Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 4

"Prove"
Why can't the lead simply say that Ham's view is "contradicted by scientific consensus that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old"? Why does it have to say that "that evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records prove the Earth to be over 4.5 billion years old"? The first statement is both true and unremarkable, the second is not only philosophically untenable but will result in constant guerrilla attacks you folks will have to put down. (Unless perhaps that's the point: you enjoy the sport of putting down the rubes.)--John Foxe (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * because we assert the mainstream academic consensus - we just went over and over and over this above. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the article asserting the mainstream consensus, but it's possible to do so without using the word "prove." Why not do so?--John Foxe (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ea verba haec sunt Invidiae. Tu es Morianum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * indicente pro lenimentus ? Theroadislong (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to have the assistance even of a Roman who uses capital letters.--John Foxe (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I have no problem with the article asserting the scientific consensus, but why can't it be done without using the word "prove"? Theories about origins are unprovable because they're beyond our ability to test.--John Foxe (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They're not "theories" about the age of the earth there is hard scientific evidence and the evidence DOES prove that the earth is more than 4.5 billion years old, see for example. Theroadislong (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat". Socrates scit optimum. Tu es Morianum (talk)
 * The USGS article is an excellent summary of scientific consensus based on the assumption that if "we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed [how can we?] and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant [why should decay necessarily be constant?]." Nowhere in the article is the word "proof" or "prove" used.  That's the word I'm interested in eliminating.--John Foxe (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to assert that the number of atoms in certain radioactive isotopes is somehow random, or that radioactive decay rates (for a large number of atoms) is random as well, I suspect that this conversation is probably pointless. No-one, let alone young earth creationists, has produced any evidence at all that radiometric dating is inaccurate. (There have been some hilarious attempts by people like Cook, Barnes and Hovind, which usually go something like this, but all have been comprehensively rebutted.) Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to assert anything beyond the fact that Origins are unprovable because they're incapable of being reproduced. If a USGS summary of the scientific consensus doesn't go near the word "prove," why does this Wikipedia article? Why can't the article simply say that Ham's view is "contradicted by scientific consensus that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old"?--John Foxe (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because that leaves out the fact that scientific consensus is evidence based, making it appear as if it is a belief in the same way that Hams belief is. It is possible to make a wording without the word "prove" but it would have to make clear the fact that all available empirical evidence supports the mainstream conclusion about the earths age.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * " Origins are unprovable because they're incapable of being reproduced". Oh, I see, Ham's "were you there?" argument. I think we're done here. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not in fact the same argument, it seems to me John Foxe is simply argueing that assertions of "proof" should be reserved for positively conclusive evidence, which of course cannot be produced in cases like these. I have treied to insert a compromise wording that does not use the word "prove", but simply asserts that the full weight of all empirical evidence supports the current scientific consensus against Hams claims.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's actially not what he's doing. But, regardless, read Age of the Earth; the first sentence is "The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years "; not "scientific consensus is that the age of the Earth is ...".   Indeed, that article doesn't even mention any other view apart from in the hatnote. That's because it isn't necessary.  Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually in the context of this article it is necessary. Because Ham is contradicting the scientific consensus about the age of the earth. It would be meaningless and absurd to write something that does not acknowledge that there are two different possible views, only one of which is backed by science. We couldnt for example just write "Ham says the earth is 6000 years old even though it is in fact 4.5 billion years old". The age of the Earth is not the same kind of fact as for example the shape of the planet which can be directly observed. The age of the earth can only be inferred and estimated from observations of different aspects of its geology, under the theoretical assumption of uniformitarianism - and it will inevitably have a margin of error. For these reasons we do have to explicitly say that the science estimates it as at least 4.5 billion years old, not that it is a "proven fact" - since that is not how the science actually works.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * the current wording is a compromise from flat out stating Ham's claims are wrong as WP:ASSERT would have us do. we are not going to waterdown that even more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that per the argumentation I have laid out above that is clearly wrong. Flatly asserting that Ham is wrong is not a serious option. And there is no meaning in using the word "prove" as it is currently done since that is in fact scientifically inaccurate. The phrasing I introduced is both more accurate and better writing. And it does not water down anything, since it is entirely clear to any reader who is not a creationist that Ham has no scientific basis for his claim. Incidentally you also reverted a bunch of other changes wole sale such as the silly wording that says that Ham is contradicted by science, when in fact it is Ham who contradicts science (since Science is not actually responding to Ham but merely reporting the evidence), and the removal of unnecessary blank infobox parameters.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * of course it is a serious option. we would not pussyfoot around "His claim, based on an interpretation of the Bible that the population of New York is 100 is contradicted by scientific consensus " His claim is wrong, all mainstream academics would unhesitatingly state that it is wrong and we were following the sources most certainly could make that statement, too. But in deference to sensitive people we white washed the direct statement that his claim is wrong. We dont need to go any further.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes his claim is wrong, noone here is disputing that. What is disputed is the epistemic status of the scientific consensus which is not supported by proof but by the weight of the evidence to the contrary. But no, it doesnt make sense to simply describe an individuals view as being "wrong", in the context an encyclopedic article because that is not informative. It makes less sense to misrepresent scientific processes and ways of arriving at conclusions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you agree that we should go back to the simple "His claim that the earth is 6000 years old is wrong." I can support that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you know that intentionally misrepresenting other peoples viewpoints and arguments is against the civilty policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are not interested in utilizing the plain english representation of the situation, then I am not interested in discussing splitting epistemological hairs about "proof". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unwillingness to discuss does not mean that you get to assert your preference as if it were somehow the default.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw. it seems to me that you are misapplying WP:ASSERT here. It says not to give the appearance of disagreement where there isnt any disagreement. But here the entire point that we need to convey is that Ham disagrees with science. Writing "Ham contradicts the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old" Both because that would be an extremely odd statement that begs the question, and because it actually misrepresents the science which does not actually consider that dating to be "a fact" in the way that for example the orbit of the earth or it shape are incontrovertible empirical facts. 4.5 billion is simply the currently most accurate estimate based on inferences with a rather large margin of error.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate ·maunus recognizing my intent. Why can't the article simply say that Ham's view is "contradicted by scientific consensus that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old"?--John Foxe (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * because that language was settled on as a compromise for the flat out WP:ASSERTion that Ham's claims are wrong. We are not going to do any more namby pamby whitewashing. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to intervene on what the text should say explicitly, but it seems to me that saying Ham's view is "contradicted by scientific consensus" provides for Ham and similar folks to treat the science in this case as something other than fact (call it long-tested scientifically estimated fact if you will). They disagree with fact.  That means they are wrong, not simply disagreeing with this group of others they outright disparage. A compendium of facts should not give Ham and similar folks any out.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 03:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaving out "prove" sounds simple, but it would mislead the reader as the result would then be similar to "Ham thinks 6,000 years old and other people think 4.5 billion". Actually, the latter figure is much more than an opinion, and "prove" is a brief and recognizable statement of what is known, namely that 4.5 billion years is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Prove is not accurate no, what is accurate is that Ham's belief runs counter to all available evidence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it shouldnt say that he diusagrees with consensus (as I have also stated above), it is not just an opinion he disagrees with but the actual evidence. But evidence and proof is not the same thing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to quibble about that, then we can just settle the whole thing by going back to the previous version which simply identifies Ham's claims as being wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That would not make for a meaningful article, and it would set an extremely problematic precedence for the way we would write about religious people and other forms of non-scientific thought in general. Should we write for example that Nietszche was wrong in claiming that "God is dead" because science evidence suggests that "God" was never alive in the first place? Should we write about Jefferson that his belief that all humans are created equal contradicts the scientific fact that every human has a unique DNA sequence. etc. No, we should not. We should describe their beliefs, and we should do so in a way that it is clear whenever someone makes a claim that passes itself of as science but is not scientifically supported. Flatly saying that "Ham is wrong" is not encyclopedic, it is not accurate and it is not scientific. Saying that his claims are belief based and squarely contradict the evidence based conclusions of science is encyclopedic, accurate and scientific.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ham is not making a religious claim - about which science doesnt care. He is making a scientific claim about which he is wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, he is in fact making a religious claim, based on a religious text which he religiously takes to be inspired by god and therefore infallible. His claim that science is wrong is based directly on his religious belief, not on any aspirations to having come to a scientifically more sound conclusion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No traditional religious text says the universe is 6000 years old—if such a claim appeared in the Bible or other work, it could simply be an attributed statement balanced by the reality. Regardless, if "prove" has a non-fatuous meaning, 4.5 billion years has been proven, and an article should not present an age of 6000 years as merely one opinion in a world full of contrary opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You know very well that the claim of 6000 years goes back to Bishop Ushers calculation of the biblical genealogy, which predates the development of science by several centuries. It is of course a religious argument. And no one is suggesting to present this religious view as an opinion that is at the same level of the scientifically supported conclusion. You are raising a strawman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To assert that the age of the earth is a religious and not scientific claim is absurd. That he is attempting to make a religious based claims about a scientific subject is fine, but it is still a scientific subject which is adjudicated by scientific means and and those scientific means demonstrate that his claims are wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, what is absurd is to be unable to understand that religious people making claims about how the earth was created and when based on religious evidence is a religious and not a scientific argument. Clearly you have your own competence issues, particularly regarding comprehending the civilty policy. I am done here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * that religious people make scientific claims under the guise of religion does not exempt the claims from the realm of scientific refute. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your point of view, but I prefer your calling Ham wrong rather than saying that science provides proof of something that by its nature can't be proved. Calling something "wrong" is the language of political or theological debate.--John Foxe (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is ultimately an argument about semantics. What does "prove" mean? Obviously, the editors here can't even agree on that. To prove something simply means that the available evidence suggests, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a certain conclusion. That's a basic dictionary definition of the word. It's not a claim of omniscience, that no further evidence could be ever presented to challenge the conclusion. As others have said, any weaker wording opens up the interpretation that the idea that the earth is so many years old is merely an opinion a few scientists have, while brave dissenters like Ham have a different opinion. His view is based on an interpretation of the genealogies of the Bible that assumes those genealogies are complete and accurate without any other evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, the oldest rock fragment is 4.4 billion years old, and there are plenty younger than that but still much, much older than 6000 years. So, Ham isn't simply opposing the scientific consensus. He may as well be insisting the sky is green for all the evidence in his favor. So yes, "prove" is perfectly acceptable given the superabundance of evidence of the earth's advanced age. Any reader seeking more complete information on the evidence supporting that figure can visit Age of the Earth, conveniently linked in the lead of this article. clpo13(talk) 09:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly there is a consensus here already for the existing wording. I dont feel a need to subject myself to more strawmen and insults to challenge that. You are not making the encyclopedia better or more scientific, and you are not doing science a favor either.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider the wording if Ham was not a Young Earth Creationist, but a Flat Earther. Would you find it necessary to point out the scientific consensus on the actual shape of the Earth, or would we simply say that he is wrong?  The amount of scientific proof available is similar for both situations, apart from Ham's "were you there?" claim.  Indeed, if we went into details on Ham's claims in this article (which we're probably going to have to do if we can't use "prove") then Ham would look even more ridiculous when it's detailed that he rejects radiometric dating, Carbon-14 dating, the radioactive decay constant, and multiple basic physical laws. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misreading the sentence in question, but I don't see the "prove" statement being presented as a fact and therefore not needing a discussion of whether or not we can say "prove". The statement is a dependent clause describing the scientific consensus, which is that the scientific evidence proves the 4.5 billion year age of the earth. This isn't saying whether the mainstream scientific community is right or wrong, but is describing the consensus/belief of that community. The "prove" statement is qualified and attributed to the mainstream scientific community, hence satisfying NPOV. A reverse of the statement, something like "...the scientific consensus on the age of the earth is contradicted by the YEC consensus that the Bible proves the age of the earth is 6000 years...", would be equally acceptable, IMO. Such a statement doesn't say that it is a fact that the Bible proves anything, merely that it is the YEC consensus/belief that such is the case. Again, maybe I'm misreading the sentence and other arguments, but IMO the current wording is acceptable for these reasons. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Assert
Please consider WP:ASSERT and then understand why we should simply state that it is a fact that the Earth and the universe have ages that are on the order of billions of years. Scientific consensus is an awkward appeal akin to saying "it's the scientific consensus that the electron has a mass that is 1/1836 that of the proton". No, it's just a fact. jps (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, in the example you gave, you wouldn't use the word "fact": you would say "the electron has a mass that is..." rather than "it is a fact that the electron as a mass that is..." StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and we would say that someone who said "an electron weighs a gram" was wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you write the sentence, "Joe Doe's belief that an electron mass the mass of a proton is contradicted by the fact that it has a mass that is 1/1836 that of the proton" without using the word, "fact"? jps (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Although the mass of an electron is 1/1836 that of the proton, Joe Doe believes that it is the mass of a proton." StAnselm (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you think we should have "Although the earth is over 4.5 billion years old, Ham believes that it is only 6,000"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That wording would be fine with me. I'm not sure why it's preferred. jps (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this article is a bit trickier. You see, the really significant thing about Ken Ham is not that he believes the earth is 6000 years old (millions of people believe that); nor even that he believes the Bible teaches that the earth is 6000 years old (ditto). It's that he believes the fossil record and/or "real" science demonstrate that (or at least is consistent with) the earth is 6000 years old. That is, he is not just an adherent of creationism, but of creation science. It is this that should be in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Ham also believes that science works differently than most scientists who practice it. He accepts evidence that he thinks aligns with the conclusion in which he has faith and rejects the evidence (which is the preponderance at least) for conclusions that contradict his faith. This is more than just believing in "real" science. This is a kind of deductive reasoning that aligns well with creationism generally. jps (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * agreed, but none of these things are really facts because none of us will know exactly how old anything is unless we were there. I did a project on a sycamore tree in my backyard and concluded it was 8000 years old, but I cant really "prove" it I guess. So you cant really advocate one theory over another. 100.14.57.197 (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Of course Ken Ham likes to say that you can only know how old something is if "you were there", but that's rather irrelevant to actual facts of the matter (which is that one can measure ages accurately without "being there"). So either you're gunning for LULZ or you're lacking WP:COMPETENCE. jps (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * well no actually, not trolling. I'm just saying there's a ton of people that believe in the big bang old earth theory and a ton that believe in the bible. Can't really know which one it is unless I was there. I don't need Ken Ham to tell me that. 100.14.57.197 (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is undeniable that there are a ton of people that are wrong. That's not really relevant to our discussion here. And if you think you can't know which is which unless you "were there", you need to learn a bit more before contributing at Wikipedia. As it is, this kind of pontificating has no place on the talk page. If you want to have a discussion about why you're wrong, go ahead and engage me on my user talk page. Anyway, your contributions to this discussion so far are fairly useless, I'm afraid. jps (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, both Ham and his critics would agree that he has a different idea of what science is than they. I think this is a large part of what makes him notable: his philosophy of science, if you will. So I think that should be in the lead as well; the difference between Ham and real/mainstream scientists is not just a difference of numbers, even if they are different orders of magnitude: it's a difference in what Ham would call a worldview, including how to understand the world and how to practice science. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'd disagree there; Ham doesn't have a different idea or philosophy of science, he merely rejects scientific facts and findings if they don't agree with his religious beliefs. That's not a scientific viewpoint at all. Black Kite (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ken Ham is certainly not a scientist, and he never identifies as such. He instead thinks that he is better than basically all scientists because he has a direct access to what he thinks is a source of divine knowledge which, to him, trumps every other possible claim. This isn't a "worldview" as most would describe it. It is a claim about privileged knowledge. jps (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While Ham believes the Bible to be authoritative, he has some clever answers to the scientific consensus that are a lot more sophisticated than "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it." Lots of the folks in the scientific community oppose debates between scientists and creationists—some were aghast when Nye agreed to debate Ham—not just because it puts the mainstream on par with the fringe, but because creationists can summon awkward evidence that mainstream scientists simply ignore when agreeing to agree that the earth is >4.5 billion years old.--John Foxe (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've misinterpreted "awkward evidence" for a Gish Gallop through misinterpreted ideas. There is no "awkward evidence" when it gets right down to it. That's why talkorigins.org doesn't need updating. It's pretty funny to insinuate that mainstream scientists ignore evidence or agree to agree on an age as though they can't measure it. jps (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no scientist, but I've been impressed with debate performances of YECs I've heard in the past. Hope you have the pleasure of meeting one in a public forum sometime, especially if you assume from the get-go that your opponent is a moronic obscurantist.--John Foxe (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct you are no scientist and this is NOT a forum. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. I apologize.--John Foxe (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in referring YECs to show me up, I am available on my talkpage. jps (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a "claim about privileged knowledge" - that's definitely a worldview. Or, to put my statement another way, Ham has a radically different epistemology. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The bible has served as a source of information for literalists for years, whereas the "consensus" age has been changed many times. We can't discredit one or the other without the sufficient evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.66.150 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The evidence against the literalist position has been extant for more than a century. jps (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if we're talking about something whether its 6,000 or billions of years ago, there's no way of definitive proof on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.57.197 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While there is no "definitive proof" that it is "4 billion three hundred and thirty seven years old" there is "definitive scientific proof" that it is WAY older than 6K years. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While there may be some debate as to exactly how old the universe is, throwing the 6,000 year figure in there is like considering the following when I ask the question "How much money is in my wallet right now?"
 * I remember withdrawing 1000 RMB earlier today, and I had less than 150 at the time, but I've spent somewhere between 80 to 120 since then. So it's probably somewhere around 1070 or 1030.  But it could only 12 or 13 RMB (maybe what the bank gave me as 100 bills, what I thought were 100 bills, and what the shopkeeps accepted as 100 bills were really 1 yuan notes disguised as 100 RMB notes by the devil).  Who knows?  Unless I look in my wallet, there's "no" definitive proof.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing. You know for a fact that you yourself withdrew however much, and also know how much you yourself had. So you could say for a definitive fact without checking that that is how much money you had. No idea how you see the amount of money you hold in your wallet as an apropos analogy to how old the earth is. Again, I can't discredit one or the other without knowing, but then again, no one really can. For centuries, people have held the bible as fact. Likewise, people hold anything scientist deduce as fact without knowing for themselves the accuracy. Just consider Saurya Das and Ahmed Farag Ali's 'new' Big Bang Theory. Perhaps everyone will jump on that bandwagon and completely abandon the previous thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.57.197 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Philosophical commentary about "where you there?" needs to take place elsewhere. This page is for discussing how to appropriately represent what the mainstream sources have to say about Ham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not philosophical to say that we can't prove something that we actually do not know for a fact. That useless analogy was the only philosophical thing brought into this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.57.197 (talk • contribs)

