This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

Archives

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

Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs (merged article)

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

Please note. This article is about Young Earth Creationism and what they believe. You don't need to agree with YECs to accept the content on this page provided it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Content has been removed that, to me (as a non-YEC), looks very much like stock-standard YECism beliefs and has been adequately verified. For example, it is a staple of YEC belief that every human being comes from the people who were on Noah's ark -- it may be a ridiculous opinion, but I have never seen a YEC teach otherwise so it is an accurate representation. Before removing large chunks of material, please discuss it here on the talk page first and reach consensus. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was an edit war, but jps and I definitely disagreed with how edits should be made. Actually I specifically did not want to start an edit war, but this was before the IP editor and Binksternet got involved. However, jps was gracious enough to post on my talk page and I think we worked out the issue. I've now posted additional, non-YEC links to the sections that you restored that confirm these statements are what YEC's actually believe. Most of them are somewhat derogatory, such as "Those stupid YEC's actually believe XYZ", but they nonetheless corroborate the text. Let me know if this is sufficient. If not, I can put in some more work. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

The problem with YEC is that it's so at variance with the modern rationalistic worldview that it's quite hard to find ways of describing it from the outside that don't seem in some way to be mocking it. For example, even if you don't believe in radiocardbon dating, geological strata, billios-of-years-old Earth, or any of that other fancy sciency stuff, there's a continuous timeline established by dendrochronology that goes back over 10,000 years into the past.([1]) that makes most claims of YEC absolutely implausible, as well as being evidence against any global Flood event during that period. This means that without deploying "sophisticated" arguments that deny the very simple, direct, common-sense rationale behind dendrochronology, pre-10000-BP YEC hypotheses are, so to speak, dead in the water.

The problem for YECs is that once they've pinned their faith to early creation, they've made the whole thing falsifiable: deny that, and the whole edifice falls apart. -- The Anome (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From your link, the Holocene trees have a mean age of 176 yrs and a max age of 575 yrs. Therefore they are placed in historical context through Carbon dating. This is not a linear, 12,000 yr dendrochronology - as you state - it is a patchwork of hundreds of trees that are used to build this timeline. The find thus hinges on Carbon dating which YEC have already stated in multiple peer-reviewed articles are subject to much interpretation since the basis of Carbon dating is the steady-state amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (and is constantly being reset because of ongoing discoveries[2]) - something that is easily explained away by a global flood and the postulated pre-flood atmospheric conditions.([3]) I agree that if you could prove the beginning falsifiable the edifice falls apart, but using circular logic (Carbon dating of one subset is used to prove Carbon dating of another subset) doesn't accomplish that. Ckruschke (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

As far as I can see, they do a fairly good job of linking up the multiple individual continuous records from different places. Yes, they use carbon dating to bootstrap the similarity checking, and then check again that it's self-consistent elsewhere, but they do seem to have correlated the records in each case. Unless I'm mis-reading the paper. -- The Anome (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'd probably have to go to the authors to 100% verify this, but there is no way to date a archeological find other than in context of surrounding strata or other materials. Unless we KNOW KNOW when a bed was layed down (such as a firmly dated volcanic eruption), a find is dated through either direct Carbon dating or through assumed similar deposition of other articles that are found in the same strata of the same bed (such as plant material), or through the direct comparison of articles found (such as pot shards) for which we have an "established" date through Carbon dating of similar materials. We compare the pot manufacturing techniques and or designs to other shards that we've found and "dated" and when we find a match, the undated material is then considered to be "of a similar date".

