Talk:Creationist cosmologies

Archives

 * /Archive 01 - October 2005

NPOV
I suggest this: two sections one written by informed creationists and one written by informed opposition. There are a lot of misrepresentations in here and factual errors. For example it doesn't take much research to realize that the reason for rejecting the invalid astronomy was not to do with "painstaking observations" but because no working model could be developed with stellar objects like supernova within a 6000 light year radius (this is directly from the "answers book" produced by creationist organization Answers in Genesis").


 * AiG refers the 6000 years based on Ussher's Method used for "Annals of History." Other timelines go up 14,000 yrs based on chronological calculations based on Masoretic, Septuagint and using the "Pariarchal-Age" Method.

Secondly as far as I am aware the sun and the solar system is believed to be 6000 years old by creationists. One of the supports they cite for this is (from an article in TJ) they believe that the sun would have changed significantly in intensity over a period of billions of years due to the evolution of it's core. Thirdly i don't see why the blue shift is a problem. If you have a blue shift and a red shift (from expansion) then you will get a total shift based on which shift is greater. Observations show a red shift so the conclusion (in this model) would be that the actual speed of the receeding galaxies is higher than the redshift indicates. Fourthly can you name me a single observation that supports the copernican principle? You claim that these observations exists. I am certainly unaware of them. The copernican principle is philisophical not based in evidence. To prove or disprove the principle one could make a string to construct a circle and check to see whether or not the ratio of the circumference of the circle to the length of the string is exactly 2pi. However to do this one would allegedly need a string 100 million galaxies long. I am unaware of this experiment ever taking place (source: undergraduate lecture from professer David Pegg). Finally I wasn't aware that there were solutions to the problems of dark matter or inflation. If what you're saying is true please keep it quiet as you would put a lot of physicists out of jobs ;). A recent article on quant_ph (arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0501066) even suggested a violation of the spin statistics theorem for neutrinos as a possible solution to the dark matter problem (Of course having a dirac spinor which was a boson would have unbounded negative energy states as an infinite number of particles could fill any state). So from the "vibe" of that article i hardly think the problem is solved. These are all the problems i can remember for now cheers

I've just been reading the article, and I find it to be a oddly written. It jubilantly tells us that "The current cosmological paradigm is built on painstaking observations" and that "These distances have been built on painstaking observations", which feels like it was written by someone who was just a little more than tired of having to explain it.

At one point it is suggested that "These types of arguments are meant to imply that discrediting the Big Bang will bring credibility to creationist cosmologies." One might just as easily conclude that discrediting the Big Bang model is inherent to creationist cosmologies. If the 'scientists' involved manage to prove their assertions, they will have effectively disproven the Big Bang model. Also, should they manage to directly disprove the Big Bang model, they should certainly have earned the respect of many scientist.

If this article is to be nothing more than a list of creationist viewpoints and a short note explaining their inadequacy, this article needn't exist. -- Ec5618 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I might vote to delete this article. I think that a lot of the views listed here are poorly explained even by the people who purport to hold these views. There is no reason, in my mind, that we can't just include Setterfield or Humphrey's ideas on their respective pages and dispense with this fork altogether.


 * This article is one of the last surviving articles made by User:Ungtss in the great creation-evolution fight of 2004. He was trying to create articles about creationist ideas. This article together with flood geology, creation biology, and the now deleted creation anthropology were intended to serve as a set of "protest pages" to the mainsteram sides. I heavily edited this page as soon as it was created and I think it maintained a semblance of NPOV. I didn't have the desire at the time to VfD it, however we might reconsider now. Joshuaschroeder 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't merely suggesting this article be deleted, though I do not oppose it. I was also suggesting this article is clearly POV, excitedly telling readers about the great scientific methods used to discredit and disgrace creationist cosmologies.
 * I'll grant you, it was POV before, but it still is, and I don't believe a creationist editor will be allowed to edit this article (by certain editors), while no non-creationist editor will bother or feel knowledgable enough to do so.
 * Frankly, I don't feel I can trust your judgement on this, Joshuaschroeder. You were as much a warrior in the Great War as Ungtss was, and you have made a great deal of edits to this article, and seem to be responsible for several of the things I objected to in my earlier post. I will wait to see if other editors weigh in. -- Ec5618 21:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It is understandably difficult to be objective on a subject such as this. I do however feel that greater effort should be made, in the interests of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia and the schools of thought mentioned in this article, to have more informative and less argumentative articles and/or styles of writing. Informative decisions and arguments can only be made if all parties have access to non-partisan information. Then, and only then, can the intellectual discussions take place in the appropriate forums.Hvrensburg 18:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The section Arguments currently used by creationists should include the one based on so-called "short-term comets." soverman 20:25 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not cosmology. --ScienceApologist 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

c-decay
Since by the definition of the metre, it is inextricably linked with the speed of light, how can any change in the speed of light be "easily detected with modern electronic equipment?" Dan Watts 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no problem comparing c at time t_0 with time at t_1. There are many different ways of doing this. One simple upper bound can be derived just based on the GPS working and making a back of the envelope calculation. Also, many other phenomena are interwoven with the speed of light. For example, if you increase c, then you will get mor energy out of stars fusion and so stars will need to burn less hydrogen to be at equilibrium. There are also sub-atomic processes whose behavior would be different. A substantial change in c would have left a footprint at Oklo. There are many other examples, but your best bet is to look at the (extensive) primary literature on the subject. JoshuaZ 02:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I think it's pretty clear that these suggestions are of the form of pseudoscience. We have an anon who currently disagrees. Would they be willing to explain here? --ScienceApologist 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not anon but it seems to me that all cosmologies are pseudoscience since they broach areas that can not tested, observed so it becomes fact interpretation based on your world-views's presuppositions.


 * It is pretty well-established that physical cosmology is a not pseudoscience. If this is your criteria, try discussing whether this is the case there. --ScienceApologist 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

observing Gravitational Time Dilation
Gravitational Time Dilation actually is observed in GPS satellites. Gravitational_Time_Dilation


 * Yes. Just not the time dilation associated with the creationist cosmology. --ScienceApologist 06:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AIG should have its own link
AIG is a major creation institute and should have it site directly linked


 * It is linked. We link to the cosmologies themselves, not the main sites. --ScienceApologist 06:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible sources
The page is very light on sources, here's some:

The obvious one, talk.origins

Leader U

Another talk.origins source - talk origins generally identifies the origins of the creationist claim as well, making them doubly efficacious.