Does the Bible teach young Earth or allow for old Earth?
The Wiki page for Ken Ham seems to violate Wiki's own rules for commenting on its accuracy. Wiki can hardly deem its own content to be polite or verifiable. You start off saying that Ham's acceptance of the Bible's accounting of years which makes the Earth only about 6,000 years old "is contradicted by the fact that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are on the order of billions of years." Rather than be condescending to those who don't think God is a liar, maybe you ought to reconsider your own view, albeit the majority view. Nor do the so-called Christians who preach "old Earth" billions have the intellectual upper-hand. The best they can do is avoid the problem of billions of years of vegetation on the 3rd day (which they call an "age," not a literal day) before the sun was created on the 4th day. Oops. If Wiki doesn't want readers to take offense at your tone, then don't post such a slanted attack article. (I find 99% of Wiki pages VERY helpful!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerwiggin (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 January 2016


 * The scientific consensus is that the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. If you wish to dispute this, I would direct you to the article Age of the Earth. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how a forthright statement concerning the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is "condescending" or impolite, though it certainly is "verifiable". The only condescension I see here is the quote, from an above comment, referring to "old Earth" Christians as "so-called Christians".72.49.235.222 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Evolution is real, the earth is old and wasn't created in six days. These are facts. You're gonna have to suck it up, boy. You're a hypocrite, boy. Impendingdoom240 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:CIVIL by not referring to other editors as "hypocrite" or by the diminutive "boy". This comment really added nothing to the discussion that hadn't already been said, and strikes me as a cheap shot. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you cannot be fair and WP:CIVIL while editing, I politely advise you not to edit any articles having to do with young Earth creationism. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You guys are right, that was pretty immature of me. Im just sick of the YEC propaganda Impendingdoom240 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Old Testament was written by people who had no access to modern methods for determining the age of this or any other planet. "A long time" is about the best they could realistically come up with. The creation narratives given in the Genesis chapter of that book are unsurprising, of a kind with similar creation narratives in any other tradition of that era. These various narratives do not hold up well when exposed to modern understanding, and we cannot say, in Wikivoice, that the planet was created in historical times. It would be wrong.


