Talk:Old Earth creationism

Old Earth Creationism and Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience category tag

I have often wondered: what specifically about OEC makes it considered a "psuedoscience," both generally, and specifically by Wikipedia standards? Do all of the perspectives under the OEC umbrella have to be pseudoscience, or just some of them? (This is mostly due to the "psuedoscience," category tag, and because I have seen at least one OEC perspective that seems to try to maintain scientific integrity, specifically Reasons to Believe's testable creation model, a Day-Age perspective) Feel free to refer me to a policy page. --Doubleg 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The belief that the world was created by the Christian God is not "scientific" in nature. Of course, many Christians accept that, and don't claim that it IS "scientific" (that's why theistic evolution isn't "pseudoscience"). But when someone claims that it IS scientific: that makes it either genuine science or pseudoscience. Old-Earth Creationism denies biological "common descent", a scientific theory founded on empirical evidence (cladistics, fossils, DNA analysis, observed speciation etc) and accepted by the scientific community: it is therefore pseudoscience. See the summary on the Pseudoscience category page, and the Pseudoscience article. --Robert Stevens 09:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In layman's terms: What is biological "common descent"? Itsadiel 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In laymam's terms: the idea that you are a monkey's uncle. Science posits a common lineage amongst almost all, if not all, of life. Mammals all have similar characteristics such as being warm-blooded which presumably came from a common ancestor from which we are all descended. Mr. Stevens, however, is quite incorrect in his belief that OEC itself denies biological common descent although much (most) of the people who support it do. The idea of OEC lies in not denying anything scientific. It is a theological stance that is not scientific. Many people like to revert to it in order to give a theological explanation to their pseudo-scientific beliefs. In a forum like this, the whole idea becomes completely distorted...I was hoping to come here for more information about the theological aspects of it. Of course, like a lot of things about religion, the people with their axes to grind have left us with this Frankenstein of an article. Sigh. 68.27.116.22 (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

strange edit undone

I undid the last edit as it simply cut off most of a paragraph for seemingly no reason. Master z0b 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why were citations deleted?

Someone deleted citations that I added, because they were "unreliable"? Any explanation? GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because www.answersingenesis.org is an unreliable source. It can only be used to source the opinions of answersingenesis.org, not the views of its opponents, and not facts. They are a fringe organisation.Kww (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence needed

Somebody claimed: "More commonly, advocates of Old Earth creationism hold that the six days referred to are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) can be interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time (thousands or millions of years) rather than a 24-hour day."

More commonly? Evidence is needed for this. I cannot locate any current authors who whold to a "day age" theory. The claim about "more commonly" needs tobe removed, which I will do ina few days if no evidence is supplied. Beretta NZ (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This statement is on the basis of a longer (but likewise unsourced) statement that was in Day-Age Creationism on the subject. I'd recently removed the latter, but hadn't gotten around to the former. I'll remove it ASAP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of Yom is actually important to creationists. Here is a reference to typical Old Earth Creationist reasoning <http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 10:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then by all means write a statement for the article, on the basis of what this source, saying what OECs believe about the interpretation of "yom". It would be good (but not absolutely necessary) to get comment from a neutral & authoritative scholar on Ancient Hebrew to give some context to interpreting the word. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, re-added "yom", hope its acceptable. I will try and find a neutral and authorative scholar.--Another berean (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Placement of templates

User:Ed Fitzgerald, an editor who (as far as I know) has had no previous involvement with this article, has taken it upon himself to repeatedly and unilaterally move the {{refimprove}}-template from the top of the article to the references section. He does this on the very weak basis that the template documentation states: "There is currently no consensus on where to place this template, but it is suggested that the template be placed in the references section at the bottom of the article." I would point out that the related {{unreferenced}}-template documentation states: "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page, the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." My personal preference is to have it at the top of the article, both to be more visible to editors, and to act as a warning to readers to be more than usually skeptical. I would point out that, unlike Ed, I am a regular editor of this article, and was in fact the editor who downgraded this template a month ago. As this template, and its predecessor, have been on the top of this article for a full year, I think it should remain there, unless and until, a consensus forms to move it elsewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My prior involvement with this article, or lack of it, is not relevant here. Please see the next comment, which I was writing and posting at the same time as you were writing and posting yours. For convenience, I'll eliminate the separate title section. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate, as I noted below, that my preference for having the refimprove tage (indeed almost all tags) at the bottom of the page has nothing to do with the quality of the citations in this article in particular. If I had deteremined that the tag was unwarranted, I would have removed it entirely (something many editors seem reluctant to do), and would not have moved in down to the bottom. In other words, my choice is not part of some tactic to "downgrade" the tag. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[The following comment was posted at about the same time as the one by Hrafn above.]