Creation wiki article, light on sources and not really reliable as a source itself.

Halos

true.origins

Possibly tomorrow I'll try to add to it. WLU (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
I just happened across this page. I think the editor's choice to redirect this page due to its lack of sources was fair. However a quick scan of the most recent version shows much useful material, and I hope that it will be recovered - with appropriate referencing, that is. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that Creationist astrophysical claims tend to be (i) piecemeal (rather than giving a comprehensive cosmology) & (ii) rarely intrude into the spheres of science or science education, so that scientists feel far less urgency to rebut, and thus document, them. Likewise their main proposers, e.g. Robert V. Gentry, Barry Setterfield, & Russell Humphreys haven't published major creationist works that could be considered to give these views prominence from their side. HrafnTalkStalk 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work TonictheBrown on adding numerous sources. Additional secondary sources would help. The book The Creationists by Ronald Numbers is presumably the very best scholarly work on the topic, but I believe it focuses more on biological creation/evolution rather than cosmologies. Still, some brief references may appear in it. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I hereby propose that c-decay, and re-propose that Starlight problem, be merged here. WP:MERGE rationales are: (2) 'Overlap' & (4) 'Context'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Back in April it was proposed that Starlight problem be merged here, but no section was set up for discussion of the merger.
 * 2) Recent discussion at Talk:C-decay has suggested that c-decay may be a bit "flabby" (in that it contains a large amount of unsourced material) and that it may be desirable to condense it down and merge it here.
 * 3) 'Starlight problem' itself contains a substantial section on c-decay.
 * 4) I therefore think it makes sense to do this as a combined proposal.

Response Needed
Most of the various cosmological ideas on this page have pretty good consensus responses. However, Lisle's phenomenological argument and Humphrey's magnetic field prediction are just stated without any rebuttal. It might be good to add some mainstream views on these; otherwise they would sound too convincing to readers.

This is particularly the case with respect to Lisle's claims. As far as I know, he argues that a difference simultaneity frame (using a location-based frame for Einstein's equations instead of inertial reference frame) allows the universe to be modeled in such a way that time and distance are directly related by c, so that light reaches any observer immediately from their point of view. A mainstream response to this, as well as any falsifiable predictions made by this model, would be good. 72.151.50.172 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hostile Language
Some of the lines in this article are not up to Wikipedia's standard of impartiality. Whoever wrote these was a hostile source. For example: "As the technical sophistication of YECs increased over the years, new attempts to explain away the scientific evidence for the age of the universe of 13.7 billion years has also been incorporated. YECs now re-interpret phenomena such as galactic redshifts and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to fit into their beliefs."

1. The acronym "YEC" is meant to belittle. It's almost like calling a fundamentalist a "fundie" or a young-earth creationist calling a neo-Darwinian evolutionist a "NDE"..."Those NDE's are so sinful" 2. The tone is patronizing. For example this line: "As the technical sophistication of YECs increased over the years..." especially in light of the following - "new attempts to explain away..." 3. The line "...to fit into their beliefs." is definitely intended to be condescending - especially if a scientist wrote it. 4. and this line: "Robert V. Gentry, the creationist most famous for making frequently criticized claims..." (belongs in a criticism section) 5. Also..."Creationist cosmologies are criticized for being pseudoscientific (shouldn't that read "as being"?)by the skeptics that debate YECs as part of the creation-evolution controversy." Now that I read it, that entire sentence is just awkward. 6. In the "See also" section:

Astronomy Astrophysics Speed of light Biblical inerrancy Pseudoscience

7. Lastly, in the links section: "Barry Setterfield attempts to answer his critics."

I am not a Creationist but I am concerned about the quality of content contained in Wikipedia's articles. The minority views should always be given an unbiased and fair treatment precisely because of that - their minority status. These types of articles are always particularly hostile in their content.

72.92.3.153 (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE: even "in articles specifically about a minority viewpoint ... these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) You have provided no evidence that YEC "is meant to belittle", just a bare assertion.
 * 2) Why is it patronising to state that their arguments have become more sophisticated?
 * 3) The Procrustian aspect of YEC has been evident, at least since the days of George McCready Price.
 * 4) Per WP:NPOV & WP:CSECTION "a criticism section" does not "belong".
 * 5) Read WP:FRINGE/PS: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
 * 6) See #5 for relevance
 * 7) Please cite a reliable scientific source stating that Setterfield's "attempts to answer his critics" have been considered to be successful.

Removal
I removed 3 sections which were not properly referenced and I removed them as they appear to have been given undue weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with 2 of these removals, but I think that the John Harnett one can stay because it is backed by the major YEC organisations (eg. Answers in Genesis). I have put that one (and 2 others, which I think are similarly fringe) in a new subsection called "other theories" to help give correct the amount of weight given. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the proper weight for something that can only be self-cited should be removal. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I would agree with that, however, I don't think John Harnett works for AiG does he? Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

White hole cosmology section
Recent additions to the 'White hole cosmology' section have aggravated a balance problem there, with the section being written (almost?) entirely from creationist perspectives (mostly Humphreys' own), in violation of WP:DUE. This material needs to be pruned and WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint added. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Faults with Big Bang Cosmology
I just reverted the addition of a section devoted to scientific criticisms of the Big Bang. I don't believe this is relevant to the current article. Worse yet, it seems to me to be advocating a view which is clearly not contained in the sources, that "if big bang cosmology has received criticism, that invalidates the theory and opens the door for more 'robust' creationist claims". That is obviously absurd, so if we did include the content, we'd need to be very careful about avoiding those sorts of implications. Still, I could see us including content on creationist objections to the big bang, or science generally, or scientific criticisms of creationism, but I think this material is fundamentally misplaced. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is relevant because it NPOV-balances the big-bang framework of preceding argument, and thus shows that that there is a scientific community apart from creationists which disagree with given viewpoint.--Stephfo (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, it contains a serious unsourced and factually inaccurate implication which violates WP:NPOV, so no, it does not "NPOV-balance" the previous argument. Please see WP:DUE - these arguments are the fringe minority with respect to cosmology, and it is consistent and necessary per NPOV to balance them with the scientific consensus. If there's a problem with neutrality that we need to address, I'd encourage you to discuss it specifically - perhaps there's another way we can solve it - but we can't combat one neutrality issue by introducing another, if indeed there is one to combat at all.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jess, Big Bang is by far the consensus view of scientists. Those other theories are fringe, and have nothing to do with creationism anyway so do not belong here. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed data