 * Ken Ham is entitled to believe whatever he wants, especially if it is something taught by his tradition. We can report on his belief as factual, based on his own statements, even if what he believes is not. We need not hold him up to ridicule or humiliation for his honest beliefs, though there is a certain amount inherent in the situation itself, just as would be if someone were to state that they believed in the Ester Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, traditional beings with no natural existence of their own. Mr Ham would surely be aware of this, and if he is happy to proclaim such beliefs, then he must also be happy to accept what comes with them. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Criticizing supporters of creationism does not excuse referring to them in demeaning terms like "boy" or inaccurately calling them "hypocrites." There's no need for Wikipedians to follow the incivility of the political world. (In passing, I don't know why believing "something taught by one's tradition" should be privileged. A lie is a lie whether it's written in Hebrew or Navajo.)--John Foxe (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * At no point did Skyring defend Impendingdoom240's language, but was commenting on OP's perception that the article is "condescending" (nevermind their Pharisaical denial of the possibility that sincere and devout Christians could reconcile their beliefs with evolution, as we're not baptized in the name of Ken Ham, but of Jesus). At any rate, his comments have been addressed and further discussion that doesn't really concern article improvement is starting to go against WP:NOTFORUM (yes, I'm aware I just contributed to that).  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for his apology—much better than any sort of Wiki-complaint.  We don't have to agree, even about the most fundamental matters, to be civil in disagreement.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that editors constantly violate WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTOPINION on this talk page. I don't think I have seen anything like this on a talk page for any other topic. It seems nearly every editor on this talk page is openly anti-Ken Ham and anti-YEC. If anyone wants to criticize Ham or creationism, there are plenty of low-level blogs for that. Lets try to have a degree of professionalism here. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Poll result
I have removed the results of the poll concerning who won the Nye-Ham debate. Although it was reported by Salon and New Republic, it was quite clearly an unscientific poll, and as a result shouldn't be included in a BLP. Salon explicitly states that "the self-selecting poll could have been invaded by evolutionists." Results of these sort of polls always need to be taken with a grain of salt, and so it shouldn't be in the article. StAnselm (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. I was about to do it myself, but got distracted by something else. I get the feeling that this was just a question on their web site that anybody could vote in any number of times. Those kinds of polls fall victim to folks who feel zealously about something all the time. As a fan of the Kentucky Wildcats, I've seen it happen lots of times. Put up a poll concerning Kentucky on a web site - especially in the off-season when few other fan bases are paying attention - and you virtually guarantee that Big Blue Nation will stack the deck for Kentucky. The referenced debate generated a lot of interest, and it's not hard to believe that the pro-Nye side would decide to try an embarrass the other side by taking over a poll on a Christian web site. BTW, it could have just as easily happened the other way around. If this were a poll done with a credible polling methodology, it would merit reference here, but as it is, I agree that it doesn't.
 * I might suggest that you leave a pointer to this discussion on Talk:Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate‎ to explain the change to those who might not be watching this page. Better to keep the discussion unified here than to have two separate threads. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing it. From experience and logic I know that articles like this are under a lot of danger of this. Anything that contradicts the Theory of Evolution, especially young Earth creationism, are very controversial and unpopular in this day and age, and as we can see in the discussion above, Wikipedia doesn't seem to be doing the best job in preventing bias on articles like this. Thank you. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As the person who first posted the poll (as far as I know), I do understand why you think it does not belong here, but to say it doesn't belong because it is unscientific doesn't make sense. It is a poll on people's opinions on who won the debate, and opinions cannot be judged scientifically. It would be like removing the 'critical reception' part of every film page because film reviews are people's opinions and therefore aren't scientific, though I would be interested in hearing what you think would constitute proper methodology. I do think that the section concerning the debate should mention the general consensus of people regarding the outcome. Also, with a 92% support for Nye, the poll must have had an absolutely massive influx of 'evolutionists' (to use your term) if that is what swayed the vote. In short, I understand why the poll was removed, but I think it could easily be argued either way. ( MegaSolipsist) 12:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
 * There are such things as scientific polls. Megabucks are spent during campaign seasons to gather them. The sort of pollsters who get paid for their efforts try to get random samples of whatever group they're supposed to be polling (voters, Democrats, vegetarians, etc.) with a statistically calculated margin of error—which should be smallish if the poll is conducted correctly. By contrast, film criticism is rarely anonymous; usually a film critic (or at least the media entity they work for) sign off on the review.--John Foxe (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With film reviews, we generally only post material from notable/significant reviewers. We don't generally give IMDB ratings, for example. As far as this poll goes, the 92% figure is very dubious - it was reported when the poll was still going; AFAIK no-one has reported on the final figure. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research tag
I've tagged the article as WP:OR as it currently contains over 30 citations to answersingenesis.org, similar to the Answers in Genesis article. Some of it appears to be undue, OR content, combined with extensive quoting to WP:Primary sources. Sample of the content removed (emphasis mine):


 * Ham rejects evolution and claims that proponents of Nazism, racism, abortion (...) have all used evolution to justify their beliefs and actions.
 * Ham believes that despite opposing the teaching of creation in public schools, by teaching evolution and naturalism, the government is imposing a type of religion on students in science classes in American public schools.

I believe that WP:Fringe applies as well, which indicates that Wikipedia should only source fringe opinions that are noticed by independent sources.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dinasaurs
I removed this passage as it appears undue, OR citing to AiG materials. WP:Fringe also possibly applies. Armitage citation appears to be WP:Coatrack.


 * He says that the animals carried on Noah's ark produced the biological diversity documented by observational science on earth today. Ham also believes that non-avian dinosaurs co-existed with genetically modern humans. Ham accepts that natural selection can give rise to a number of species from an original population.

Please let me now if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm curious, how exactly does displaying Ham's personal views (this section and the above) violate WP:Fringe? Are his views too minority to even describe or what? Please explain your reasoning. Thanks. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since creationism is a pseudoscience, it falls under WP:FRIND, which indicates that Wikipedia should only source fringe opinions that are noticed by independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote
I reworked this quote from Ham into the article prose, per WP:Quote farm:

"[My father] was always very adamant about one thing—if you can't trust the Book of Genesis as literal history, then you can't trust the rest of the Bible. After all, every single doctrine of biblical theology is founded in the history of Genesis 1–11. My father had not developed his thinking in this area as much as we have today at Answers in Genesis, but he clearly understood that if Adam wasn't created from dust, and that if he didn't fall into sin as Genesis states, then the gospel message of the New Testament can't be true either."

- Ken Ham (2008)

The prominent placement and the block-quote treatment made the page look like a personal web page to a certain extent, vs an encyclopedia article. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adjusting the wording, ‎1990'sguy. It reads better with the revised copy. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientifically determined
I restored the prior consensus version, as the new one looked problematic to me:


 * Ham advocates Biblical literalism, taking the Book of Genesis as historical fact. Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the Earth and the universe have been determined scientifically to be billions of years old.

I restored the previous consensus version as "have been determined scientifically" has the same issues as the "scientific consensus" that was discussed above. I.e. can something be "determined unscientifically"? Or what if it was just "determined"? Who has made this determination? Etc.

The current version above is straightforward and presets fact as fact, without equivocating. On a related note, are citations needed for Earth and universe, per WP:Overcite? Compare with:

 Elephants are large [1] land [2] mammals [3] ... Elephants' teeth [4] are very different [4] from those of most other mammals. [3][4] Unlike most mammals, [3] which grow baby teeth and then replace them with a permanent set of adult teeth, [4] elephants have cycles of tooth rotation throughout their entire lives. [4]


 * 1. Expert, Alice. (2010) Size of elephants: large.
 * 2. Smith, Bob. (2009) Land-based animals, Chapter 2: The Elephant.
 * 3. Christenson, Chris. (2010) An exhausting list of mammals
 * 4. Maizy, Daisy. (2009) All about the elephants' teeth, p. 23–29

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can something be unscientifically determined? Ask Ken Ham. More generally, people "determine" things all the time, to their own personal satisfaction, without science. The point of having "scientifically determined" might help emphasize the variety of techniques (usually involving hypotheses) and the variety of observations brought to this issue. The cited sources describe these. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the citations to the Earth and the universe as excessive. Does the note on Ham's view need to be there? Any objections to relocating it into the body? It will help with streamlining the lead. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally you don't need citations in the lead per Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * SKYISBLUE does not need to be cited. If readers would like to find out more, they can click on the link. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On a controversial topic like this, there is little SKYISBLUE agreement, and being well-cited in the LEAD is the product of past contention and a ward against future contention. There is no WP:OVERCITE in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Day of birth removed
Ham's day of birth was perfectly sourced to a book in the personal life section but removed just now. Any good reason for this?--TMCk (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, it did happen recently. It seems the cited source didn't provide the exact date. I found sources where Ham and his publisher both give October 20, 1951 as the date, which is what the article previously displayed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The existing source had that information: "Then, on October 20, 1951,...".--TMCk (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the source I saw it cited to, but a few editors have this and related articles in a state of upheaval at the moment, so I may have misread the edit history. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That'll do. Restored and cited. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Age of the Earth / Age of the Universe
We still haven't got a good source saying that Ham believes the age of the universe is 6000 years. He normally talks about the "age of the earth", and while I am sure that he also believes the universe is 6000 years old, that's not good enough for a BLP. Note 1 mentions "timing of creation", but there is no explicit reference to "creation of the universe". There are AiG articles about the age of the universe (e.g. ) but they are not written by Ham. Perhaps it's better just to stick to talk about the age of the earth in this article - after all, we should focus on what Ham has made public statements about. Also, the current footnote 30 needs to be fixed - it doesn't reference a specific article, just a topic list on the age of the earth. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note 1 seems to handle this. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that it doesn't mention the age of the universe at all! StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As Ham says over and over his approach is very simple. God created everything in 6 days, about 6000 years ago.  In the same book we already cite, he says on p 113: "Surely God is free to accomplish miracles within the world He created, so this should not be a problem for those who believe what God has revealed through the Scriptures.  But neither should creating the universe in six days or causing the entire globe to be flooded"   On page 108 he says: "Being consistent is a hallmark of rationality. Those who believe in a young earth and the biblical descriptions of the creation and history of the universe are commonly called "irrational" — though in somewhat backhanded ways. While some will claim that I am unreasonable to believe that God created the earth about 6,000 years ago and yet ride in a car or type on a laptop, I reject such assertions.(1)"  That footnote 1 is in our Note 1.   The whole thing was created in 6 days for Ham. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah - that first quote ("creating the universe in six days") on p. 113 is exactly the sort of thing I was after. That should be in Note 1 as well. What should we do about footnote 30? StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But note 1 does mention the universe (if not its age specifically), quoting Ham as saying "Rejecting literal days of creation naturally leads to the acceptance of the supposed big bang as the evolutionary method God used to create the universe.", so Ham doesn't seem to split hairs here, and seems to directly link the age of the Earth with the age of the universe. Willondon (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Honorary degrees
I'm moving this passage for storage here:


 * Ham has been awarded honorary doctoral degrees from four private Christian universities; Temple Baptist College (1997), Liberty University (2004), Tennessee Temple University (2010), and Mid-Continent University (2012).

This passage appears to be constructed on various sources, so I'm not sure if its OR / synth / wp:overcite. In any case, this intricate detail does not appear to be important as the fact that the subject holds honorary decrees from Christian schools (four of them, and which specific one) do not appear to impart much information on the reader.