As has been pointed out, there is no consensus where the Template:refimprove tag should go:

There is currently no consensus on where to place this template, but it is suggested that the template be placed in the references section at the bottom of the article. (emphasis added)

I think the bottom of the page is the correct place, for the following reasons (and please note that these are generally applicable, and my argument has nothing whatsover to do with the specifics of this article, and whether it should or should not be tagged).

• There are far too many tags on Wikipedia. Tagging articles, which is often an excuse for not improving them by editing and solving the problem perceived, has gotten out of hand. While many articles surely deserve to be tagged, the amount of tagging in the project in general is not justified.

• Tags are disfiguring to the articles, and make them harder for the casual reader to use. As a long-time user and editor of the encyclopedia, I am put off by an article which begins by bombarding me with tags, and I'm certain that casual users, who are not used to seeing it, are also, perhaps to the point where they go away to find a more reliable source of information. Visually,the tags are offputting, and, by being boxed, they carry more weight than the surrounding text.

• Tags are opinions, not facts. Consider how factual matter gets into the encyclopedia. Somebody posts something, and it is subject to revision, attacks, defense, counter-attack, more revision, calls for citations etc. etc. etc. The fact can, conceivably, be vetted in a hundred different ways by a hundred different editors. Now consider the clean-up tag -- is it a fact? No, it begins life as one editor's opinion about the state of the article, which may or may not be justified. Is it subject to the same kind of give-and-take that facts are? Not really, as a "all or nothing at all" expression of opinion, it's either left in place or taken down. Add to this that there's a strange bias on Wikipedia against taking down unwarranted clean-up tags -- as if they were facts that had been firmly established instead of an editor's opinion -- and you have a situation where tags linger far longer than they should, where inappropriate tags are never challenged, and where an opinion is given the kind of respect that should be given only to factual material.

• Tags are internal memoranda, notes from one editor to other editors, and do not necessarily concern the reader. Although any reader of Wikipedia can become an editor, the set of users who utilize the encyclopedia as a reference and do not edit it is much larger than the set of editors, and it is to the user that we must be dedicated, not to the editor. I've made the analogy before to a printed encylopedia page covered with post-it notes addressed from one editor to another "Please find a reference for this fact", "This needs to be rewritten" and so on. Readers don't need or want to deal with the internal memoranda of the editors, which is what the vast majority of tags are. As such, they really should be located on the talk page, the page that only editors use, which users do not generally go to (and if they do, fine that's their choice). My ultimate solution would be to have an icon on the upper right corner of an article which alerts editors to there being clean-up tags associated with the article on the talk page, but since this is easier to dream of than to have happen, the interim solution is that the vast majority of tags are better situated at the bottom of the article, out of the way of the general user but still visible to the editors, than they are at the top.

This is especially the case with tags that have to do with citations and references -- having them near the reference section at the bottom of the article only makes sense. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

None of these arguments are specific to this article. Why don't you take this all to Wikipedia talk:Template messages or Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles and get a global consensus, rather than wasting our time arguing it on an article-by-article basis? Some templates (e.g. Wikipedia:Template messages/General) have specific instructions where they should be put. Unless and until such instructions (not mere suggestions) are made for Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, I will continue to follow the widely-held convention and place them at the top. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already said, several times, that there are no reasons special to this page why the tag should be at the bottom, so to expect me to provide that argument is rather silly. My reasons for the tag being best at the bottom are the general reasons provided here, which are as pertinent for this article as they are for any other.