 * Many ancient peoples around the Mediterranean and Near East professed variants of a YEC cosmology; for instance, the Tyrrhenians were noted for their belief that our age is 12,000 years long, with creation of Earth having occurred during the first 6,000 years, and the history of mankind occupying the latter 6,000. (ref) See Suda entry on "Tyrrhenians"(/ref) This has also been compared to the Zoroastrian cosmology as outlined in the Bundahishn.

This article seems to suffer from the usual problems of lack of globalism, seriously underreporting the scale and extent of creationist cosmologies throughout human history. When all attempts to address this imbalance are summarily and routinely reverted on a variety of shifting pretexts, it becomes apparent that this is no accident, but that there is an organized and conscious attempt to keep the situation as underreported and "selectively informative" as possible. What I wrote above is a mere drop in the bucket in addressing the historiography of the situation. One source mentioned is the Suda article on "Tyrrhenians", another is the Bundahishn. Sources can also easily be found comparing the two. Rather than stick our fingers in our ears and say "we don't want to hear any of this and would rather pretend these doctrines never existed", why not take a route that has honour and present all of the verifiable and relevant facts simply as they are? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Help, help, Til Eulenspiegel is being repressed ... yet again!
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Citation to WP:RS for any of this?
 * 2) Relevance to the rest of the article -- which is pervasively about modern YEC pseudoscientific claims about the modern science of cosmology, not the beliefs of "an ancient ethnonym associated variously with Pelasgians, Etruscans or Lemnians"?
 * 3) Oh and leave off the faux-martyrdom. Requiring verifiability and relevance is not 'suppression', it is merely basic Wikipedia policy.


 * How did you get to determine that the SCOPE of this article shall be "pervasively about modern YEC pseudoscientific claims"...??? That is precisely what I am trying to address.  If this is not the correct page on wikipedia to present correct and verifiable data about Creationist Cosmologies, then where pray tell is there a home for this information?   That's what I mean by "a variety of shifting pretexts".  I've been through this smoke screen and inexplicable resistance to presenting verifiable data many times before.  Firs the pretext is "no reference", but as it gradually becomes apparent that there are indeed references, other pretexts are quickly trotted out. "It is out of scope, because I get to decide what the scope is" is an old standby favorite. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also your choice of title for this section reveals that your main technique for argument relies on an illogical fallacy, ad hominem or the personal attack. Can't come up with a more logical argument? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) We know the scope because the term 'creationism' was coined by Harold W. Clark in 1929, to describe the purportedly-scientific viewpoint developed by his mentor George McCready Price. If you want to include ideas, from millennia beforehand that do not make any claim at being scientific, under the same banner, then you need a WP:RS to make the connection, to avoid the claimed connection being WP:Synthesis.
 * 2) And if we did accept your definition, that would most probably accept (nearly?) every cosmology from before the late 18th century -- as most such cosmologies assumed a created universe. This would likely end up with an unacceptable level of overlap between this article and Timeline of cosmology.
 * 3) My title was simply a derisive response to the claim of victimisation in your title (Mr Til "Suppressed" Eulenspiegel). It takes a very distorted view of reality to believe you're being "suppressed" merely by having the same policies applied to you as to everybody else.


