Talk:Young earth creationism

Doctrines
I think we need an article explaining how certain doctrines like original sin, marriage, salvation and the like depend on a literal Genesis and are supported by NT verses. I know of a few theistic evolutionists, (good people, really) who could use a more in-depth explaination than I could give alone. PrometheusX303 01:58, 6 January 2006 (GMT)


 * The article now has the start of this. Philip J. Rayment 14:07, 15 March 2006 (GMT)


 * Cool. I'll try to add to it. PrometheusX303 23:36, 15 March 2006 (GMT)


 * EvoWiki asserts that the Bible, particularily the book of Genesis, wasn't taken literally before the rise of the theory of evolution and uniformitarianism. Is this true? Scorpionman 13:26, 5 May 2006 (GMT)


 * Where is this asserted? No, it's not true.  In fact, lack of evolutionary and uniformitarian theories would have the opposite effect: With no other theories (masquerading as "science"), the Biblical account would be taken literally.  The only "interpretation" would be plain language.  PrometheusX303 13:49, 5 May 2006 (GMT)


 * I agree that it is not true. To take one example, prior to the rise of uniformitarianism, almost everybody believed the Earth to be only a few thousand years old.  See here.  It's only uniformitarian thinking that has caused some to take a non-literal view of Genesis with regard to the age of the Earth.  Philip J. Rayment 14:32, 5 May 2006 (GMT)


 * I'll chime in. Where does EvoWiki make that absurd claim:)?  Ungtss 14:56, 5 May 2006 (GMT)


 * Here. Scorpionman 18:42, 5 May 2006 (GMT)


 * They do indeed claim this: "Biblical literalism only came about with the rise of Protestantism," Then again, what can we expect with this kind of logic: The worldwide flood can be accommodated by adopting a less restrictive definition of "worldwide"....  ... We must remember that the Bible does not mention Scandinavia, China, the Americas or Australia; therefore the Biblical "world" is much smaller than we know today  PrometheusX303 22:32, 5 May 2006 (GMT)
 * Well said, Hoffman:). Scorpionman -- have a look at the book of Jubilees sometime and decide for yourself if the author of that book (written sometime between 1000 bc and 200 bc) took Genesis literally.  The really juicy stuff starts in Chapter 2.  Ungtss 13:52, 6 May 2006 (GMT)


 * I pointed out the problem on the article's talk page and Here's what they said. Scorpionman 23:18, 12 May 2006 (GMT)

Notice
Portions of this material were copied from Conservapedia with the permission of the director of Conservapedia. Creationist 23:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

question for Chris Aschcroft
I inadvertently caused something to happen which was detrimental to CreationWiki and Conservapedia for this article. I copied parts of the Conservapedia article for "young earth creationism" See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism ) to this article.  The problem is that if articles on different websites are 17% or more similar one of those articles is going to be put at the bottom of the search engine lists because of a "duplicate content penalty" (see: http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=212 and http://www.searchenginejournal.com/duplicate-content-penalty-how-to-lose-google-ranking-fast/1886/ and http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66359 ).  Now I believe the CreationWiki article is being penalized.  I changed the content for this article so it was less than 17% similar but it was changed back.

Here is my question: Would you mind if I revert the article back? If not, can I delete the material and someone can create content to replace mine but use different sources? I ask because it would be a shame to see the Young earth creationism article at CreationWiki being stuck at the bottom of the search engines. Creationist 17:56, 16 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Do not revert the article back. Furthermore, do not delete any of the content nor alter the article in any other way. Your edits were not considered improvements, but in many cases the wording was of poorer quality than that which was there originally. In time, the duplicate portions will receive subsequent work by others.


 * And please note - the name is "Ashcraft".

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Cross-linking to Conservapedia
The administration cannot approve at this time of a cross-link between CreationWiki and Conservapedia's articles on this subject. Those articles say practically the same thing. Cross-linking would be appropriate only if the other article said something substantially different and expansive. This does not appear to be the case here.--TemlakosTalk 03:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any counter-evidences?
I wonder of there are any counter-evidences toward this young-earth theory. Some argue that the word "day" in genesis can mean "period" in the original language of the Bible. And there seem to have a lot of scientific evidences that supports the old-earth theory. Anyway, I have no idea, I just want to say that this is probably a good idea for this page.