Therefore archeologists are often using Carbon dating-established dates to date other material and then stating that it is a firm date. I'm not arguing that this is a bad or faulty thing - just pointing out the methodology. Thus the "12,000 year dendochronology" is actually a patchwork of 200-600 yr old trees laid on top of eachother to create a quilt that is 12,000 yr history. If this was - say - a 10,000 yr old tree that we could count rings that would be one thing (or then we could argue about what's a ring and what isn't), but it isn't. Good discussion though and I appreciate your challenges. Ckruschke (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

"it's quite hard to find ways of describing it from the outside that don't seem in some way to be mocking it" - exactly. Also, there is a deliberate effort by scientists to ignore YECism so as not to give it any oxygen. See [4]. Because of this (probably legitimate) tactic, independent sources describing YEC beliefs are not all that easy to find. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why removal of content is somewhat appropriate. We should only reference things which everyone (outsiders and insiders) agree is part-and-parcel to the topic. Insiders have a lot of ideas they want "fairly" described, but in many cases to do so would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRIND. That's the issue I'm having. The NAS sources was fantastic, but it only mentioned that creationists believe in a flood as evidence for the fossil record. That may be as far as we can go. Wikipedia is set-up to be stifling of in-depth discussion of WP:FRINGE material because it is impossible to strike the neutral balance unless there is a neutral balance of sources. Keep the sources coming. I'm not having a lot of luck finding good ones (please no more blogs, though). jps (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its just my interpretation, but I still disagree that WP:FRIND means that we need to show "balance" when we are simply describing what a fringe topic BELIEVES. I agree that WP:FRIND does mean that in order to discuss the notability/prominence of fringe theories in the populace, you need an independent source to corroborate this. However, neither of these sections are stating notability/prominence of this subject - just what it is.

As I said, I think we need better sourcing and we are working on that. I still disagree that section blanking is a first option tool - I only do that if section of text is completely unsavable and something that just needs corroborating links is "not" - but we are at the "agree to disagree" point here so no reason to continue to belabor it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Yes, this is covered in policy by WP:CHALLENGE: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.... VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to show "balance" to meet WP:NPOV, and specifically to give due WP:WEIGHT to majority expert views, and not replicate an "in-universe" self-depiction of YEC claims. This should be achieved by meeting the WP:V section on WP:SOURCES and basing the article on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not on the primary sources of YEC publications and websites: these can only be used with care, in a context set by secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is YEC really "fringe"?

I've been meaning to say this for a while. Whether WP:FRINGE is even relevant here is questionable. If 40-50% of Americans believe that the Eaerth was created 10,000 years ago, then Young Earth Creationism is most definitely NOT a fringe topic. Creation science is a fringe topic as far as science is concerned (hence it should have no mention on any WIkipedia article about geology, biology, anthropology etc.), but the religious beliefs about Adam, Eve, creation in 6 days, global flood, etc. are NOT fringe. And it could even be argued that Creation Science is actually religion not science, and indeed it is very much mainstream religious belief not fringe. Tonicthebrown (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE is not a function of popularity. It's a function of whether it is accepted by the majority of reliable sources. In the case of creationism, there are essentially no reliable sources which accept it. It's classic WP:FRINGE. But, you are more than welcome to inquire at the noticeboard set-up to resolve these questions if you disagree. jps (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not about popularity. And I have no doubt that we can find many many RS discussing young-earth creationism as a common and influential religious opinion which is at the forefront of the culture and education wars. Eg. these links [5], [6]. We have here mainstream, independent person claiming YEC is "bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind". If YEC is dangerous for humankind, surely then it is not FRINGE but rather very much notable. (Again, I wholeheartedly agree it is fringe as science, but that is not the issue.)