Open to other opinions / suggestions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not put the schools and dates in the footnote? Such stuff isn't likely to be challenged, and it would make a difference if the "private Christian universities" were schools like Baylor or Wheaton.--John Foxe (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be so sure that "such stuff isn't likely to be challenged". The exact reason that "this passage appears to be constructed on various sources" is because it was originally cited to one, but it was an AiG link, and another editor demanded that it be cited to third-party sources, which I assembled. Honorary degrees are a typical mention in biographies of politicians (my general fare); I see no reason they shouldn't be included here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say keep it, as I see no reason to remove it - it seems well-sourced. I think that the fact that he has honorary degrees is relevant in an article about himself. I also don't mind John Foxe's suggestion. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I reintroduced the honorary degrees. Like I suggested above, another solution is to put the names in the footnotes.--John Foxe (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest edit about combating scientific consensus and pseudoscience
A person is allowed to believe whatever he or she wants and WP:BLP gives people wide latitude to ensure beliefs are not turned into undue criticism, but there are exceptions. This edit crosses the line:
 * "When he learned that some of his students believed the evolutionary theories in their science textbooks proved the Bible to be untrue, Ham said he felt a "fire in his bones" to combat that notion and began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches."

If an individual's intent is to "combat" science with creationism, then we are required to give due weight to the scientific consensus that their view is both pseudoscience and antiscience. Mr. Ham already rides the line of no notability outside of Intelligent Design and this is probably sufficient enough to put pseudoscientific in front of young earth creationism in the lede, but since he is not a scientist, I feel we should probably give leeway. Combating science leaves no room for leeway.

WP:FRINGEBLP says "Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame, but the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP#Balance). There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject."

I am reintroducing the pseudoscience edit. Lipsquid (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This may be a bit off-topic, but FWIW, Ham is clearly a notable person. This is the guy who started Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, the Ark Encounter, and who debated Bill Nye. This article clearly deserves better treatment. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to address this earlier, but yes, I was surprised to see even an intimation that Ham isn't notable enough for his own article. Pardon the religious pun, but you'll have a devil of a time trying to prove he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Let's go ahead and put that discussion to bed before it starts. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest removing this sentence entirely, per WP:Fringe. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I objected to the edit as an “unnecessary label”. I understand why some things are pseudoscience, and I agree 100% that creation “science” is just that. To expand on my meagre edit summary, though:
 * I felt it was a redundant label there, since many links in the first paragraph reveal abundant evidence that creation science is pseudoscience.
 * The pedant in me recognizes that young Earth creationism is a religious belief, and is not pseudoscience until it tries to claim that it is science. This paragraph describes Ham as combatting the notion (not the science) of evolution in church.
 * Again, I’m fully behind the fact that creation science is pseudoscience, but I thought the term felt a little out of place there, and I think that when such labels are used too much, it can come off as defensive and hysterical, much like the littering of “lies” and “false” around any mention of evolution.


 * So, my two cents. I won’t pay attention to the edit any more, but if you were to switch it back again, I’d be flattered by the testament to my awesome powers of persuasion. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am glad you are willing to let this go; this - "combatting the notion (not the science) of evolution in church" - is a distinction without a difference. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At the time described in Ham's life, I'm not sure he had yet become aware of the idea of combatting science by pretending that nonsense was science too. Sorry, the pedant in me is strong today. Willondon (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not relevant. Again you are making a distinction without a difference - there is no "notion" of evolution - it is a scientific concept and saying that evolution is false and God created the world in 6 days = pseudoscience; there is no way around that. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence clearly states he was combating information in science text books. I am not sure how someone can presume to know what Mr. Ham thought at a certain time in his life.  That is a ridiculous argument.  I would leave it and call it pseudoscience, not sure what the debate is about.  It is sourced, he said it and it is both pseudoscience and anti-science.  WP:FRINGE/PS is pretty clear on how to handle this.  Lipsquid (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Are we arguing creationism vs. science here? Or are we editing an article on Ken Ham? No one should presume to know what Ham thought when. It says he was combatting information in science books, at local churches, but it doesn't say that, at that time in life, he was doing so by pretending religion was science. (Sorry, I'll watch the article and talk page, but I'll leave this all to the rest of you. I find if I go get a good night's sleep, the pedant in me goes away. Cheers.) Willondon (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's blatant editorialising. Either the word "pseudoscientific" goes, or (per K.e.coffman) the whole sentence gets deleted. As Willondon has pointed out, we have no indication he had reached pseudoscience at this time. Young earth creation is not the same as creation science. StAnselm (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "combatting evolution" is the key thing here. If that goes, the argument goes away too. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like the notion he was combatting was that "evolutionary theories in the science textbooks proved the Bible to be untrue". StAnselm (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Editorializing is thinking you can pick and choose acceptable outcomes for sourced content by pushing a false dilemma. Again, WP:FRINGE/PS seems clear on how to handle this and it doesn't need to be removed.  He said it, it is note-worthy.  "Young earth creation is not the same as creation science"  that is funny, it is like saying pseudoscience is not like pseudoscience.  21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not noteworthy just because he said it, but because it's reported in a reliable secondary source. In any case, "pseudoscientific" needs to be reliably sourced, and it is not in the source provided. StAnselm (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence for now as there are policy-based questions about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again the problem here is not what he was teaching, it was what he was opposing. Creationist belief is what it is  - a matter of faith; evolution is not a matter of faith, and actively opposing evolution is where this becomes problematic. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update, I will move along now as my concern is no longer valid. FYI, prose in the lead does not need to be sourced as long as it is sourced in the body. It can be sourced in both if necessary, especially when controversial.  WP:CITELEAD  Nice for a disagreement to come to a amicable solution.  Best! Lipsquid (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't think my addition would blow up into all this. I guess I'm fine with deleting the whole sentence, but I thought it was worth mentioning why Ham decided to make a career change from teaching to YEC advocacy. It's the kind of thing I'd be interested in if I were reading a biographical article. Could we re-word the sentence in such a way that debating YEC (again) wouldn't be necessary but still noting that the notion of evolution turning his students away from the Bible was his motivation for leaving the public schools and starting a speaking career? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the paragraph was fine as it was before the edit we're discussing . Willondon (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it was fine was once we noted he was trading science for pseudoscience. Lipsquid (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous version was fine. Just because Ham is a YEC doesn't mean we have to constantly editorialize his article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this. Anyone can click through the link to YEC for more information about it. BTW, our own article on YEC calls it a "religious belief", not pseudoscience, which is a term it reserves for "creation science", which has a separate article, btw. The sources note, for what it's worth, that part of the reason for the split between AiG and ICR was that ICR wanted to focus on promoting scientific evidence for creation, while Ham and AiG wanted to use a rhetoric and substance more accessible to lay-people. Now, I won't claim that AiG materials – including the displays at the Creation Museum – don't promote elements of creation science, but the fact that Ham notably led AiG away from what is typically considered creation science seems relevant to this discussion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again this is missing the point. The reference to PSCI arose because of what the content said he was opposing  (evolution - opposing this is pseudoscience) not for what he was teaching (creationism, a belief) Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Although it's available via a link in the reference, let me provide the quotation from the source here. Perhaps my wording mis-characterizes the assertion, or failing that, perhaps someone can draft a better summation of the point that won't devolve into an argument over YEC for the umpteenth time: In 1975, he began work as a science teacher in the town of Dalby, where he later reported to have been appalled by the fact that some of his students assumed their textbooks that taught evolutionary science successfully proved the Bible to be untrue. According to Ham, this experience "put a 'fire in my bones' to do something about the influence that evolutionary thinking was having on students and the public as a whole." Does this help anyone? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes it clear that he committed himself to pseudoscience. If folks want to talk about that "turning point" thats fine but per PSCI we need to name what he did there.  There is really a fork in the theological road at that point - you can adjust your belief to match reality or you can reject reality in favor of your belief; he chose the latter and doubled down to try to convince others to do the same.  Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But that’s not what he did there (committed himself to pseudoscience), according to the source and its summary. Again, YEC is not creation science. There is a distinction between having a problem with evolution in general, and disagreeing with it on the basis that the theory is scientifically unsound. And it’s an important one here. In this article about Ken Ham, not labelling his actions (at that point in time) as pseudoscience helps to illustrate the progression from simple religious rhetoric opposing evolution to using the tactic of pretending that religion is science. In fact, equating YEC with pseudoscience is not only inaccurate, it helps the Intelligent Design movement’s agenda to replace “creator” with “intelligent designer” (see Of Pandas and People). They would be quite happy to have all history erased that reveal “creation science” to be nothing more than religious belief in the guise of science.


 * It’s been pointed out that what the text describes is Ham’s opposition because “his students assumed their textbooks that taught evolutionary science successfully proved the Bible to be untrue”. There are millions on millions of Christians who do not interpret the Bible literally, fully accept the facts of evolution, and who would also disagree that the textbooks prove the Bible to be untrue.


 * Again, slapping the “pseudoscience” label down every time YEC is mentioned seems a lot like those editors who would add “the lie of” to every mention of evolution. It looks defensive and hysterical.


 * So, (1) labelling Ham’s activities as described here “pseudoscience” is not accurate, (2) it helps cloud the origins of religious opposition to evolution theory, and (3) it is not necessary or even desirable. Your appeal to WP:PSCI is not relevant. The article is not about YEC, creation science (a fringe theory), evolution theory (the consensus), or the relative weight of their merits. It’s about Ken Ham. Willondon (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "According to Ham, this experience "put a 'fire in my bones' to do something about the influence that evolutionary thinking was having ". "evolutionary thinking" = science.   The paraphrase that was originally in the article captured what the source says.  Again it is not about what YEC teaches as a belief,  it is this moment when he actively set himself against "evolutionary thinking" - what he was opposing.  We have lots of discussion of YEC as a belief system that only bring up PSCI specifically in this context only; the opposition to science.  Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the edit and I only brought up pseudoscience when someone created an edit with an antiscience statement. Science and antiscience do not get equal weight.  A person is free to have a religious belief in anything they want, until it crosses over to opposing scientific consensus.  Lipsquid (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They are free to believe that too! :)  We just need to mind PSCI when we describe it. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Perhaps we need an RfC on this. It would be a shame if such an important, interesting and well-sourced fact were to be left out because we couldn't agree on this word. StAnselm (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

options
Here is the content that was added
 * Upon graduation in 1975, Ham began teaching science at a high school in Dalby, Queensland. When he learned that some of his students believed the evolutionary theories in their science textbooks proved the Bible to be untrue, Ham said he felt a "fire in his bones" to combat that notion and began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches.

Here is the content as Lipquid made it here:
 * Upon graduation in 1975, Ham began teaching science at a high school in Dalby, Queensland. When he learned that some of his students believed the evolutionary theories in their science textbooks proved the Bible to be untrue, Ham said he felt a "fire in his bones" to combat that notion and began giving addresses on the pseudoscientific topic of young Earth creationism in local churches.