 * But I was saying the data is being suppressed, not me personally! But thanks for pointing out the existence of Timeline of cosmology - it definitely seems to have room for expansion (Zoroastrian cosmology should be listed there for starters. In fact, there could well be enough data for an article dedicated to Ancient cosmologies in general. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's an article called Religious cosmologies - you could devote your energies to improving that. PiCo (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you meant Religious cosmology. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Int. J. Astrobiol.
The source is not taken out of context; my edit summary describes what it is talking about; the fine-tuning of cosmological constants to allow for the building blocks and environments favorable to life. Do not remove it: it is a valid, reliable source (an academic journal, published by Cambridge) which states nearly verbatim (p. 117) what I am quoting it in support of. if you don't like it, I believe there's a mechanism on Wikipedia to ask for "verification of source" or to "dispute source". The source says what I quote it in favor of: "along with most other cosmologists" believe that the universe is finely-tuned. In the interest of neutrality, I added a proviso in my original edit: that non-theistic cosmologists often invoke the anthropic principle to explain this, but you found even that unacceptable. JohnChrysostom (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What part of "So the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life" did you fail to comprehend? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So this source does not support the bald claim that "most other scientists - this is called scientific consensus" "believe that the universe is 'finely tuned' for life". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Edited to say, "along with most cosmologists" - change it to physicists if you like - and removed claim of scientific consensus. This is not a controversial statement, that "most cosmologists agree that the universe is fine-tuned" (and that, as far as I see, leads to the claim of "scientific consensus", which is, as I understand it, when most scientists of a specific discipline agree on something). The different ways of explaining the fine-tuning can be (and often are) controversial (this is why I added the original proviso about the anthropic principle): the statement itself is not, and is repeated throughout the relevant literature. "The building blocks that life requires" leads to life; thus, the universe is fine-tuned. Change it to, "the universe is fine-tuned for the building blocks of life" if you wish. In context, the import of the statements is identical: the fine-tuning of some aspect or another of the universe. JohnChrysostom (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it is blatantly WP:Synthesis to claim that what the scientists believe is the same as what the creationists believe -- and the relevance of the citation to this article disappears. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? I have combined no sources, nor conducted any original research: it seems that virtually the only common ground between all cosmologists is that the universe is finely-tuned for life/the building blocks of life/the possibility of life/the probability of life/the thriving of life in some way. I edited the article to say, "that the universe is finely-tuned for the building blocks necessary for life, and environments friendly to it", a near quotation of the article. Unless I'm to quote all five pages of it, it's by definition going to be "out of context". JohnChrysostom (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? Because your cited source does not discuss creationists' beliefs. You made your own conclusion that they were the same. In any case, the original fine tuning claim was unsupported by, and not particularly relevant to, this topic, so I've eliminated it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Added to this it seems highly unlikely that creationists (who would likely be indulging in what Davies calls "‘anthropic’ reasoning") are only proposing Davies' minimalist "permitted but is only marginally possible"/"minimally biophilic universe". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine-tuning for life/the building blocks of life/the possibility of life is fine-tuning for life/etc., etc., whether the source discussing it is atheist or theist, or is discussing it in context of creationism or not. The concept of fine-tuning is independent of theism or atheism (as are all actual scientific matters), or any specific cosmology, and is dependent only on the evidence; the interpretation of that fine-tuning is what is not independent, and is controversial: is it explained by the anthropic principle? (many atheists), or is it explained by the direct creation of the Abrahamic God (many theists)? or is it something else entirely? As it was, it was clear, "this is what most other cosmologists believe", in any case. How do I ask for some form of oversight, review, consensus, or "higher judgment" (pun intended) on this matter? Your attitude is eminently aggressive and condescending, and have now deleted a point of central importance (you say it is tangential to the subject: isn't a specific form of theistic design, which ends in the observation of fine-tuning - one of those "interpretations" I was talking of above - of central importance to creationism?; the creationist interpretation of fine-tuning - not the concept of fine-tuning itself - is what is controversial, and is of central importance to creationists), so as to preclude the possibility of my statement and citation. JohnChrysostom (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that irrelevant rant. Fine tuning is "not particularly relevant to this topic" because none of the cosmological models, that are the topic of, and discussed in, this article mention fine tuning. Creationist views on fine tuning are currently discussed in a different article, Fine-tuned Universe. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Big Bang Theory consists of just more technobabble to many people"
Til Eulenspiegel: if you hate science so much, then why don't you take yourself to somewhere that shares your preference for ignorant populist bigotry, like Conservapedia? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because this pretends to be a "neutral" encyclopedia, and I prefer to edit here. Are you going to have me burned at the stake now because I say the "Big Bang Theory" is mostly just technobabble? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ROFLMAO! What industrial grade psychological projection! It was Christian fanatics who popularised burning at the stake and, if you're anything to go by, are still keeping such eliminationist views alive. No, I'm not going to burn you at the stake -- I am however going to point out that such anti-intellectual bigotry has no place in Wikipedia. Experts are for citing here, not for insulting by those with a religious axe to grind. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be able to form a logical argument. You have just accused me of keeping alive eliminationist views such as burning at the stake. That is completely illogical argument. I take the position that honest "neutrality" means representing *all* the significant and widely held viewpoints, not "pov pushing" for your favorite and persecuting the rest. I merely asked if you were going to have me burned at the stake for being skeptical of Big Bang.  I find the technobabble used in its support far less than compelling, and I am not going to make a leap of faith in Big Bang simply because of the amount of technobabble.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the WP:WEIGHT section of WP:NPOV more carefully: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Reliable sources means that it is the weight of expert opinion that Wikipedia reflects (in this case, that of the very scientists you express such burning contempt for), not argumentum ad populum and cranks. I find you argument from ignorance both utterly uncompelling, and symptomatic of evangelical anti-intellectualism. Now kindly take that anti-intellectualism elsewhere -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with improving this article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain whose "scientists" exactly get to claim this priority of "reliability" in informing all people what they are to believe? Every government has paid for its own scientists, in its own interests, and often their results are extremely divergent, such as Nazi scientists and Soviet scientists, for one very notable example. I think if it were that easy to demonstrate the "proof" without the need to resort to an immense leap of faith in technobabble, they would have already done so long ago to everyone's near-universal satisfaction, as gravity and a spherical earth revoving around the sun have been demonstrated. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want it explained to you why scientists are considered reliable sources for science, then please take it up at WP:RSN. I may not be willing to burn you at the stake, but I see no reason not to break your WP:SOAPBOX. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and I'd suggest you educate yourself on the difference between pseudoscience (as practised by the likes of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, Josef Mengele, Ken Ham and George McCready Price) and science (as practised by the likes of Arno Penzias, Robert Wilson and Theodosius Dobzhansky). 16:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got better things to care about. Even without looking, I'd wager that all of the individuals you just called "pseudoscientists", also used the term "pseudoscience" to describe their opponents every bit a shrilly as you do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (i) If you had "better things to care about" then you wouldn't be uselessly tilting at windmills here. (ii) I think the lack of a fertile scientific legacy rather clearly separates out the genuine pseudoscientists. (iii) If we're going to talk about "shrill", perhaps we should start with the person quoted in this thread's title. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So you seriously want me to educate myself on all of those names you just mentioned and think I ought to care? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I "seriously" don't think you care about anything except (as I already said) "uselessly tilting at windmills". However, if you cared about actually knowing what you are talking about, instead of simply spewing right-wing authoritarian science-baiting talking-points, then you would be interested in actually understanding the scientists and their work. If you aren't, then you really have nothing to contribute here. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, on your suggestion I tried to learn about each of those men you named, except for "Robert Wilson", since there are multiple scientists of that name. Other than the fact that the men in the first group do not currently enjoy widespread acceptance among other scientific interests, I looked in particular to see what the defining distinguishing characteristics might be.  In all honesty, the sharpest distinction I see seems to be between the first two names (Lysanko and Mengele) and the rest, which is their extreme intolerance for allowing any expression to dissenting viewpoints.  Indeed, their theories enjoyed such governmental support for a time that disagreeing with these men in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, respectively, was a capital crime. If wikipedia had been controlled by either of these ideologies, it might be a similar story. But Wikipedia should be nothing like that.  It represents a far more agile concept.  Our usual and expected treatment of dissent on a significant controversy is not to cover it up, pretend it doesn't exist or that its proponents don't count, or present a discernibly one sided point of view, using scoffing and ostracism tactics in lieu of definite conclusive proof.  We aren't run by any one ideology, so our treatment of dissent is quite different:  we have enough room to go into eleborate detail about every aspect the dissent from beginning to end, covering up nothing, and ultimately leave it up to the reader to think for him or her self.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's move on, guys. This doesn't belong here. This is RSN or Village Pump material. Til, you know this; dredging this same talk up again anyway isn't productive.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's precisely the attitude of intolerance for dissent that I'm talking about. Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.  The difference is, your 'authority' is based on a load of hot air. I definitely do feel this article needs to be checked for its neutrality. Stop acting so fearful of the open light.  If your pov were so obviously and demonstrably the correct "truth" as you imagine it to be, you should have nothing to fear from inviting further inquiry. This is a pov skewed article and a propaganda piece. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not discussing improvements to this article. You are discussing the subject of the article, and what sources we should consider reliable. You know full well that is inappropriate for an article talk page. My suggestion to take it to the appropriate noticeboard (a suggestion you turned down earlier because you were "too busy") doesn't elucidate my "attitude of intolerance". This is my last post on the topic. Take it somewhere else.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, even creationists believe in the Big Bang (I'm a creationist and I do). It works with the Genesis narrative. It's been satisfactorily explained by cosmologists and to the public at large, in thousands of articles and hundreds of books, and competing theories are about as dead as geocentrism. All alternative theories, such as chaotic inflation, still take "a" big bang as their starting point, even if they claim it's not "the" (only) big bang. Don't do whatever Wiki calls "pointy editing" (I forget the exact term), because, although everyone here wouldn't mind an "open inquiry", it would slow down the project and be disruptive - we all know that all of the literature published in the past 50 years supports some variant or another of Big Bang cosmology. In the future, the Big Bang may be proven wrong; with the evidence we have today, it's as close to "proven" as anything ever gets in science (absolute proof is for maths and philosophy): we can't go on knowledge of the future, but only knowledge of today (although I'd wager the Big Bang will be around for a long time to come, seeing how it's predicted accurately so many things that have since been observed: see WMAP probe). If Wikipedia was around in 1780, the article on "combustion" would be full of references to phlogiston, not rapid oxidation. It's an inherent limit of science, knowledge, progress, etc. JohnChrysostom (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * John, I'm a little confused. You say Big Bang works with the Genesis narrative. Then how could you possibly consider it neutral to state in the lede of Creationist cosmologies that Big Bang "falsified" the Genesis narrative? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't catch that, and it's not neutral if it's there. The Standard Model of the Big Bang does a great deal to falsify young-age creationist cosmologies - not theistic cosmologies or creationist cosmologies as a whole. I see one ultimately important parallel: "In the beginning, God created" - full stop - ex nihilo - time and matter from nothing. In the beginning, the Big Bang occurred, and time and matter began to exist; before the Big Bang, there were neither. JohnChrysostom (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Matter did not begin to exist with the big bang, and the big bang model has nothing to say about conditions before the singularity. That said, we need sources. Conjecture about which sentences of the bible seem to be in accord with a layman's understanding of a complex scientific theory are unhelpful with respect to the article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
I couldn't find a discussion on this? Neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I've read the article and it seems to comply admirably with this?Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a fairly thinly-covered topic in the sources (doesn't tend to get as much attention as evolution or flood geology), so identifying/weighting sources can be a bit difficult at times. The last specific discussion of NPOV & WP:WEIGHT appears to have been in the first half of last year. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