Perhaps you expressed yourself inaccurately; but it is incorrect as far as WP policy is concerned to demand "reliable sources which accept it [creationism]", if by "accept" you mean "agree with". What matters is that RS "accept" it as significant and notable, not "accept" it as correct. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse lack of notability with being fringe. They are two very different things. There are many notable fringe ideas. Many of which are significant. Alternative medicine, for example. To be clear, fringe designations also have nothing to do with whether the statements being made are correct or incorrect. It has to do with the reception, evidence, and treatment received by the best sources. The classic case of continental drift shows that, occasionally, fringe theories can become mainstream (and vice versa for the anti-drifters). It's not really the place of Wikipedia to speculate on such possibilities of course. In short, I don't think you've really taken to heart what WP:FRINGE actually says. Please read it again. Note that creation science is listed specifically as a fringe theory that is notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia -- and it explains why this is so. jps (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources demonstrating that creationism is not actually a fringe topic, but a highly notable one in culture, religion, education and politics. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, the multi-million dollar creationism museum: [14] [15] [16] [17] Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young-earth creationism is indeed a popular religious belief, particularly within the U.S., Turkey, and other similar countries, is the subject of extensive coverage in third-party reliable sources, and is thus highly noteworthy and deserving of coverage in Wikipedia, as is its offshoot "creation science". However, within the world of science, it's about as fringey as it gets: it explicitly contradicts the scientific consensus chronology in biology, geology, and cosmology, by a factor of a million or more. -- The Anome (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources don't establish the subject as not being fringe. They simply establish the subject as being notable. But we knew it was notable already. jps (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FRINGE "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. "

So, if the "particular field" is science, then creation science is fringe. I agree with you on that, and always have. But if the "field" is "the cultural landscape of America" or "religion" or "origins myth", then young earth creationism is not fringe. Note- Creation science ≠ YEC. And this is the YEC article, not the creation science article. Am I making sense? Tonicthebrown (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tonicthebrown - On the page, it is clear that the YEC's view the subject as science. However, almost all of the discussion revolves around "this is what they think" and not really "scientific discussion of what they think" as even the Criticsm section talks only tangentially about the science aspect and instead really focuses on how YEC isn't a science - its a religeon. However, stating that the YEC page is about non-science is essentially undercutting the whole point that YEC's are trying to make. I'm not sure what the answer is... Ckruschke (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

If the particular field is the central YEC claim of the timing of Earth's origins, they're clearly fringe claims in relation to the overwhelming majority expert view. Counting the proportion of adherents of the relevant sects in the U.S. doesn't make that a mainstream expert view worldwide, it merely shows how many believe what they're told by that fringe minority of religious leaders. We would report their beliefs as we would those of any other sect, while being clear where they conflict with science. Creation science has been a central part of YEC thought since the 1960s, and hard to separate from YEC thought: is there evidence of YECs these days who don't claim "scientific" support for their beliefs? . . dave souza, talk 18:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dave souza - No - the foundation of YEC's view is that its a science-based theory. Often the science is based on the refuting of conventional science, but I think I can pretty comfortably state that NO adherent to Young Earth Creation would state that he/she thinks its anti-Science. In fact, one vocal, though less well-known adherent, Ian Juby, has a weekly television show on Christianima/The Walk/YouTube in which he states clearly his stance that YEC is a superior science than that of the evolutionists. Hope that helps (and wasn't too WP:ORy). Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

My impression is that YECs get their opinions from the religious texts and then use "creation science" to prove or "confirm" their predetermined conclusions about the age of the Earth and global flood. IMO it is fundamentally a religious position, not a scientific one. And as a religious position it is not fringe. If you are going to argue that a religious position is WP:FRINGE then you may as well say that Christianity is a fringe topic. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If the particular field is the central YEC claim of the timing of Earth's origins, they're clearly fringe claims in relation to the overwhelming majority expert view." Not quite correct. It's fringe relative to the majority expert view if the "experts" you are thinking of are scientists. But it is NOT fringe if the "experts" are religious leaders and clergy. If you measure religious opinion against the opinion of scientists, then you will say that ANY religious belief in miracles (eg. walking on water, miraculous healings, resurrection), demons, angels, prayer, prophecy, (etc) is contrary to majority opinion and therefore WP:FRINGE. The fact is, all religion makes claims that the majority of scientists reject and if you make science the yardstick, then all religion becomes fringe. So that approach is wrong because Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a science encyclopedia. What we do is report what the religions believe, and add a note that it is contradicted by scientific consensus. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The experts in the subjects of biology, geology, astronomy, and so forth are not religious leaders and clergy. Belief in literal miracles, demons, angels, prayer, prophecy, and so forth is indeed WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia treats such literal beliefs as such. There is, however, also a tradition within major religions where these ideas are treated metaphorically or symbolically. When that's done, there is no conflict between the non-overlapping magesteria in the same way most religious leaders don't see a conflict between results from scientific discovery and religious belief. So there you have it: it depends on how it's framed. Look at our articles of faith healing, parthenogensis, reincarnation, etc. for more on how Wikipedia deals with these issues. jps (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd point out that YEC is not even remotely a majority view among Christians, still less among non-Christians and unbelievers. The Roman Catholic Church, the single largest Christian denomination, explicitly accepts the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe and evolution of species. A little-known fact is that the inventor of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome - agreed. YEC is not even a predominantly-held belief in (the usually more "liberal") non-denominational churches - modern bastions of conservative Christian beliefs. However, as you know, being in the minority does not automatically, QED, denote fringe.