As for wasting people's time and making an issue of of this - I had no intention of doing so. I simply moved the tag based on the reasoning I've presented and in line with the suggestion on the template page, and you've moved it back and called for discussion. Well, here's the discussion. I have no dog in the battle you wish to engage me in, about whether the article's citations are good or not, although as an evolutionist I certainly have a strong opinion about old earth creationism - which is neither here nor there. These tags best serve Wikipedia by being at the bottom, regardless of the content of the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 11:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to point out something which has been bugging me ever since this tag placement deal started. Ed seems to be drawing a distinct line between those who edit Wikipedia and those who use it. I say this is a fallacy. This encyclopedia can be edited by anyone, making readers potential editors. Putting an improvement tag at the top of the article not only lets editors know that the article needs work, but it also lets the readers know. They can then take it upon themselves to improve the article as they see fit. That's the nature of a collaborative project. If everyone knows what issues need to be addressed, those issues will be more likely to actually be addressed. Just a thought. --clpo13_(talk) 10:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that the tag gives an accurate assessment of the needs of the article. How is that guaranteed, when the tag actually represents only the opinon of the editor who tagged it? There's no requirement of consensus before the tag is placed (even thought consesus is being demanded for its placement), simply the opinion of an editor that it is justified. How does that sit with Wikipedia's cultural requirements?

As for your rejection of the distinction between editors and users, someone at Wikipedia certainly has the answer, since sinply comparing the number of unique visitors to the project to the number of editors will show that one (the users) will significantly outnumber the others. Yes, it is certainly true that every user is a potential editor, but the reality is that there are many more people who simply use it as a reference work -- the entire reason that it exists, it should not be forgotten -- and will never do anything in the was of editing. It is to those people that we must be dedicated, not to the people who will participate in the shaping of the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 11:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, one of the most egregious ways in which tags are being abused is that they're being used for POV-pushing and opinion mongering. Wikipedia doesn't allow personal opinions in the bodies of articles, and has numerous safeguards in place to prevent it, but having your personal opinion about the nature of an article in the format of a tag, and that opinion will be allowed to disfigure the article practically forever.

Were I of a mind to fight against an article I disagree with, politically or philosophically, I wouldn't try to change the text or duke it out on the talk page, I'd stick a "neutrality disputed" tag on it and walk away. The tag would sit there on the top of the page, big as life, scaring people away from the article, even though I provided no evidence to back it up, and did not have to go through any process before I posted it. In fact, by simply starting an argument on the talk page, I can provide the backing someone disputing the tag might need -- and I get the argument out there without it having to prevail -- simply the existence of the argument justifies the tag.

I'm not at all saying that's what's going on here -- as I said I'm not concerned with this specificity of this tag -- but it's another example of why tags are dangerous and should not be accorded the kind of carte blanche they curently receive. If the references and citations in this article are wanting, the place to let people know that is down by the references and citations, not at the top of the article, not as long as tags can be placed without going through a process of justification beforehand. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, take this to Wikipedia talk:Template messages or Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles it really doesn't belong here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does belong here. You called for discussion, this is my argument. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I called for a consensus. I never suggested taking it here -- that was your idea. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone your "hat", which removes the comment from the give and take of opinion and prevents a consensus from coming about. This discussion is pertinent to this article because there is a dispute about where a clean-up tag should go on this article. That makes it on-topic, and makes your attempt to squealch discussion by archiving it wrong. Please don't do it again. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also undone your attempt to move this public discussion, pertinent to this subject (indeed, about the placement of a clean-up tag on this article) to my talk page. The discussion doesn't belong there, it belongs here. Why are you determined to not have it be discussed here? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed: you're talking to yourself here. I haven't said anything, since my initial statement, except to tell you to take this to a more appropriate forum. There's been only one comment from an editor other than the two of us. There isn't a "discussion" here and, given how lightly frequented this article is, there isn't likely to be one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's no discussion taking place, then there's no consensus, but if the discussion is shut down then there's no possibility of consensus, is there? Do you expect every issue to be decided in a couple of hours? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This talkpage has only had 40 comments in its entire existence, of which 24 were on this thread. Good luck on getting sufficient outside comment to form a meaningful consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You may well be correct, but without a discussion at all, the chances are zero. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a false dichotomy -- the choice is not between having the discussion here and having no discussion at all, it is between having it here or having it on Wikipedia talk:Template messages or Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles, which are the fora for discussing such issues! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a truce

It's not really a big deal where the template goes, the whole intention is to draw attention to getting some improvements made and hopefully Ed's willing to tackle that. I'll try to come back with some more sources, got this on my watchlist now. .. dave souza, talk 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that I do not care where the tags go. I will put this one on my watch list. I am still far more interested in the more obscure branches of creationism and in particular old earth creationism like the pre-Adamites and others. If I get off my butt, I will see about researching these a bit and maybe we can have a section here or in creationism about the less common branches. For example:

• People who believe that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are actually separate creations
• People who believe that there were men before Adam
• Assorted progressive creationists, including the new age variants--Filll (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiseman's Day-Colophon Theory

PJ Wiseman proposed a theory in the 1930's (I believe) that I think this article should address. He proposes, in a nutshell, that the "days" referred to in the Genesis account refer to the time in which God revealed Creation to the author, and that the phrase, "the xth day", is a colophon. In addition, Wiseman's proposed translation of the seventh day narrative solves the logical problems the English versions of the text present to his theory.

The only excuses not to include it, in my opinion, are its obscurity, and the fact that there is basically only one source from which we could quote (Clues to Creation in Genesis, by PJ Wiseman). Nevertheless, his view requires no symbolic interpretation to allow for an old earth (from a Biblical standpoint). I have been lucky enough to acquire a copy of his rare book, and would be happy to add the section if anyone thinks it would be valuable.

This hypothesis of Wiseman's is mentioned, very briefly and in passing whilst discussing other more prominent creationists, by The Creationists (on pages 176 & 210 of the Expanded Edition). However, I think inclusion would give WP:UNDUE weight to a creationist and a viewpoint that has never achieved any prominence. If the topic cannot merit even two full sentences in a 606 page book on the topic of creationists, it hardly warrants a mention in this wikipedia article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I could write a separate article, and link to it from here? Delsydebothom (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's topic would first have to pass WP:NOTE: by having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only independent coverage found to date is less than two full sentences in The Creationists, which is less far than "significant". Generally the criteria for mention in an associated article is lower than for meriting an article on its own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Claim CH801

The article says "Critics of this old Earth view of Creationism state that the order of the days of creation are inconsistent with modern scientific interpretation", and cites as reference "Claim CH801, created 2001-6-11, Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2004, TalkOrigins archive". That source says: "Claim CH801: The creation account in Genesis 1 lists ten major events in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man. .... Response: The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth .... nothing like the order endorsed by Jehova's Witnesses." This appears to me to be a misunderstanding, because the order in the claim is as seen by a hypothetical observer on earth whereas the order in the response is the cosmological order. JW's have explicitly stated elsewhere that they mean an observer on earth (see for example "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You", top of page 97). They have also said they do not wish to be called "Creationists" so as not to be confused with politically-active groups and Young Earth Creationists (see for example Awake September 2006 page 3). Therefore, I'm not convinced this talk.origins response is an adequate source for the statement "Critics of this old Earth view of Creationism state that the order of the days of creation are inconsistent with modern scientific interpretation", on two counts: (1) the talk.origins response is based on an incomplete understanding of the position of the authors they are appraising, and (2) I'm not entirely sure that the position of those authors is even the same thing as what is being discussed in the present Wikipedia article. Hasn't anybody got any better sources than this? 81.102.157.19 (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You very conveniently leave out the rest of the CH801 response: "...(5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants." All of these would be seen by a hypothetical observer on Earth, and the order is not at all the order in Genesis. I believe that you haven't read or understood the response to claim CH801 properly. Anyway, the refence is there to show that critics make the claim, not that the claim is correct.Sjö (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Are points 5 onward really that different, when you take into account that some things in the response are not mentioned in the claim and vice versa? I can match them up like this: Claim: (5) large areas of dry land, Response: (5) dry land. Claim: (6) land plants, Response: (6) sea creatures [not "monsters" yet]; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures. Claim: (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning (response does not mention at what point this fits in). Claim: (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; Response: (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures. Claim: (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; Response: (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds (claim does not mention where this fits in). Claim: (10) man; Response: (13) man and more of the various animals and plants. The only thing I've left out is response point 12, which, according to the claim, should go earlier in the list. So it seems to me that, apart from the previously-discussed differences in the first few items (due to different observer positions), the only thing that this source can really say is "fruiting plants came after the animals, not before". But can this more specific statement be backed up by a source that's academically stronger than a newsgroup FAQ? 81.102.157.19 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're producing original research in trying to refute points made by TalkOrigins archive, which is accepted as a WP:RS. To make things clearer I've changed the article to show who's producing that particular argument and counter-argument, attributed per WP:ASF. . dave souza, talk 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Organisations

Answers in Creation seems to be heading for deletion as non-notable. This will create a lot of redlinks in other articles, which seems undesirable. I propose to add a section here on Old Earth creationist organisations and redirect Answers in Creation to it, with the following limited info:

• Answers in Creation (AIC): a privately held non-profit organization based in Ohio, founded in 2003 by Greg Neyman. AIC is a web-based Christian apologetics ministry with a focus on challenging the science portrayed by Young Earth Creationism, on both scientific and theological grounds.