TO Archive
The "fact" that TO is "reporting on" in this case, is that the BBT Theory has "falsified" every religion in the world. You say that they are only reporting what scientists concluded. Please name the specific scientists who have reached this conclusion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article states that reported observations falsified non-standard cosmologies. The scientist authors are named at the top of the TO article used as a reference.Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But if none of those science authors themselves ever stated that it "falsified" everything else, it is a TO original conclusion, right? And not a very neutral one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Being neutral doesn't mean giving equal weight to either sides arguments. The overwhelming majority of scientists would agree that non-standard cosmologies had been falsified by the Big Bang theory.Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, it should be a simple matter to name at least one scientist who has stated such. That's all I was asking you.  I checked Non-standard cosmology.  It also makes the grandiose assertion that all "non standard cosmologies" have been falsified, but without citing a single expert who has stated such.  But then it gets even stranger.  The only citation it does give anywhere near that statement, is to this Open letter to the Scientific Community signed by numerous experts who share my skepticism for the Big Bang Theory, suggesting to me that the declaration of "consensus" here may be a little premature and pov-pushy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Til Eulenspiegel: the TOA does not claim "that the BBT Theory has 'falsified' every religion in the world". Please cease with your tendentious, science-bashing WP:SOAPBOX. When you litter your complaints with such obviously ludicrous claims, you make it very difficult to take them seriously. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hrafn, I've had about enough of you turning this into your usual strategy of ad hominem fallacy. Did you totally miss the point of my last response above? This is not about me.   It is about numerous serious astrophysicists and university professors, etc. such as Jean-Claude Pecker, Fred Alan Wolf, Robert Zubrin, Y. P. Varshni, Halton Arp, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, Menas Kafatos, Eric Lerner, Jayant Narlikar, Konrad Rudnicki, Max Whisson*, Tom Van Flandern, Franco Selleri, John Hartnett,  Harold E. Puthoff, and many more.  All of whom signed a 2004 statement that begins: The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory...