Many Catholic priests were known for hard science discoveries throughout the millenia. Heck, a wanna-be Anglican priest became Charles Darwin... Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I agree that it is fringe. Would throw my support behind adding it to categories: cults or other similar category. I have tried to do this in the past only to have it quickly reverted.

"Pseudoscience" category

I've reverted a recent change that removed this article from Category:Pseudoscience. The category tag was removed on the basis that creation science was pseudoscience, but YEC is not. As I think the above discussion shows, I think the category tag is warranted, as YEC explicitly makes claims about the physical nature of the material world that are contrary to scientific evidence and known physical laws. These claims are independent of the claims of "creation science", which relates primarily to biology. -- The Anome (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is phrased wrong and is misrepresenting the question Gallop asked. Most Christians and Jewish people hold the view that Man was created between 10k and 30k years ago.

Both Old Earth Creationists (of several flavors) and Young Earth Creationists hold the 10,000 human belief. The percentage subset of Young Earth Creationists from actual Human Creationists as far as I know it is not known.

This statistic has nothing to do with Young Earth Creationists and only if it was to be corrected should it be left. Otherwise it should be removed.

Between 40% and 50% of the people of adults in the United States say they believe that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." There are many online references that say that people who believe "God Created Humans 10,000 years ago" to also believe "The earth is 6,000" years old but these are two distinct and different beliefs. A significant percentage of the world believes that world was created by God, and that man was created 10,000 years ago and only a small albeit vocal group believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

-- consider 1 in 10 people drive a chevrolet. Volt is made by chevrolet, therefore 1 in 10 people drive a volt.

DevonSprings (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The beliefs that Man was created recently and that Earth was created recently are both found in YEC, and as far as I know those who believe on almost always believe the other. There are many reliable sources that show that the beliefs are connected. Please show a reliable source that there i a significant number that believe in an old Earth and a recent creation of Man. 18:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a SET / SUPERSET discussion. There are many faiths, Judaism, Christianity, Shikism, Hinduism that all have creation stories. These Stories do not include a specific time of creation. There are 40-50% of americans meaning 140 Million americans that hold God created Man 10,000 years ago. There is not even data on how many YEC people their are but it is far less than 120 Million Old Earth Denominations

So most Christian faiths believe in Young Man Creation. Very few believe in Young Earth Creation. Just because YEC believes in Young Man Creation does not mean, nor did Gallup ask if they believe in Young Earth Creation.

They are two separate beliefs. They are NOT the same thing. Before you put it back, find proof that ALL people who believe in Young Man Creation also believe in Young Earth Creation.

DevonSprings (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show sources for your assertions.Sjö (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I showed an assertion from the Old Earth Denominations that they went through several of the major sects of christianity and documented from their web sites their belief on YEC and OEC. But again YEC is not Young Human Creation that Gallup asked about.

The Gallup question did not say, Do you believe the "earth was created in the last 10,000 years". It said do you believe "Humans in their current form were created in the last 10,000 years."

The Wiki is using Gallup Data that is not even close, young earth is NOT EQUAL TO young human. YEC just also happen to believe in YHC but not all YHC do not believe in YEC.