What is we did it this way, reparaphrasing the original:
 * Upon graduation in 1975, Ham began teaching science at a high school in Dalby, Queensland. When he learned that some of his students resolved the tension between the history of the world as worked out in the biological and physical sciences and the creation narrative in Genesis by deciding that Genesis was not literally true, Ham said he felt a "fire in his bones" to combat that notion and began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches.

Something like that? Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done! I'm can live with that, though I do prefer the original. StAnselm (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lets see if lipsquid can live with it. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your attempt to tiptoe through the minefield, but some editors here have extended this discussion to other pages, I think there is still an elephant in the corner that needs to be addressed. I try to be respectful of religious beliefs, but what this guy peddles in regards to earth sciences is nonsense and it should not be given equal weight or be allowed to stand without criticism that can be found from innumerable reliable sources.  Anything about needing more sources for YEC specifically being pseudoscience or that young earth creationism is not really creation "science" is just talking in circles.  We all know what Mr. Ham says and we know what he means.  Lipsquid (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lipsquid, please see your Talk page, and please comment on the proposed content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support the omission of the statement as it's currently worded: As well as in the proposal form: From the source, for reference (as appears above): Neither appears to be neutrally worded, nor would they be. How about: K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "When he learned that some of his students believed the evolutionary theories in their science textbooks proved the Bible to be untrue, Ham said he felt a "fire in his bones" to combat that notion and began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches."
 * When he learned that some of his students resolved the tension between the history of the world as worked out in the biological and physical sciences and the creation narrative in Genesis by deciding that Genesis was not literally true, Ham said he felt a "fire in his bones" to combat that notion and began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches.
 * In 1975, he began work as a science teacher in the town of Dalby, where he later reported to have been appalled by the fact that some of his students assumed their textbooks that taught evolutionary science successfully proved the Bible to be untrue. According to Ham, this experience "put a 'fire in my bones' to do something about the influence that evolutionary thinking was having on students and the public as a whole."
 * "Ham began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches in [ year ]".
 * Well, the only neutrality issue that I could see was in the phrase "evolutionary theories", and that was not the original reading in the source provided. The original (a Johns Hopkins University Press publication) had "evolutionary science". StAnselm (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could anyone please share the source material on what the statement is based? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is in the thread above. argh. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The original? No - I don't think it's in Google Books; I read it on Amazon. StAnselm (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it now. I still support the omission. The statement is fine for the book, but for the short wiki article, I think the factual statement on "Ham began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches in [ year ]" is preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * x3. Yes see here, just above. It is from page 9 in the book, here.  The reason this bit is interesting is that it describes the pivot when he dedicated himself to propagating YEC.  I think it is a key thing for this biographical article to describe.  Yes the "fire in my bones" quote is a little colorful but it is also apt and consistent with his aggressiveness/belligerence which the article used to discuss at some length (like back here); that aspect of his public life has been pretty much removed in the course of the good cleanup that has happened, which is too bad.  Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the "fire in the bones" as much as I do the surrounding language: "When he learned that some of his students resolved the tension between the history of the world as worked out in the biological and physical sciences and the creation narrative in Genesis by deciding that Genesis was not literally true, (...) to combat that notion". I.e. "notion" (meaning evolution?) sounds POV; "resolved the tension" (who says there's tension?); "as worked out in sciences" (science deals with facts, not "working out" things), etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the notion is not evolution, it's the idea that evolution proves the Bible wrong. I would have thought virtually everyone agrees there is "tension", though many people resolve it by saying science and the Bible are talking about different things. StAnselm (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second thoughts, that can't be what the notion is. It must be that "the Bible isn't true". StAnselm (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like WP:SYNTH unless you have sources to back-up the specific claims about what Mr. Ham believes. What is clear is that Mr. Ham does not believe in evolutionary science and has proposed his own pseudoscience to fill the gap.  "Why?" Doesn't really matter to the pseudoscience argument.  Lipsquid (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

See, we can't even figure out ourselves what the "notion" is. :-) That's why I suggest doing away with this expository statement, and just going with: K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ham began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches in [ year ]".
 * The "notion" is that what we have learned from science means that the creation narrative in the Bible cannot be literally (as in, like a history book) true. What I offered was just a proposal, there are other ways to say the second half. What I tried to do in the first of my proposal was avoid the blanket and unmodifed "true" - there are plenty of ways to accept science and still find the Creation narrative true - just not on a literal level.  This article shouldn't get trapped in the world view of its subject where the Bible being "true" must mean "literally true". Jytdog (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While this is a sane view and one that many (most) Christians hold, it is not Mr. Ham's view. He says the entire Bible is literally true first page to the last page, even if it means throwing scientific knowledge out the window.  That is why we are discussing the pseudoscience he has created to justify his beliefs.  There is really no way out of calling his beliefs pseudoscience.  The view is not generally mainstream, it certainly isn't scientific mainstream.  You are modifying Mr. Ham's own quotes and beliefs to avoid conflict with a couple of apologists, this is not a behavior condoned by Wikipedia.  Lipsquid (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We all know what Ham believes. The question is how to write WP content in a way that complies with NPOV.  See your talk page again. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If your proposal to to create WP:SYNTH rather than use a direct quote, then I am against it. Lipsquid (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an if; are you saying it is SYN, and if so, how so exactly? Please do keep in mind your own edit adding "the pseudoscientific" to the sentence when you answer this question. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That is why simply stating "Ham began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches in [ year ]" is preferable IMO. Avoids issues of POV entirely. Comments? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do hear you as to why you like that - I do - but describing the turning point and the experience that drove it is, I think, relevant and important.  The question is how, which I think we can solve with time. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How about an attributed quote from the original? According to Susan and William Trollinger, "In 1975, he began work as a science teacher in the town of Dalby, where he later reported to have been appalled by the fact that some of his students assumed their textbooks that taught evolutionary science successfully proved the Bible to be untrue. According to Ham, this experience "put a 'fire in my bones' to do something about the influence that evolutionary thinking was having on students and the public as a whole."" StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * An attributed quote would remove the ability to add any description as pseudoscience, at least in that sentence. It seems to me to be a sensible way to avoid conflicts.  Lipsquid (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think this represents a reasonable compromise; however, in the interest of reducing the length of the quote, why don't we retain the extant sentence about Ham going to the high school in Dalby, and follow with something like, "According to Susan and William Trollinger, Ham was "appalled by the fact that some of his students assumed their textbooks that taught evolutionary science successfully proved the Bible to be untrue," and he said the experience "put a 'fire in my bones' to do something about the influence that evolutionary thinking was having on students and the public as a whole."? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.--John Foxe (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to stop the name-calling, please?
I have locked the article to IP editors for a very simple reason; disruption of the fact-based parts of the article. There is no way that any editor here means to be unpleasant to other editors; however, in line with all of our other articles, the fact that the Earth is >4bn years old will remain. Obviously, there are people that don't believe this; their views are covered in other articles. Please stop the disruption of this article, because it is clearly an issue for Wikipedia when this happens. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Scientific consensus wording
I've observed the editing back and forth for a while, and I don't see anything wrong with the proposed wording: "... is contradicted by the measurements of the age of the universe and the age of the Earth being billions of years."

The phrasing "...is contradicted by the scientific consensus that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are on the order of billions of years" sounds a bit weasely to me. I.e. is there an "unscientific consensus"? Or some scientists do not agree about these measurements? What exactly is "on the order of billions"? (It may indeed be the case, if RS to this effect exist.)

In general, it seems that in an article related to the creationism topic, the language should be very straightforward, and if there's nothing majorly wrong with saying "contradicted by the measurements..." then I would support this version, as not open to the interpretations as I mentioned above.

Would like to hear some feedback on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. We don't say that "there is scientific consensus that 2+2=4", even if some people choose to dispute that. There is a certain level of accepted fact about the natural world where it's unnecessary, and even a bit misleading, to use "scientists say..." wording. Moreover, I don't understand the appeals to consensus that some of the people involved in this edit war are making (e.g. ). It looks to me, at a glance, like the last discussion on this subject favored omitting the "scientific consensus" wording and simply presenting facts as facts. MastCell Talk 23:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please comment here? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem with using the word "measured" here is that it doesn't have the nuance that it might have in other articles. In Age of the universe, it says "The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years ((13.799±0.021)×109 years) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model." (emphasis mine) It is not "measured" in quite the same way that the "distance between New York and Chicago" is measured, and comparing it to 2+2=4 is a false analogy. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you are just parading your ignorance. It is measured using exactly the same kinds of reasoning as it used to measure the distance between New York and Chicago which is a measurement that depends on the accuracy of your geodetic model just as much as the age of the universe depends on the accuracy of your cosmological model. jps (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "contradicted by the current estimate of the age of the universe being 13.799±0.021 billion years"? The source provided uses the word "estimated". Actually, Ham's sourced belief here is only relating to the age of the earth - I presume he believes the universe is the same age of the earth, but that belief would need a citation. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Prob should hear from . K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not psyched about the "current estimate" wording, because it incorrectly implies that other estimates might be more in line with Ham's claims. I also think St. Anselm misunderstands the concepts of measurement and estimation. All measurements contain a degree of uncertainty, from the age of the universe, to the distance between Chicago and New York, to the mass of an electron. For the purposes of an in-depth discussion of measuring the age of the universe, it is appropriate to elaborate on the models and estimates used and their degrees of uncertainty. But when discussing someone who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it is appropriate to simply say that the Earth's measured age is on the order of billions of years. This is, in itself, an estimate (the clue is the words "on the order of", and the lack of an exact number), and encompasses the entire range of plausible values and measurement error. I'm opposed to trying to find ways to water it down or equivocate, when this wording is entirely correct and accurate. MastCell Talk 00:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not an estimate. It's a precise measurement. The "estimated" aspect that Wright is referring to is on the basis of model uncertainties that are at most 10 to 20% (and most astronomers agree are not likely relevant post Planck). This is much like someone arguing that the distance between New York and Chicago is 1.5 feet instead of 713 miles and then complaining that the measured distance between the two cities "is only an estimate" because another geographer pointed out that the driving distance could be estimated to be 790 miles instead of the 713 mile great circle distance. jps (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This version by MastCell is straightforward and will probably help avoid misunderstandings:


 * Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the measured ages of the universe and of the Earth are in the billions of years.