 * At this point there are two options. 1) You can take the predictable route Lysenko himself surely would have taken, and try to discredit each and every one of these dissenting astrophysicists and university professors as "fringe", on your own personal authority as a wikipedian, and explain to us all why their school of thought doesn't count, and deserves only minimal if any representation, because you (or whoever) have figured out that they are all wrong, and therefore the hypothesis is a proven fact, because there is no one left to dispute it after applying that litmus test of accepting the hypothesis. or, 2) We can recognize that the statement in the lede "These observations falsified non-standard cosmologies" (so far, only on the authority of a website archive of an open source USENET newsgroup that could have been written by anyone) is endorsing a disputed "point of view", is a violation of neutrality, and needs to be removed, or rewritten to better explain the true situation in a compromise way that is neutrally worded.   If option 2 is further resisted, I can promise this will proceed to at least one Request For wider Comment. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel: If you want to play Don Quixote, I would suggest you find yourself a drama club -- the role is getting rather frayed-around-the-edges here. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) An ad hominem fallacy is a claim of type 'you are a bad person, therefore you are wrong'. A claim of 'you are wrong, therefore I wish you'd stop making false claims' (such as I made) is NOT an ad hominem fallacy!
 * 2) This is completely about you -- The Til Eulenspiegel Crusade™ to skewer every opposition to the Biblical-inerrantist, Creationist Fundamentalist fantasy. That the whole thing is completely tilting at windmills, on so many levels, does not seem to enter the depleted uranium-plated epistemic closure that is your worldview.
 * 3) It is not about a list of astrophyscists who (i) have not been mentioned in article or talk & (ii) appear to have nothing to say about creationist cosmologies.
 * 4) It is not even about whether or not the Big Bang is a perfect explanation. It is about the observations that underly the Big Bang Theory -- "These observations falsified non-standard cosmologies." Disproving the Big Bang will neither validate these creationist hypotheses, nor an age of the universe that is of the order of 10,000 years.
 * 5) This is the exact same false dichotomy that creationists get caught up in with the Theory of Evolution. Finding some flaw in either theory will not set the clock back to status quo before the theories were proposed, in the exact same way that observations finding a flaw in Newtonian gravity did not take us back to a pre-Newtonian view of gravity -- rather it will take us forward to a new, more complex, and only subtly different theory. This new theory will most certainly also state that, however exactly it states this universe/space-time-contiuum began, it began billions of years ago.
 * 6) TOA got its name because it started its life as an archive of Talk.Origins. It has since grown into a widely respected, and University of California Press-published, repository of scientific information on creationist claims. Per WP:PARITY it is easily as reliable as the creationist sources it rebuts. Its reliability has been tested on WP:RSN and been accepted.
 * Ad hominem is Latin for (taking the argument) "to the man". That is precisely what you are doing, shooting the messenger, rather than address the fact that a source has been found plainly indicating that a lengthy list of astrophysicists and university professors etc. have contradicted the P.O.V. expressed in this article, that the "case is closed" and the hypothesis has been proven to "falsify" anything ("non standard cosmologies", i.e. everything BUT the Big Bang model).  Right now my blood is boiling so hot as a result of your blatant personal attacks and illogical ridicule directed against my person, that I will be unable to file an RFC on the neutrality of that statement in the lede for some time.  In the meantime if anyone else wants to file it on my behalf, go right ahead. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of what the latin phrase means. 'Shooting' the messengers, for delivering false messages, AFTER you have demonstrated their messages to be false over and over again (as for example your 'TOA claim "that the BBT Theory has 'falsified' every religion in the world"' WP:Complete bollocks) is NOT an ad hominem fallacy! This article does not state that the Big Bang Theory is the absolute and final truth, so your claim that "a lengthy list of astrophysicists and university professors etc. have contradicted the P.O.V. expressed in this article" is likewise WP:Complete bollocks. That they have doubts about the Big Bang Theory, or even if this theory was itself falsified, DOES NOT de-falsify the creationist cosmologogical hypotheses. This was the whole point of my point 5 above . <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But the statement in question asserts that these observations falsified ALL non standard cosmologies. If you mean to say that these observations falsify the concept of a young universe, then say that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which any reasonable person would take to mean the cosmologies listed in Non-standard cosmology and this article (as that is the context under discussion). And no rational person would take it as claiming that the observations falsified whatever theory eventually supersedes the Big Bang Theory as the scientific consensus. I have however clarified this nit-picking point. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Title / Scope of article
Here's another issue. The title "Creationist cosmologies" suggests that it would cover any and all cosmologies that hold the cosmos was created by a creator - regardless of how it was done, or how long ago. Yet the first sentence defines (on whose authority?) a "creationist cosmology" as being the cosmology of a Young Earth Creationist (which isn't even always the same as a Young Universe Creationist, for that matter).

What about the cosmologies of Old Earth Creationists / Old Universe Creationists? Are they not "creationist cosmologies" as well? Or is it sufficient for the article to attack Young Universe Creationism, and thereby "disprove" all Creationism, including Old Universe Creationism, by implication? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No it does not. It suggests all cosmologies put forward by the creationist movement. Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology (see for example Hugh Ross (creationist), so such 'creationist cosmologies' tend to be exclusively YEC. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, talk about a false dichotomy! There are so many here I don't know where to start. What is wrong with titling the article "Young Earth Creationist cosmologies" so it doesn't wrongly implicate Old Earth Creationism then?  Or at least, the nuances you describe on the talk page could be described in the article as well to make that point clearer? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, no false dichotomy. I explicitly equivocated with "tend". However any OEC cosmology that may exist is insufficiently prominent (probably because it would serve no vital purpose within OEC) to pass WP:WEIGHT. I didn't title this article. However I would point out that the cosmologies presented in it are, strictly speaking, 'young Universe cosmologies' not 'young Earth cosmologies, so your proposed title is problematical. In any case, the article makes it perfectly clear that these are theories put forward by YECs in the article's opening sentence. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk''(P) 17:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would clear things up considerably if we could also clarify somewhere in there that it doesn't include other creationist cosmologies such as OEC cosmologies or creationist cosmologies that agree with scientific consensus, but are still creationist. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't include them because they don't exist. However explicitly stating that they don't exist would be WP:OR. The article does explicitly state that these are "theories of young Earth creationists", which contains the very obvious implication that they (at least the ones in this article) aren't OEC theories. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase more clearly, since we seem to be talking past each other. You yourself stated: Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology.   If you agree with this sentence that you wrote, then could we please add it to the lede? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, because doing so would likewise be WP:OR -- as should be blindingly obvious from my last comment! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no ambiguity that cannot be clarified with clearer wording. Most of my concerns would be addressed, and would go away, if only we could find some way of clearing up the misleading ambiguity of the title "Creationist cosmologies" and the repeated use of the phrase "creationist cosmologies" as if it addressed all cosmologies held by all creationists, when in fact it only deals with a certain subset

