Talk:Creationist cosmologies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creationist cosmologies article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

To-do list for Creationist cosmologies:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Mention of the connection between bounded universe ideas and modern geocentrism should be made more explicit. Humphreys and Gentry both see the Earth as being near an actual center of the universe.

1 Archives
2 NPOV
3 c-decay
4 Pseudoscience
5 observing Gravitational Time Dilation
6 AIG should have its own link
7 Possible sources

[edit] Archives

/Archive 01 - October 2005

[edit] NPOV

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

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

Secondly as far as I am aware the sun and the solar system is believed to be 6000 years old by creationists. One of the supports they cite for this is (from an article in TJ) they believe that the sun would have changed significantly in intensity over a period of billions of years due to the evolution of it's core. Thirdly i don't see why the blue shift is a problem. If you have a blue shift and a red shift (from expansion) then you will get a total shift based on which shift is greater. Observations show a red shift so the conclusion (in this model) would be that the actual speed of the receeding galaxies is higher than the redshift indicates. Fourthly can you name me a single observation that supports the copernican principle? You claim that these observations exists. I am certainly unaware of them. The copernican principle is philisophical not based in evidence. To prove or disprove the principle one could make a string to construct a circle and check to see whether or not the ratio of the circumference of the circle to the length of the string is exactly 2pi. However to do this one would allegedly need a string 100 million galaxies long. I am unaware of this experiment ever taking place (source: undergraduate lecture from professer David Pegg). Finally I wasn't aware that there were solutions to the problems of dark matter or inflation. If what you're saying is true please keep it quiet as you would put a lot of physicists out of jobs ;). A recent article on quant_ph (arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0501/0501066.pdf) even suggested a violation of the spin statistics theorem for neutrinos as a possible solution to the dark matter problem (Of course having a dirac spinor which was a boson would have unbounded negative energy states as an infinite number of particles could fill any state). So from the "vibe" of that article i hardly think the problem is solved. These are all the problems i can remember for now cheers

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't merely suggesting this article be deleted, though I do not oppose it. I was also suggesting this article is clearly POV, excitedly telling readers about the great scientific methods used to discredit and disgrace creationist cosmologies.

I'll grant you, it was POV before, but it still is, and I don't believe a creationist editor will be allowed to edit this article (by certain editors), while no non-creationist editor will bother or feel knowledgable enough to do so.

Frankly, I don't feel I can trust your judgement on this, Joshuaschroeder. You were as much a warrior in the Great War as Ungtss was, and you have made a great deal of edits to this article, and seem to be responsible for several of the things I objected to in my earlier post. I will wait to see if other editors weigh in. -- Ec5618 21:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] c-decay

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

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

[edit] Pseudoscience

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

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

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