Talk:Young Earth creationism

More Scientific Arguments used by Creationists
Since this article describes what creationists believe, would it not be helpful to describe more of their arguments against evolution? For instance, there is nothing in the article that describes the rapid deterioration of the earth's magnetic field as evidence of its age, no any mention of the organic tissue found within some dinosaur bones. It may be that these ideas are not accepted by mainstream science, but since this article is about Creationists specifically would it be beneficial to mention them?Cofefe2 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Any addition to the article needs reliable independent sources evaluating the significance of the point to be added, and showing how it has been received by majority expert opinion to meet WP:PSCI policy. See WP:PSTS for the caution needed when dealing with primary sources. There are lots of creationist arguments against evolution, see Gish Gallop, it's not the purpose of this page to examine them all: see TalkOrigins Archive for that. . . dave souza, talk 07:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Their arguments are not "scientific", they are just crap. Wikipedia is not the place to spread disinformation, so none of it belongs here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia is neutral, Hob Gadling. If you are editing out certain voices because of your POV, that's a problem. dave souza's answer is sufficient for this thread.Ckruschke (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Our POV is NPOV, and I've linked to policy about how we deal with unscientific crap and / or disinformation. Trust we're all on the same page here, so no problem. Cheers, . dave souza, talk 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that some of us are not on the same page: they want to include unreliable crap, calling it "certain voices". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As Winston Churchill once said, "You can't throw a rock at every dog that barks at you." If I got wrapped around the axle about every piece of nonsense crap that people tried to foist upon Wikipedia, I'd be a basket case. Just do your job and let the unwashed masses call names. Live longer... Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

The Voice of the entire article is not science against science, but Religion vs. Science. The article is inherently biased. 73.87.154.87 (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's hard to see what point you're making or how it supports the claim that the article is inherently biased. and such sweeping claims are not helpful--point out a specific error or violation of policy. Jibal (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The topic is debated with science on both sides of the debate. Opposing science is not misinformation. White washing with a single point of view or unproven scientific thesis is not a scientific way to approach a scientific debate. 73.87.154.87 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is 1. based on false rumors, 2. irrelevant. Reliable sources say that YEC is bullshit, and reliable sources are stronger than you. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What "debate"? This is an encyclopedia article about Young Earth creationism, not a debate. Such sweeping and vague claims are not helpful--point out a specific error or violation of policy. Jibal (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

For the validity of sources used in this article, scientific journals should be used when possible instead of quoting from college textbooks where a singular author's point of view is used. 73.87.154.87 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck finding reliable or reputable source from the last 90 years that can truthfully state that "Young Earth Creationism" is a valid science or a valid opposition to science.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Such sweeping and vague claims are not helpful--point out a specific error or violation of policy. Jibal (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)