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a fine version. Note that the numbers I used for the distance between New York and Chicago are proportioned exactly the same way Ken Ham proportions his belief in the age of the universe. The uncertainties on the distance are even of similar order, amusingly. Just underscores how precisely counterfactual the denial that Ken Ham engages in actually is. jps (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The age of the Earth is based on several lines of evidence, with some inference, all giving pretty good consistency. They are not, however, direct measurements of the age of the entire Earth. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And the distance between New York and Chicago is based on several lines of evidence, with some inference, all giving pretty good consistency. Your use of the adjective "entire" makes me think that you have your own pet ideas about where you think the inconsistencies may lie, but no matter. The facts remain facts regardless of what you (or I) think. The fact that Ham simply denies basic facts about the reality we all inhabit is really not up for debate and neither is the basic scale of the age of the Earth (which is nowhere near the scale claimed by Ham). jps (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel so strongly about this, then perhaps you should fix the article: Age of the Earth. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing that I wrote here is contradicted by that article. Start with the first sentence, for example. Don't see any room for claims that the age of the Earth given there is anything but a measurement (whatever the hell you mean by "direct" I cannot say). jps (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What the "hell" I mean? Making an inference about the age of the Earth, when none of us were there when the Earth first formed, is, yes, indirect. Not really the same as measuring the distance between two cities. If you want to insert the word "fact" into the lead of Age of the Earth, be my guest. I will be interested to see the reaction. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Go read the first sentence of Age of the Earth. Are you really attempting to use "Were you there?" as an argument here? jps (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir/Madam, you seem to be personalizing this. Please avoid this. I'm reading the article, Age of the Earth, yes. And I'm reading both the first and second sentence. Again, if you want to insert the word fact into one of those sentences, I would be interested to see the reaction. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the article at hand. We are talking about facts here. The age of the Earth is a fact. If you think it is important that the fact that the age of the Earth is on the order of billions of years show up in other articles, please talk about your desires at those other articles. For now, we are here talking about the facts here. jps (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * jps, it is true that the scientific majority believes the evolutionary age of the earth. The article reflected that fact. We don't need to change (and we should not) the article to satisfy your strong dislike for Ken Ham, AiG, and YEC. The wording if fine the way it is. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The "scientific majority" is irrelevant. The fact that is relevant is the actual age. I LOVE Ken Ham, please stop saying otherwise, thank you very much. The wording is not fine as it is. The wording implies that these facts are only opinions in contravention of WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If I have misrepresented your feelings towards Ham, then I do apologize. But regardless, your edits are unnecessary, and I do think you have a strong bias against (different from dislike or hate) Ham and YEC. If you didn't, you would be OK with the current wording. The evolutionary age of the earth is an estimate (yes, it is). Why is it wrong then to describe it as such? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Now we all have our biases and you wear yours on your sleeve. Just so. The goal of Wikipedia is to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions. Here, the fact at issue is the fact (NOT OPINION) that the Earth/universe is billions of years old. Wikipedia, wherever occasion to mention this fact comes up, is required per its policies and guidelines to make it clear that this is a fact and not an opinion. You are arguing that the age of the Earth/universe is an "estimate". Above, I have carefully outlined why this is hardly relevant to the point at hand (the point that Ham denies the fact of the age of the Earth/universe being on the order of billions of years). It is wrong to imply or insinuate that this is not a fact which is what the attribution to "scientific majority" or "evolutionary thinking" or "scientific consensus" does. Because, you see, these measurements are not just a bunch of people agreeing. These are measurements just like the distance between New York and Chicago (see above). Do you understand? jps (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I commented on the phrase "...is contradicted by the scientific consensus that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are on the order of billions of years". I.e. is there an "unscientific consensus"? Or some scientists do not agree about these measurements?

The problem is WP:weasel with this wording being subject to various interpretations. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is trying to assign the word "fact" to something that is an inference and mostly a statistical inference. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All measurements are inference at some level. This would mean that no measurements are facts. It's also 100% false that it is mostly a statistical inference. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording describes the fact that there is a consensus among the majority of scientists that the evolutionary age of the earth is true. There are plenty of scientists who disagree. These two statements are facts. The wording does not violate WP:weasel. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are not plenty of scientists who disagree. There are essentially zero scientists who disagree. And the fact that you want to change the subject to a question of how many scientists disagrees is exactly the problem. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How about this variation on MastCell's text: Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the the universe and the Earth are billions of years old. Just stick to the facts without the "measured" red herring. On another point, it looks jps put a POV tag on the article—that is not a good idea because it encourages others to do the same whenever they don't like something. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can feel free to remove the POV tag. I don't know what to do when there is a problem like this. Your version is fine with me. I just don't want to violate WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * May work -- this avoids the whole "scientific consensus" debate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fine with any agreed upon version, but may I ask why anyone would object to "scientific consensus"? This is the wording that is often use to calm down opposing sides and shows that not everyone agrees, but the current consensus is -whatever-.  I am not sure why anyone would disagree with that wording on both sides of the discussion.  Lipsquid (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the consensus of scientists is quite immaterial to the fact that the age of the Earth has been measured. It's like saying, "The scientific consensus is that the distance between New York and Chicago is 913 miles." That is an unencyclopedic way of reporting that fact. That is exactly why we have WP:YESPOV. The age of the Earth/universe isn't an opinion. It is a fact. jps (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I get it, I often edit pseudoscience articles so I get used to giving people leeway to express opinions when those opinions, however crazy, are backed by somewhat scientific sources. Lipsquid (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We should have something more like: Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the the universe and the Earth are believed to be billions of years old according to the Theory of Evolution.
 * The age of the Earth and universe are estimates, not hard, solid, observed facts (whether you like it or not, that's the case). They seem to be very precise estimates, but they are still estimates. We shouldn't go beyond saying that here.
 * Better yet, lets just keep the "scientific consensus" wording. The wording is good the way it is. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this statement illustrates perfectly the problem. You are ignorant of the fact that the age of the Earth and universe are measurements and they are hard, observed facts just like any other measurement. I understand that you have been indoctrinated to think otherwise, but Wikipedia is based on mainstream understanding and not the understanding imparted by one's fundamentalist religion. The reason the wording is no good is because it obfuscates this fundamental fact about the reality we live in. It misleads the reader into thinking exactly the misconception you outline, that the age of the Earth/universe are not "hard, solid, observed facts" when, crucially, they actually are. I couldn't have asked for a better object lesson than this. We need to avoid any weaseling into the idea that these facts are actually opinions. jps (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir/Madam, please cease making derogatory comments about other editors. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing at all derogatory about what I wrote. It is okay to be ignorant. It is even okay to be indoctrinated. There is nothing wrong with that. Such people are free to come here and help on any number of things which do not require someone who isn't so blinkered. However, when it comes to reporting such fundamental facts about reality such as the Age of the Earth or the Age of the universe, the opinions of those who have been indoctrinated to believe, for whatever reason, that the facts associated with those topics are not actually facts really do not belong influencing the content of the encyclopedia. It's a harsh reality, but it is not derogation of the fundamental human worth of the other people with whom we share this cyberspace. jps (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not ignorant or indoctrinated, contrary to what an "enlightened" person like you might think. I have been watching these pages for years, having to deal with numerous ignorant editors who try to make these pages conform to the views they have been indoctrinated with. It is common sense that the original wording is best and describes the section the best. The wording does not violate any Wikipedia ordinance. Please stop trying to change the wording. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The words "scientific consensus" is fine, and it is not necessary or ideal to describe the evolutionary age of the Earth or universe as hard facts, as several other editors, who clearly are not ignorant or indoctrinated also think. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we are all indoctrinated, to differing degrees and on different subjects, and we all wear our own set of lenses that we view the world through. That said, I agree with you there is no controversy on the age of the universe.  I self-reverted.  Carry on and best to all!  Lipsquid (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, absolutely. The difference is that some people are indoctrinated in a way that supports the goals of the encyclopedia and some people are indoctrinated in ways that do not. To take a less hot-issue example, someone who is indoctrinated in a way that makes them want to correct spelling is an asset to Wikipedia, generally. Someone who is indoctrinated in a way that makes them want to reorder numerals wherever they see them is not. jps (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your own writing has already betrayed your ignorance, sorry. The very fact that you think that the Age of the Universe is "believed" "according" to the Theory of Evolution is a whopper of a misconception. It would earn you a failing grade in my astronomy class, for example. The wording needs to be changed to comport with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pretending that there has been a long consensus in favor of this is disingenuous especially as it was you yourself who removed the wording that plainly identified these facts. You are the one who is on the losing side of consensus here. It's time to back off. If you want to learn why you are wrong, feel free to contact me separately. jps (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're completely wrong. Sorry to hear that I would fail your astronomy class because of my views on this subject, rather than something that's much more relevant to astronomy. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * SMH. Hint: The Theory of Evolution is irrelevant to the Age of the Universe. And obviously I'm not completely wrong because it really was you who changed the wording despite the consensus here, wasn't it? jps (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my political correctness getting the better of me. Regardless, I do hope that I'll have an unbiased astronomy teacher. :) --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. For this reason, Creation Science and Intelligent Design are the first examples listed at Fringe_theories.  Whether God did it or not not is a philosophical/theological debate that generally is regarded as outside or even unrelated to science, but evolution, the big bang, and so forth, are established facts.  There's still some debate room regarding the exact date, but all serious estimates fall within the range of billions of years.  As such, we do not mention scientific consensus (because it creates artificial validity in the eyes of the science-rejecting YECers) and should even avoid mentioning measurement (if only to avoid redundancy, it not because mentioning measurement leaves open the question as to whether the measurement is right).  The Earth article barely mentions measurement, it usually just says "it is this big" or "it is this old."  Yes, it gives measurements, but it describes those measurements as facts. I'm OK with either Johnuniq's suggested wording or His belief, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, is contradicted by the the age of the universe and the age of the Earth being on the order of billions of years.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point on the word "measurement". I think I agree with that. Of course, it makes me sad that this is the present state of rhetorical affairs as I think measurement is so wonderfully fundamental to science, but there I go showing my bias again. ;) jps (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with Ian.thomson's suggestion, though (a) "in" the order would be the more usual way of expressing it; and (b) we don't need both earth and universe here - if we do, we need a citation for Ham's view on the age of the universe. StAnselm (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The most common way of discussing order of magnitude descriptions is indeed to say, "on the order of". Here is a source which identifies Ham's opposition to the age of the Universe: . jps (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I like Ian.tomson's wording, as it makes sense, and doesn't give any doubt to science. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with a simple assertion, in Wikipedia's voice, that the earth and universe are billions of years old which, as jps points out, is how we generally treat propositions that enjoy this level of scientific consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't say I like the simple assertion. The problem is that science can't prove that the universe is ___ years old; it can only say that the hypothesis that the universe is ___ years old is consistent with all available data. In the same way the statement that "the universe was created 5 minutes ago and all of us provided with ready-made memories" is not something that science can prove wrong. The current wording is not awful, and I'm OK (just barely though) with it staying, but I think using "scientific consensus" is better. For reference, many of the proposals in an RfC on genetically modified organisms also use "scientific consensus".  Banedon (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's making things a little unclearer than it really is. Scientists can look at the universe and say "if our measurements were correct and our math is right, and physics actually does consistently work the way we've observed it to work repeatedly, then the Earth is somewhere between X and Y years old and the Universe is somewhere between A and B years old."  4.5 billion years and 13.7 billion years are well any serious ranges of those figures, and other guesses are close enough (from our mortal perspective) that we can get away with saying "about" those figures.  So, the scientific consensus is as close to a fact as we can get unless we just need to chuck out science as a whole.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you up until "... chuck out science as a whole". Science can get pretty damn close to proving that the age of the Earth / Universe is ___ years, which is still a good accomplishment and so isn't something we should chuck out. But it can't actually prove that the age is that value, so it's not really correct to say that the Earth / Universe is ___ years old either. Another comparison: a scientist in the year 1850 might have said, if our measurements are correct and our math is right, and physics actually does consistently work the way we've observed it to work repeatedly, then Vulcan exists ... but it doesn't, does it? Banedon (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Those who know how to determine the age of the Earth have done so, and the results are reported at Age of the Earth. Who knows, perhaps the value will be revised by a few million years up or down, but the Earth is known to be billions of years old. The same scienctific principles than enable us to use computers and phones and the internet also apply to geology. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You and I clearly interpret scientific "knowledge" differently then. Banedon (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Age of Earth Opinion vs Fact
There is clearly a difference of opinion of the age of the earth. The text of this article has to do with Ken Ham and not with another's beliefs or opinions. The article must maintain neutrality in wording. Claiming that "the Earth and the Universe are about 4.5 billion years and 13.7 billion years old respectively" is based upon references from those who believe that.

