evolutionary theory? Please, O Anonymous Commentor, do give us more to go on than just your unsupported assertion! --67.180.187.81

Is there any Biblical basis for the beliefs of Young-Earth Creationists? I just read through the first two chapters of Genesis and can't seem to find any indication that the heavens and the earth were created in six days--all it says is that God created them "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1). The six days of creation that follow begin with God's Spirit "moving to and fro over the surface of the waters" (Genesis 1:2) of an already-existent earth. Shouldn't this be added to the main article? --140.247.135.137

Genesis 1, 5 says: "first day".

Genesis 1, 8 says: "second day".

Genesis 1, 13 says: "third day".

Genesis 1, 19 says: "fourth day".

Genesis 1, 23 says: "fifth day".

Genesis 1, 31 says: "sixth day".

The earth is there in the first day already though. Is that what you mean? Then the passage

"(YECs) usually believe the age of the Earth to be ~6,000-10,000 years, and that it was created over a period of 6 consecutive 24-hour days"

should be something like

"(YECs) usually believe the age of the Earth to be ~6,000-10,000 years, and that it and the life on it were created over a period of 6 consecutive 24-hour days"

or

"(YECs) usually believe the age of the Earth to be ~6,000-10,000 years, and that it was created within a period of 6 consecutive 24-hour days"

That would be more accurate. Feel free to think of something. --tk (t) 11:29, 20 Aug 2005 (BST)

I agree with Tom . . . This is one of the most biased articles I've found on here . . . some one needs to fix this ASAP--JPhish 10:18, 19 July 2007 (BST)

What "bias", JPhish? Feel free to, like, identify any specific part(s) of the article that you believe to be biased. I mean, you can identify at least one specific part of the article that's unjustly biased against YEC, and not just a simple statement of fact, can't you, JPhish? Your complaint really does have a basis in fact, and it's not just a bogus, unfounded whine, right? So where, exactly, is this "bias" of which you speak? How about "Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that accepts a literal, historical, interpretation of the creation story in Genesis."; is that where you think the "bias" lies? Or is "Additionally, most YECs accept the story of Noah's Flood as written in the Bible as literally true." the "bias"ed bit? Or is it some completely different part, JPhish? Don't leave us all in suspense -- inquiring minds want to know!!! Cubist 15:07, 20 July 2007 (BST)

And you don't agree with me. You agree with some IP who didn't sign his writings and didn't justify his opinion. I just added signatures for the unmarked text. --tk 15:21, 30 July 2007 (BST)

"They argue that what modern science recognizes as a fossil record with an extensive history was really laid down within one year during the Flood" That is biased, it asserts that there is an extensive HISTORY to the fossil records. The "history" in the fossil record is assumed based on theory. It's poor word choice. "They believe all "kinds" of plants and animals, essentially in their modern forms" That's not true at all. If you're a YEC, it doesn't mean that you don't believe in environmental adaptation. "these hypotheses are starkly at odds with modern science." incorrect, the hypothesii are starkly at odds with evolutionists obstinately clutching to their Darwinian teddy bears. Why label the second section criticisms if you are going to tackle them subjectively? "the fossil record clearly rules out a 6-day creation"; the way this article has been written is laughable.--JPhish 16:10, 26 May 2008 (BST)

i agree that this article is incredibly biased. from the words chosen to the aspects discussed. example: saying YEC frequently attacks OEC with bitterness. not only is an unfounded generalization, but it also paints a vindictive and malicious picture YEC. A better wording would be: YEC is differentiated from OEC. They claim that OEC is a compromise from the Bible. See how easy it is to stick to fact, and not opinion.

the worst part of the article is the criticism section. "While attempting to reconcile a given piece of disconfirming<sic> evidence, YECs will readily invent ad hoc explanations, no matter how strange" This for example takes a tone of doubt from the onset by saying "attempting", which by this tone implies the author believes it is futile. Further, it claims creationists "invent" answers as opposed to creating rebuttals. and adding "no matter how strange" is a clear and blatant opinion that should be deleted. "strangeness" is a subjective reflection.

further, there is no citation, and no evidence that YEC "declare almost every aspect of contemporary science at fault". Chemistry, biology, and physics for example are testable sciences that YEC do not refute in any which way. geology, contrary to popular belief is not testable for the most part. and in fact amongst evolutionists, proper dating techniques for the most accurate results are still constantly being debated. so geology is contended by YEC. as far as astrology is concerned, should i say anymore than string theory.

this article needs to be cleaned up greatly.

Minor nitpick

They believe that the flood was a world-wide event and that all animals on Earth today have descended from the two (or seven) animals aboard Noah's Ark Actually, that should be "two (or fourteen)" as the second version says "seven pairs of every clean animal" (never mind that the clean-unclean distinction was introduced much later according to the Biblical chronology ...) Nik 20:11, 25 May 2008 (BST)