Including it in a list would provide sufficient context to retain this limited info on Wikipedia. Comments? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the link. Named links should only be used in references & external links (where it is already) sections (per WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles). Links in the article body should only be numbered & should only be used as references supporting the material (which in the case of such details as 2003, "apologetics" & Ohio, it fails to do). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Thank you for pointing that out -- I will avoid making that mistake again. WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles actually recommends the format "Answers in Creation[1]" so I've done it like that. Two links in the References section looked excessive anyway. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

1. It does not in fact recommend embedded links over ref-tags -- merely offers the former as an example. Given that the rest of the article employs ref-tags, this should be continued for consistency. See WP:CITE.
2. These were in fact references to two different AiC pages (main page & About page) -- both of which contain referenced info not contained by the other, so both are needed (sorry if a typo obscured the difference). References are only "excessive" if they are redundant.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Answers in Creation (AIC) is a privately held non-profit organization founded in 2003.[15] AIC is a web-based creation science ministry with a focus on challenging the science portrayed by Young Earth Creationism, on both scientific and theological grounds.[16] "

I am not sure about the use of the word "science" and "scientific" in this bit on AIC. Neither AIC nor OEC is scientific in the current sense of the word, nor do they use scientific methods. So I don't see how one could challenge the "science" of the other. I will try to reword it, but you know how that goes.Desoto10 (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

examples?

I came to the article specifically to find what, if any, denominations subscribe to OEC, but the article seems not to have this information. I'm researching jehova's witnesses as I understand they support a type of OEC, but their version believes in the flood, which contradicts this article's section on Biblical Flood. I don't know if this means JW view's are not "strictly" OEC, or if they even consider themselves true OEC or if they have their own take on the whole thing. Not sure if anyone has an opinion on this. Funny thing is, I can't find anything about creationism or evolution in the articles about JW and their beliefs. Vespine (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• OEC has largely been in eclipse since the 1960s, and tends to have only small apologetics groups and/or individuals associated with it. Belief in a flood would be more consistent with YEC, but would probably also be consistent with Gap creationism (a form of OEC, but an all-but-extinct one AFAIK). William Dembski, a OEC ID proponent working at a YEC seminary was recently 'forced' to admit the historicity of the flood in order to keep his job -- but it's unclear whether he's developed a cohesive position to support this, and even if the has, there's been no time for it to develop any sort of movement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Jehovah's Witnesses publications#Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? "presents the Old Earth (Day-Age) creationism of Jehovah's Witnesses, and their criticism of evolution." I'm not sure how they meld day-age creationism with the Biblical Flood. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

additions to Old Earth creationist organizations listing?

There are only two listings in "Old Earth creationist organizations" when there are many such organizations. Two that I know of are GodAndScience.org and RareUniverse.org. Both have a lot of relevant information about old earth creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarelight (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds biased

This line sounds biased: "The worldview is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology, and the age of the earth, in comparison to young earth creationism." It sounds as if we favor Old earth creationism over Young earth creationism. - Billybob2002 (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a true and pertinent statement, and unbiased in my opinion. Sjö (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is that? - Billybob2002 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Because YECs, by definition, reject more of mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology, and the age of the earth than OECs. . . dave souza, talk 06:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove "theistic evolution" subsection

I propose removing the "theistic evolution" subsection shortly. TE accepts evolution. OEC specifically rejects much of evolution. And the 'Creationism' template specifically has TE at a distance from OEC just as it has YEC separated from it. The lead already outlines the characteristics of the YEC->OEC-TE spectrum, so neither YEC nor TE need sections within this OEC article. (And if it is argued that the TE section should be retained, then we should also add a YEC section.) Thoughts? Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There being no objection, I have just done this. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)