Such has nothing to do with the articles subject, nor is verifiable scientifically. It must be modified or removed for these reasons.

Starting an edit war is not a good way to handle a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchM (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The age of the earth is NOT a matter of belief, it is a scientific fact, as the references show. Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see the section above titled . clpo13(talk) 17:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What we need are true, unbiased facts here. First, the age of the earth as being billions of years old is based upon the evolutionary belief system rather than the creation belief system.  Neither is based upon scientific fact.  True science requires observable facts.  Since no one was here even a million years ago to observe and record anything, there are no facts; only conjecture and hypothesis.  That is why this article degrades to the point it is.  One true believer does a "study" and writes his or her article about it and that article is used as proof of the same fact.  Are you kidding?  That is just sloppy research and unworthy of Wikipedia.


 * Further, the idea that the majority must be correct reminds me of that true scientist, Galileo, who stood alone against the majority, and was absolutely correct. This article needs to be corrected without interjection of one belief system over another based upon the writer's personal belief system of choice.  This about the subject and his belief system; not anyone else's.  All things contrary to the subject's own position needs immediate removal, simply from a position of fairness and neutrality, if not common sense. - KitchM (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've got your metaphor completely mixed up here. Young Earthers like Ken Ham are not like Galileo.  Young Earthers are more like the people who argued that heliocentrism was just Galileo's heretical opinion -- but a few centuries after scientists had done the work and found out that gosh, the earth does indeed go around the sun.
 * Science is based on collected observation by individuals who are educated enough to know what they're looking at. Those individuals (i.e. scientists) have found that Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.  Wikipedia officially regards young earth creationism as pseudoscience.  Our articles on evolution, natural selection, Abiogenesis, the Age of the Earth, the Age of the universe, and the Big Bang treat these subjects as facts because any real scientific work does so as well, because, again, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.


 * Evolution is not a belief system, it is accepted by members of various religions, including the largest Christian denomination on the planet. If you continue operating under the delusion that evolution is a belief system (instead of what the nigh-totality of scientists in relevant fields has observed as being the most reliable explanation for how life on Earth works), then you are only going to waste everyone's time here.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try to be plain: Evolutionists are like the Catholic church that persecuted Galileo, for indeed that church based its position not on scientific evidence, but upon supposition and personal belief. Please never imply that evolutionists collect observations; they were never there.  Your quoting of those questionable opinions does not prove anything at all.  Further, acceptance of evolutionary theory by some religions (belief systems) does not prove it is not a belief system.  Basing opinion upon numbers and circular logic makes one wonder just whom may be wasting the reader's time. - KitchM (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone who has studied biology, including all the medical staff in major hospitals, knows that Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Yes, contrarians can be found who deny that, but contrarians said that smoking was good for you—there will always be outliers. It is a requirement at Wikipedia that editors follow reliable sources, and it would be a great benefit for anyone to know that life is more interesting than a simple story. All that is irrelevant for geology which is the science that finds minerals that non-scientists cannot detect, and the age of the Earth is primarily a subject for geology, not evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a broad, unprovable argument with which you begin, and patently false. - KitchM (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Serious question: what does evolution have to do with the age of the Earth and / or Universe? Evolution deals with life, and the techniques used to establish the age of the Earth / Universe aren't related to life. Banedon (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No one has observed electricity (our only knowledge of it is indirect), yet here we are using computers and the internet. The place to raise doubts about whether the age of the Earth is a "fact" is at Age of the Earth. An alternative would be to enquire at WP:HELPDESK or WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN regarding whether an article can state that the Earth is billions of years old as a fact. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia's NPOV policy treats scientific consensus as fact on matters capable of scientific investigation. The ages of the Universe and the Earth, within the framework of modern scientific theories, are now well-known, and supported by mutually-consistent evidence from a wide range of scientific fields. -- The Anome (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Be prepared to repeat this opinion repeatedly and indefinitely. I enjoy the positive side of WP, adding new information and improving the grammar and syntax of articles; but I also admit to a bit of schadenfreude here, watching Chronos worshipers continually defending their turf.--John Foxe (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the bulk of this discussion, which I find is not typically a productive use of my time on WP, let me encourage you, in the spirit of WP:CIVIL, not to insult editors who, based upon their comments here, appear to revere the Christian God by referring to them as "Chronos worshipers". I find it hard to believe there is any other purpose for such language than to degrade and/or insult them by insinuating that they worship a "deity" they would regard as an idol or false god. That kind of attack has no place in the purportedly civil discourse of Wikipedia. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Acdixon. There have already been too many insults on this talk page. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion is absolute garbage, picking out one person because they got fed up with the absurdity is pretty disingenuous. Lipsquid (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This talk page is being used for its intended purpose. Contrary to your assertion, the content of the discussion absolves no one from the constraints of policy, yourself included. My admonition to abide by WP:CIVIL is not improper. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. With statements such as "Wikipedia's NPOV policy treats scientific consensus as fact on matters capable of scientific investigation" and "Wikipedia officially regards young earth creationism as pseudoscience" one can easily understand that honest skepticism has no place in Wikipedia.  If enough people jump over a cliff, should we all do so as well?