DevonSprings (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DevonSprings here. It is OR to state that the people who said that they believe that many was created in his present form 10,000 years ago are Young Earth Creationists. In fact, I would say that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say anything at all about whether they are creationists at all or not. When it comes to opinion polls on private matters like religion, people often give logically inconsistent answers, and it is inherently exceedingly risky making logical conclusions based on those answers. Far too great of a risk for us as WP editors to assume. I highly doubt that Gallup came to the conclusion that 40 to 50% of the American population subscribes to Young Earth Creationism. If they didn't, neither should we. In fact, I don't see how the poll results can be logically connected to the topic of this article at all, and can't see why this poll should me mentioned in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply removed the words "young Earth" from the sentence. It now represents the source without question. The poll is also clearly relevant to this article even if there is some doubt over how many of the people questioned the accepted age of the Earth as well as human history. The second poll (which got removed somewhere in the edit warring) is helpful in painting a bigger picture. GDallimore (Talk) 11:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Young Human Creationism/Young Man Creationism even a separate field of study? I did some google searching and can find nothing about it. Is it called something else? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 15:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most denominations creationism isn't discussed as part of their "faith message" in anyway. It is a very recent phenom as the article observes that YEC is even a discussion. The three major religions in the world that are based on the Old Testament, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism mostly have the "gap age" view. That is because the word "Yom" as noted in other Wiki articles does not even have a passing of time until the 4th day.

The issue with leaving it is because one is a Set of the other that would read something like this. Creationists contain a set called Young Earth Creationists. Creationists believe in Genesis 1. Creationists have many different views as the article itself states including "Old Earth Creation", "Gap Creation" and a very very small number in the world, Young Earth Creationists. Creationists in general believe that Man was created sometime in the last 10,000 - (as high as 90,000) years ago depending on who you speak to. But the general reference number is 10k.

Young Earth Creationists also believe in "Humans were created 10,000 years ago"

Young Earth Creationists is a subset of Creationists they are not equal.

To leave the Gallup poll casual readers will assume YEC = 40 - 48%. To be very clear we should actually write that YEC is Not EQUAL to YHC.

DevonSprings (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I think this poll should stay in the article. Although I believe it should say "Since 1982, between 40% and 47% of adults in the United States say they hold the view that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'". This would be more accurate as the poll never reached 50%. We have a duty to be as accurate as possible. S806 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have is whether the results of this poll are relevant to the specific topic of this article, YEC, as opposed to creationism in general. Gallup says nothing about YEC. To use the Gallup report to say or imply anything at all about YEC would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus you are right, but really the issue is not creationism in general as the Gallup poll is only addressing the belief of "when you think humans were created by God" it is not asking the question of "when was the universe created". Genesis 1:1 says "in the beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth" and on the 4th day, of the days, he created the passage of time. DevonSprings (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true, the poll is asking specifically, were humans created in the last 10,000 years. This is very closely tied into young earth creationism. The first sentence in this very page says "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 is what this poll addresses. I object strongly to taking this poll out of this article. S806 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the conclusion that the object of the poll question is "very closely tied to young earth creationism" is yours, and not stated or implied in the source. Hence, OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion is correct, YEC believes humans were created in the last 10,000 years, DevonSprings is making an unfounded assumption that Old Earth Creationists believe that as well. He has given no proof that this is true. I object to removing this poll from the article. This will be my last post on this subject. S806 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S806 the quote you are referring to says " 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." possibly the basic math is missed here. A set of 3 objects "Universe, Earth and Life" is not equal to a single object "Life".

The mathematics of it are simple. If you read in the article itself it describes in detail the three different view of creationism, likewise the Wikipedia article on creationism itself describes the different view points.