Because of the title and repeated use of the phrase "creationist cosmology" without any qualification, it is confusing or misleading to make it sound like it is debunking *all* forms of creationism. Your assertion that "Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology" would be close enough for me, and not necessarily OR, since the sourced article on Old Earth Creationism already states as much. Retitling the article to "Young Earth Creationist cosmologies" and replacing the phrase "creationist cosmology" with "YEC cosmology" to make clearer to idiots like me what we are talking about, would also probably do the trick. As it stands, the opening sentence is the OR, since NO known source or reference defines "Creationist cosmology" as excluding OEC cosmologies and including only YEC cosmologies. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (i) The phrase "creationist cosmology" is one that the creationists themselves use to describe their work (see for example Humphreys, D. R. (2007). ' Creationist cosmology solve spacecraft mystery', Institute for Creation Research). (ii) The claim in Old Earth Creationism was not in fact supported by the cited source, which makes no mention of cosmology in connection to OEC (I've just rewritten it to match the source) -- if you can find a WP:RS that does make explicit mention of OEC views on cosmology, that would be very helpful. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the above comments by User:Hrafn were not added to a thread titled 'Enough of the Ad Hominems'. Any addition of such a title after the fact will be viewed as WP:REFACTORing. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No doubt there are some RS out there that can be found, that do make explicit mention of OEC views on cosmology, but it is not reasonable to demand that they be provided in the next few seconds or minutes. It is also not reasonable to insist that there is no possible remedy for the ambiguity inherent in the phrase "creationist cosmology".  If it can be explained and clarified on the talk page, it can be explained and clarified in the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No one said anything about seconds or minutes... but you're implying, in so stating it must occur immediately, that we can add material to the article before finding sources because they're surely out there and finding them will take time. Quite obviously, we can't do that, and you know better. All this arguing without concrete proposals is unlikely to get anywhere. The only suggestions made thus far have been appropriately dismissed for lack of sourcing. Either make a new suggestion, or find new sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another YEC Cosmology
The great irony here is that the YEC Cosmology I have seen articulated the most often, is not represented on this page at all. I will describe my understanding of it below, but sources will need to be found to build it into a section.

For want of a better nomenclature, it could be described as "Young Earth, Old Universe". It interprets Genesis 1 as follows:

The first two things it says were created, are Day (light) and Night (darkness). Then it says quite clearly, "And the evening and the morning were the first day". This "first day", the interpretation goes, was probably not an "earth day" of 24 hours as we know it, because the Earth as such didn't appear until the third "day". It was just a period of light and darkness, the only things yet in existence, swirling around each other like a primordial Yin and Yang if you will, and this first "day" could well have been billions of "earth years" in duration, for all the narrative implies.

This isn't my original interpretation; the idea that these "days" were not earth days of 24 hours each is one of the most commonplace YEC interpetations there is, as far as I know. Why is it not represented anywhere in this article? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Because nobody, explicitly including Til Eulenspiegel, has presented any WP:RS documenting this viewpoint (a viewpoint which places them in a similar position to the OECs), let alone documenting it as a prominent viewpoint within the creeationist community.
 * 2) Because such a viewpoint would most probably represent an acceptance of the scientific consensus cosmology, rather than presentation of a competing one.


 * Nobody has presented RS documenting this viewpoint? Really? I just now noticed that there is a whole wp article documenting this viewpoint, Day-age creationism. I would be satisfied if this article could only draw a sharper distinction between what it describes, and that one.  Because of the title and repeated use of the phrase "creationist cosmology" without any qualification, it is confusing or misleading to make it sound like it is debunking *all* forms of creationism. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Day-age creationism is an OEC viewpoint (not a "Young Earth, Old Universe" viewpoint). It presents no specific views on cosmology (therefore is not relevant to this article). It is covered by my "Old Earth creationists tend to fully support the scientific consensus on cosmology" point above. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The hits I'm getting now for "Young Earth, Old Universe" as well as "Old Universe, Young Earth" suggest to me that plenty of YEC's also indulge in Day-age creationism, not just OECs. Plenty of material there to establish that this viewpoint really exists, but it would take some time to arrange and present it properly. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "nobody, explicitly including Til Eulenspiegel, has presented any WP:RS documenting this viewpoint (a viewpoint which places them in a similar position to the OECs), let alone documenting it as a prominent viewpoint within the creeationist community" -- bare assertion is not presentation of WP:RSs. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Patience, patience! That is exactly why I said "It would take some time to arrange and present it properly". At this point all I can give you is the google searches I just gave you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (i) You yourself were the one who raised this issue -- you should not have raised it unless and until you are in a position to substantiate it. Doing so prematurely is simply wasting our time. (ii) You have rather a history of making unsubstantiated claims -- so no, I don't feel particularly inclined to 'patiently' wait for substantiation of this latest batch. (iii) What google searches? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You aren't my boss, even if you seem to think you are, so don't hold your breath waiting for me to take orders from you on when I "should" raise issues. Still going for the ad hominem to distract from the actual argument, I see. I just gave you two google searches in good faith to show that I am not fabricating this out of my head, and you will just have to wait to give me time until the best references can be found. Here they are again.  "Young Earth, Old Universe" and "Old Universe, Young Earth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm simply the person whose time you are wasting with all this speculative and hypothetical argumentation. When you have something concrete, that therefore might be suitable for inclusion in the article, then let me know -- until that time I'm not really interested (nor does anything in Wikipedia policy require me to be interested). Good day. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hrafn's second point is most relevant - that a Young Earth, Old Universe cosmology, by being an Old Universe cosmology, is likely to represent an acceptance of the scientific consensus cosmology (though not geology) and as such, not a seperate creationist cosmology and thus does not need documenting here. If there is a well-established Old Universe creationist cosmology, which is not the scientific consensus cosmology, then it should be documented and cited in the article. Babakathy (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Page move
Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that this article originally resided at Young Earth Creationist cosmologies until February 2005, when it was moved by "Vanished User" who is now permablocked.
 * There is no corresponding discussion or explanation of this page move anywhere in the archive
 * The previous title is accurate and far less ambiguous and would have saved much of the confusion in the current state of the article
 * The original title redirected here for a couple of years, as one would expect, being about the same thing, but then in 2007 Hrafn redirected it to a different article, again without the reason being immediately apparent
 * I propose that this page be returned to its former title