 * I do not see scientific research as based upon writing, but rather upon observation and experimentation. Makes one wonder which is pseudoscience. - KitchM (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * YEC is based on writing, while the techniques used to establish the age of the Earth / Universe are based on observation and experimentation. Obviously the former is pseudoscience? Banedon (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Many people may not know what you mean by YEC, nor can I be sure. Please be clear for everyone's benefit.  Thank you. - KitchM (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * YEC = "young earth creationism". Banedon (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the pot calling the kettle black. Wikipedia's stances on evolution and YEC are based on reliable sources, which are in turn based on the collected observations of trained scientists.  YEC is nothing but an attempt by non-scientists (or scientists in the wrong fields) to misrepresent bronze age poetry as scientific history.  If someone tried to insist that we can't present heliocentrism as a fact because a botanist cited that Eddas' description of the world tree, would you believe them?  Would you find them the least bit reasonable?  How about if someone said we can't present the Germ theory of disease as fact because a nuclear physicist cited the Asakkū marṣūtu's belief that disease is caused by the Asakku?  Or if someone said that we have to doubt General relativity because a neurologist cited the Enûma Eliš's belief that the world is made from the corpse of Tiamat?  If you think that any of these are the least bit ridiculous, then your arguments here are totally hypocritical.  I do not make these comparisons to deny any spiritual or philosophical truth of any particular religious text (I personally find plenty of enlightening ideas in Genesis, especially the first few chapters) but rather to oppose the degradation and debasement of those lofty spiritual truths by reducing their poetic mediums to crass, mechanical, soulless materialism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I also read the first 11 chapters of Genesis a lot, and it is quite clear when reading it, especially after comparing it to other portions of the Bible, that it is a historical narrative, intended to be a historical narrative, rather than just poetry. Also, reading other sections of the Bible that mention Genesis 1-11, it is extremely clear that it is a historical narrative. So I don't see how you have to interpret Genesis as mere poetry to avoid degrading Genesis. Do you think we should take the Gospel figuratively as well in order to avoid the "degradation and debasement" of the spiritual truth there? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (Was packing and traveling): The first two chapters start off as poetry and gradually transition toward mythic-history (mythic in the academic sense of "sacred narrative"). Judaism handles the first six and the next five chapters separately because those are distinct parts.  The Genesis creation narrative is even more distinct.  One might as well point to Leviticus and argue that the Torah is only law codes and no story.  The Gospels are clearly a different genre.  If YECers treated the prologue to the Gospel of John the way they treat Genesis, they would arrive at the reading that the world is only 2000 years old.  The parallel for your argument would then be "chapters two and three concern miracles and arguments with Jewish authorities, so chapter one couldn't be Greek philosophy." Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the first two chapters of Genesis that makes it seem like poetry (other than, possibly, the obvious fact that it is not generally accepted as factual). Also, when one reads Exodus 20:11, it is quite clear that the first Genesis 1-2 were intended to be historical narrative. That's the plain reading, and I think it's clear the plain reading is the intended reading. As for John, nobody (including YECers) would think that John is saying the Earth is 2,000 years old. It is quite clear that John 1:1 refers to the very beginning. Later in John 1, it states that Christ, who was there from the beginning, came to Earth 2,000 years ago. But enough of this forum; it's quite clear that we have two completely different views of this topic. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The structure in the original Hebrew follows the patterns for poetry of that era, with a Chiastic structure where the first day parallels the fourth, the second the fifth, and the third the sixth. Even Origen in the 2nd century and Augustine in the 4th criticized the literalist interpretation.  Exodus 20:11 simply says that the seventh day is taken as a day of rest following the pattern given in Genesis, a reasoning rather founded upon symbolism (rather than denying symbolism).  The "plain reading" of Psalms 90:4 (and its paraphrase in 2 Peter 3:8) would indicate that God's perception of time is not the same as our limited perspective (God is not ruled by "Chronos") but rather that what God regards as a day (or billions years) is in no way dependent upon what we perceive as the passage of time.  Also, it's rather disingenuous to try and simultaneously get in the last word while following it with "not a forum." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd be satisfied if the article prefaced its dogmatism about the age of the earth with the statement that these numbers are scientific consensus. No one doubts that, and you wouldn't have to police the article so often.  But those numbers are so sacred that even mention of scientific consensus seems to degrade the nature of their absolute, unchanging truth, world without end, amen.--John Foxe (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we should, at least, add those words, but would you then please explain this and this? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The French have a phrase, la politique du pire ("politics of the worst"), which roughly means encouraging things go further wrong in order eventually to make them right. The Chronos worshipers understood this immediately, reverting my edits with the comment that they were "pointy".--John Foxe (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Chronos worshipers"? Are you referring to Christians who worship the Christian God of the Bible? If so, especially, you should, stop editing any articles of this topic. Me and another editor warned you to not to insult other editors and violate WP:CIVIL, yet you continue to do it. It is disgraceful for an editor like you to engage in such behavior. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you had read WP:POINT, it says specifically not to do that. You're not going to get anywhere by being disruptive. clpo13(talk) 22:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I apologize for letting my annoyance get the better of me.--John Foxe (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we have to preface every statement of scientific fact with "this is scientific consensus"...? Should the article Sky say "During daylight, the sky appears to be blue according to scientific consensus"...?  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with Ian.thompson, and I believe this has already been discussed above: Talk:Ken_Ham. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you more confident that the sky is blue, or that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old? If you say the former (which you probably will) then that answers the question of whether we should preface every statement of scientific fact with "this is scientific consensus". Banedon (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:Notaforum applies here. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have the numbers and can do as you choose—you're the ones that have to enforce the official dogma. But I thought it interesting how the "sky is blue" business got worded above: "the sky appears to be blue." Well, not when it's raining; but beyond that, can you imagine this article saying that the earth appears to be so many billions of years old?--John Foxe (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So you belong to the "God faked it to appear that way" camp and not to the "it does not appear to!" camp? That's quite a minority position among creationists. See Omphalos hypothesis.
 * This has nothing to do with dogmatism. Wikipedia maps the knowledge of the world. What creationists say is not part of it. What they do is not part of science because they do not obey the rules of science. If you do not know what those are, inform yourself. You have here an encyclopedia for your perusal, which gives sources for what it says, which you can look up. We win not because we are more than you ("have the numbers") but because you are unarmed in a battle of reasoning. All you have is empty rhetoric and fake reasoning that doesn't hold water. Please stop that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC) (And please do not rip apart other people's contributions.)
 * Thanks for the fond remembrance of writing the Philip Henry Gosse article back in 2008.--John Foxe (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, Acdixon and 90s guy: Chronos is the Greek god of time, and John Foxe falsely believes that "Chronos worshipers" is a good epithet for people who - he thinks - replace "God did it" by "Time did it". Of course that is a gross misrepresentation of what evolutionary theory really says, a straw man, and it has been in the repertoire of creationist arguers for quite some time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are correct regarding and his intentions, then it is still a violation of WP:CIVIL (albeit toward the other side of the debate) and it is maybe worse because it obfuscates what the editor is trying to say. This is a contentious enough discussion without folks having to read between the lines.
 * For what it is worth, I do tend to agree with John Foxe that wording which includes "scientific consensus" is less likely to draw the ire of new editors and spawn more iterations of this perpetual conversation, although obviously nothing will stop the cycle outright. The "scientific consensus" wording is also accurate, and does no disservice to the reader, imo. We have a whole article on scientific consensus that explains what it means, and the lead of that article actually notes that the term is used in conjunction with evolution. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, I agree completely with Acdixon. There is absolutely no reason to not use the "scientific consensus" wording, and it is much better than the current wording. It is very irritating and even a bit sad that so many editors appear to use this article to confirm their evolutionary views rather than adhering to more encyclopedic and professional standards.
 * As for John Foxe, if I misunderstood your intentions and the context about the "Chronos worshipers" thing, then I apologize. That said, I do ask you to be clearer next time and also not to violate WP:CIVIL.
 * And as for Hob Gadling, thank you for your explanation on the "Chronos" stuff, but if you want to criticize creationists and say that they are "unarmed in a battle of reasoning", I advise you not to use Wikipedia for that. WP:NOTFORUM is violated too many times on this talk page (something that I'm not completely innocent of myself). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need to say scientific consensus. Let's not lose sight of the fact that creationism is widely cited as pseudoscience.  Any claims made in scientific debate here, needs to have equal weight in criticism due to the majority of reliable sources on the subject and this article is rather criticism free as is, which is fine because it is a BLP.  If you start making claims against science here, then equal weight says we should discuss the pseudoscientific nature of creationism.  Why not leave it as a page about a person and leave the other specific pages to make the science arguments?  The alternative is probably not a page that anyone would like.  Lipsquid (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to comment here that Hob Gadling is quite correct when he says that creationists are 'unarmed in a battle of reasoning.' -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * True, I can hardly manage the keyboard these days because of my many years of troglodyte knuckle dragging.--John Foxe (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "in a battle of reasoning". I didn't say "in a battle of wits". No creationist has any good scientific reasons for his beliefs. I never heard a single one in spite of having asked them for decades. All they have are the same few hundred soundbites based on rumors, misrepresentations, selective quoting and faulty logic. See here.
 * Believing something without good reason is ok for religious opinions, but not for something that is supposed to be science. Stay in the churches, don't claim to do science when you aren't, and we scientists will not need to defend our turf.
 * But enough of that off-topic stuff. There is no reason for pretending the young-earthers have any leg to stand on. The earth is as billion-years-old as it is round. Using the word "consensus" is simply not needed for things that are doubted only by people as far away from real science as YECs are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, an overwhelming number of scientists agree with you; that's what scientific consensus is all about. But telling lies in the name of religion should be no more acceptable to you than telling lies in the name of science. You'll go far wrong if you think religious beliefs can be confined to churches, mosques, or science classrooms. As Richard M. Weaver famously wrote Ideas Have Consequences.--John Foxe (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As others have remarked, this page is not a forum. Please stop using it as one.
 * On the substantive point, whether simply to assert fact or to add the mention that scientific consensus backs it, I have no strong feelings, but I'd probably leave the simple assertion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "You'll go far wrong if you think religious beliefs can be confined to churches" Of course I don't think that. I just said if you don't, science will keep defending itself against you. You folks lost the scientific debate one and a half centuries ago, and the article should keep reflecting that. I think everything that should be said has been said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * More than everything.--John Foxe (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that this article has a gross violation of neutrality. I would say that the sheer vagueness of the claim that something is a fact, though it can only be narrowed down to a hundred million years, would disqualify it from being considered a "fact" on Wikipedia. There are many things related to history that Wikipedia shouldn't treat as facts simply because no source can rightfully report on events, and the beginnings of the Universe and Earth are two of those. I would suggest that the following wording be used for example in the lead: "Ham advocates Biblical literalism, believing the Book of Genesis to be historical fact and the universe to be approximately 6,000 years old, in contrast to the current scientific community's consensus that the Earth and the Universe are about 4.5 billion years and 13.7 billion years old respectively." -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you advocate other articles be written? Would Age of the Earth suggest that the age is not a fact, but is merely a consensus? And every statement at Atom and Universe should be qualified to make it clear that it is not a fact but merely a consensus? There is no NPOV problem with letting readers know that the Earth is in fact billions of years old. Arguing that nothing is ever a fact because situations can change is a semantic smokescreen—for one thing, the same point applies to the 6,000 year view. Wikipedia describes the sum of human knowledge based on reliable sources, and the Earth is billions of years old. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. The majority of the world, a little more than 70% of the population, belong to a religion that claims that a being created the Universe. Therefore, the world population consensus (that includes me) is that a God exists. The scientific community's consensus is that God doesn't exist, and that no one created the world. So, if Wikipedia used the populist consensus, God's existence would be put down as a fact. If Wikipedia used an elitist consensus system, we would put down the scientists' consensus as fact, as we do now. What I'd simply suggest would fit with Wikipedia's policies is that we balance these two consensuses. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * None of those assertions are related to this article, and WP:NPOV does not suggest that information in articles should be settled by populist vote. An additional source of puzzlement is the fact that we are using high technology to communicate, and all that technology is built using the same scientific principles that have determined the age of the Earth. Science works, and that is the reason reliable sources are used to determine facts, and not populism. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I said balance between populism and elitism. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 05:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've stated many times already, proposals like AmaryllisGardener's are very modest and beneficial. But some editors, who seem unable to tolerate anything that does not even seem to portray evolution as solid, undisputed fact oppose any such changes. FWIW, many editors have supported making such a change to the wording in the past, including some who openly believe in evolution as fact. This dispute has been going on for years, seemingly nonstop, with experienced, good faith editors on both sides. I think it clear we need to do something differently here. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier, evolution has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. If there is any evidence showing doubt about the age of the Earth or the fact of evolution, please raise it at the respective articles. Why is there a problem letting readers (which may include young people with little background knowledge) know what reliable sources say about the age of the Earth? Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The commonly accepted age of the earth and evolution are very closely related. There is virtually no one who believes one and not the other. That is why I mention evolution here. I'm not going to turn this into a WP:NOTFORUM debate about YEC/evolution. To answer your question, I will direct you to Acdixon's comment above. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Populism has no place in scientific subjects. There should be no balance between it and science. Majority votes not only do not determine by themselves what is true, they are not taken into account at all when truth values are determined. Any compromise between science on the one hand and ignorance (motivated by religion or anything else) on the other is not "neutral", it's Half-Way to Crazy Town. Please read WP:Lunatic charlatans. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no scientific consensus regarding the existence of God because the issue is outside of the scope of science, and the largest denomination of Christianity teaches Theistic evolution as all but doctrine -- the "God vs science" POV advocated in the above discussion is a false dichotomy with even less bearing on reality than young earth creationism. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TBH, it sometimes seems like your comments on this talk page are more intended for commenting on/criticising YEC or promoting evolution rather than for article improvement. It really wasn't necessary to mention that the Roman Catholic Church endorses theistic evolution. But if you'll mention that, I will add that there are many Christians who believe that the RCC is far off on a number of doctrines. YEC and a plain reading of Genesis is a much larger theological position than you might think. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you only say NOTAFORUM when someone disagrees with you? You didn't bring that up with AmaryllisGardenerNow. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well Ken Ham is a very vocal critic of theistic evolution and he certain doesn't believe that the story of Adam and Eve is allegory, he says it is absolutely literal fact. So your argument, even though it is more logical, doesn't apply to Ham.  He is absolutely anti-science and anti-evolution.  In this article, 'God vs, Science' is very real because that is the exact path Ham chooses for his arguments.  "If any of the Bible is not true, including the fact that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, none of it is true"  - Ken Ham.  You can't argue with crazy. Lipsquid (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing with Ham so much as AmaryllisGardener's claims that "The scientific community's consensus is that God doesn't exist." Ham doesn't represent either mainstream science or religion, so "70% of the world believes in God" in no way validates Ham's neo-Gnosticism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand and agree with your point. Religion and science are two different forms of inquiry.  Thank you for responding and clarifying.  I misconstrued your position.  Best! Lipsquid (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)