So now that you see the math I expect you to vote yes, or do you not get where the set math is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is if there is any other WP:DUE group that believes in an old Earth and a recent creation of Man. As far as I know, and as far as I can see in the sources, the set that believe in a recent creation of Man is the same as those believe in a young Earth (barring some small, insignificant sect). Yes, the beliefs are not the same, but the are so closely connected that belief in one can be taken as a sign of belief in the other. Sjö (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is a 50 / 50 split from Lifeway which is as far as christians go the most moderate. Wherein "Age of the Earth

In response to the statement, "I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old," 34 percent of pastors strongly disagree. However, 30 percent strongly agree. Nine percent somewhat disagree, and 16 percent somewhat agree. LifeWay Page. Even at a 50 / 50 split we can't call them one in the same.

Here is one of the most influential Christians of our time Pat Robertson, calling YEC and specifically Ken Ham, "...Pat Robertson Who Dismisses Young Earth Creationists as 'Deaf, Dumb and Blind' as cited in this article. It is a short article from Christian Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried but can't for the life of me work out how this is relevant? Different Christian factions disagree with one another about how to interpret the Bible. Nothing strange there and nothing to do with this article.

Ultimately it boils down to evolution being the primary target of modern YECs, therefore a poll asking people about their beliefs in evolution is relevant to an article about YEC. GDallimore (Talk) 07:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This matters because the authors are using a survey that has nothing to do with Young Earth Creationism and making it seem it is a "Widely supported view" in America. It isn't. It is like stating 40% of americans agree with veganism, because 40% of americans eat vegetables at the dinner table. YEC is a VERY EXTREME SMALL group of Creationists and this is mainlining them.

It also is a bad wiki precedence to use the WRONG gallup pole.

• I have to question whether what 30–40% of U.S. residents may or may not beieve merits inclusion in the lede. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But literal creationism is a primarily American belief. GDallimore (Talk) 21:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a big difference between literal earth creationism (A) and literal human creationist (B) and creationism (C). A is a set of C, B is a set of C, A is not equal B. C is not equal A.

By including this survey we are saying A == B. They are NOT.

Belief in a recent "creation" is not necessarily a belief in a young earth - I run into many YECists who believe Gen 1 is a re-creation (sort of a miraculous terraforming). Again, belief in 6000 more or less from Adam also goes with the day-age theory (the days were not 24 hours as we know them). I was hoping to see material treating YECism as any other belief system (say Emperor worship in Japan), with summaries of its history with links. A neutral POV should not be concerned with whether YEC is "true" or "scientific" or even "biblical". I will have to gather this information the hard way, and will attempt to contribute if successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartGathman (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle. In practice, however, it is the fault of various very vocal YEC anti-science groups that this article has to trash the logic behind the belief system so entirely. GDallimore (Talk) 11:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So people keep removing a more relevant survey. I guess I am going to have to ask for dispute resolution.

Survey on creationism beliefs

In this article the author points out why the gallup poll is wrong in its assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps people walked away from the conversation because you only gave your opinion and some very tangential arguments rather than a concrete source. You've now provided a source, but will have to persuade people all over again to listen to you having got it wrong the first time. Looks like a good source to me, though. GDallimore (Talk) 18:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but I put it on the talk page for 5 days before I did an edit. I did quote sources along the way, but this is also a very "understudied" point of faith, because old-earth, gap-creationism is where the largest majority of churches fell until 20 years ago. It took a lot of digging to find any source at all since so many people referenced the wrong gallup pole. DevonSprings (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reason why so many people referenced the "wrong" gallup poll isn't because they are wrong, but because you are wrong. I looked at your new source, right above the line you quote it says 39% of people believe it is true that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years." I personally don't subscribe to any creationist beliefs, but I will not deny a poll simply because I think the people are wrong. S806 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Since most people haven't been able to figure out Humans NOT EQUAL Universe, I expect there are a whole bunch of other people that can't figure it out either. For example the article best expresses it this way... "But we know much less about the nuances and structure of these beliefs and the scientific knowledge or ignorance that underlie them." I basically used to ignore the entire subject of creationism, but recently have been studying it in depth, YEC is a vocal group, but it is not equal to Young Human Creation. But keep on editing without understanding... that is good for the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reason you cannot get consensus on your changes is because every one of your arguments for your position devolves into insults... S806 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]