 * 1) A page move that far back is largely irrelevant.
 * 2) That the editor in question was at some later stage "permablocked" is doubly irrelevant.
 * 3) As has already been pointed out to you, "the previous title is accurate" is NOT accurate, as this article is about cosmologies justifying a young Universe, not a young Earth.
 * 4) Your claim that 'old Universe, young Earth, creationists' exist makes the previous title potentially even less accurate.
 * 5) As I have pointed out above, 'creationist cosmology' is a description that the proponents of these views themselves use to describe it.
 * I therefore oppose this proposed move. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: article is indeed about cosmology not geology / earth history, and about cosmologies proposed by (some) creationists. The fact that not all creationist support (some/any) creationist cosmology does not make the title of the article inaccurate, although it could be an interesting section to write for the article, given suitable WP:RS naturally. Babakathy (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well something needs to be done, because as it is, it is very misleading to have a title that suggests it might cover all cosmologies of all creationists, and an article that does an inadequate job of explaining that there are other cosmologies held by other creationists, including even some that would comply with 'standard cosmology'. The truth is, I know very little about creationist cosmologies, never having studied them in depth, and I am learning more about them from the clarifications I am getting on this talk page, than from the article itself where all efforts to incorporate these same clarifications are being resisted to such a degree.  It seems to imply that some creationist cosmologies can be invalidated, therefore ALL creationist cosmologies have been invalidated.  The fact that one can adhere to 'standard' cosmology and still be a creationist, seems like a vital point, that ought to be explained in the article in some form, but is only being explained to me on the talk page.  My training is in logic, not creationism or cosmology, and nine tenths of the response I am getting has consisted of personal ridicule, which my training taught me is an emotional substitute used in default of actual logic.  And the constant resort to ridicule tactics to deal with anyone (not just me) who dares to ask questions to gain a clearer understanding of these matters, just might go a long way toward explaining why such a vast percentage of the general public adheres to non standard cosmologies.  Many of them do not get a friendly explanation, and it appears to them that the 'standard' proponents are saying 'we've figured it all out already, and you are just to stupid to get it', hence, logically or not, they are driven deeper into the non standard camp. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about creationist cosmologies, not about cosmologies of (some/all) creationists. Just as the expression "conservative policy" does not capture the views of all conservatives, some of whom might endorse liberal views on some specific policy matter. The precise statement in the lead section is These observations falsified all existing non-standard cosmologies, i.e. thus not falsifying the standpoint of creationists who adhere to 'standard' cosmology. I would think it proper to incorporate some of the following, if they can be documented with reliable sources and cited in the article:
 * If there is a well-established Old Universe creationist cosmology, which is not the scientific consensus cosmology
 * If there is a substantial body of creationists who reject creationist cosmologies and adhere to 'standard' cosmology.Babakathy (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On Babakathy's second point, Hugh Ross (creationist), who is both a prominent OEC and an astronomer, might be a good place to start. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC) This piece, from Ross' 'Reasons to Believe' ministry certainly appears to be a defence of mainstream cosmology. And the site search reveals over a hundred more pages that mention 'cosmology'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Infinite speed of light
The sentence

"Setterfield's proposal was that the speed of light (c), was infinite in the past, but has slowed substantially over time."

appears in the c decay section. Norman and Setterfield have never said that the speed of light was infinite at any time, only that some others who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago thought so. See the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the forward to their 1987 paper (in http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.120.25 (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Help!
I sincerely tried to improve the article, but I've lost it. If anyone out there is watching, please help. PiCo (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I would like to help but right now I lack time to get really involved. Probably the biggest concern I have is that you have taken the article in a fundamentally different direction to where it was originally heading. The content you have added is good, but I suspect that much of this content might actually belong somewhere else. I am thinking particularly of WP:UCN. To the majority of people, Creationism refers to so-called "scientific creationism" or creation science, as promoted by Young Earth creationism and intelligent design, specfically in the context of the Creation–evolution controversy. Therefore I think an article titled "Creationist cosmologies" should be mainly about the cosmological ideas (pseudoscientific, of course) put forward by advocates of creation science.


 * I understand that in a more technical sense "creationism" can refer broadly to belief in a Creator. But that is not the popular use of the word "creationism"; and so I would feel that much of the content that you have added would belong more suitably in Religious cosmology or Biblical cosmology.


 * Anyway that's my thinking at present. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks TtB. I've removed material on theism and the scholarly analysis of Genesis 1. I'm not sure about dropping OEC - they're still creationists, the only disagreement is over chronology. But I'll write it for YEC and then we can see if it needs expansion. PiCo (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed, OEC and intelligent design are "creationists" too. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest some sources - representative ones, not just individuals with personal theories? What exactly do creationists believe about the form and nature of the universe - finite, closed, flat, what? PiCo (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly I don't think most YECs really know what they think about cosmology. I have been observing their material for about 15 years now. The Russell Humphreys theory is the first serious attempt to suggest something coherent, and it has been taken up enthusiastically by the major YEC organisations (Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International). Hence I think the Humphreys theory is more than just a personal theory -- if it is backed by the big YEC organisations, and rebutted by Hugh Ross (a representative OEC) and TalkOrigins, that makes it adequately notable. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Assigning motivation
The article lead, while discussing Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists, stated "the underlying motivation for both is a fear that science, by denying a role for God in the origin of the world, removes the purpose for mankind's existence." I have removed that unsourced statement from the article. That statement is just as silly as Christians saying that atheists really do believe in God, but their motivation for being atheists is a fear of eternal damnation. It is improper to assign motivations to someone else. Clearly, the reason the YEC and OEC believes what they believe is because that is how they interpret the bible, which to them is the final authority of truth. Please do not restore that faulty motivation-assigning statement without citing reliable sources. 24.22.75.14 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creationist cosmologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115201632/http://www.kjvbible.org/major_models.html to http://www.kjvbible.org/major_models.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)