Talk:Creationist cosmologies/Archive 1

What's this? Is the two column pro/contra presentation the newest invention? It for sure goes against normal policy, or am I confused here? --Pjacobi 15:07, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

this is just an expansion of the Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared page -- it's a new idea, but it's an attempt to place the two viewpoints side by side, to allow for point-by-point comparison, allowing for an npov description of two povs. Ungtss 15:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where to go with this page

The page is the sole surviving member of the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared deletion. I think it was spared because the format was changed into what you see now. It is my opinion that this page needs a lot of work. We should strive to have decent summaries of the ideas and decent scientific critiques of them. Perhaps we should remerge this page with Non-standard cosmology.

Joshuaschroeder 03:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

looks like it's well on its way to being another jpov, uncited personal-research essay. keep up the good work. Ungtss 03:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks like you haven't added a lot to this page, nor do you offer any substantive critique. All par for the course, I guess. Joshuaschroeder 06:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

add? what could i possibly add to this marvel of well-crafted jpov bullshit? perhaps i'm just tired of arguing with your ignorance. Ungtss 15:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps you don't know anything about the subject. Joshuaschroeder 15:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

if that were true, that would certainly make two of us, and make you the only one willing to exhibit your ignorance. sadly no. i know of these things and know of their problems. nobody will deny that these cosmologies have problems. but mainstream cosmologies are even MORE ridiculous. what's funny about you is, you think your ignorance is superior to everybody else's. Ungtss 16:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you find it so problematic and are so sure of your superior familiarity with cosmologies both creationist and mainstream, why don't you edit the article? I'm happy to entertain your notion that "mainstream cosmologies are even MORE ridiculous", but I haven't seen any evidence that you are familiar with said "mainstream cosmologies". Joshuaschroeder 00:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Gravitational time dilation observable?

The effect of Gravitational time dilation should be observable if Humphreys is correct.

The magnitude of gravitational time dilations we see in the universe is tiny compared to what is required by Humphreys idea. Joshuaschroeder 15:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this is wrong on two counts, Humphreys has us already emerged from the white hole, so we are no longer in a deep gravitational well.

This doesn't matter because the past view would necessarily be back to the white hole singularity. Just as looking into a black hole causes time-dilation, so does looking into a white hole. Joshuaschroeder 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The types of dilation Humphreys is proposing is extreme only at or near event horizons, the fact that only minor time dilations have been observed, is that extreme dilations near event horizons would be very deeply red shifted.

The problem with this is that the event horizon would be very close by in conformal space. We should see the effect of the universe being only 6000 years old through the time dilation process. Joshuaschroeder 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since there doesn't appear to be a massive white hole nearby, I've assumed that his apologia for this would be that it has disappated. That would seem to avoid any blue shift/time dilation issues. The idea is that billions of years went by while the solar system was at the event horizon, and the young earth emerged from what was still a fairly massive white hole, into a universe billions of years old with light in transit to us. The mass that made the curvature at the event horizon mild enough not to disrupt the solar system, would have to be several millions of solar masses, and would have to be nearby, within a few thousand light years. Of course, it isn't. When I mentioned this to Humphrey's a few years back, he did not seem to have considered this. But if we grant Humphrey this aspect of his theory, I don't see where we would expect to see any significant time dilation.--Silverback 10:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, Silverback, but being spit out of a whitehole as described in Humphries theory puts the singularity seen in extrapolations of the redshifted universe as a result of a whitehole that contains the entire universe. It wouldn't manifest itself simply as a whitehole nearby as can be seen by transforming the coordinate system into Kurskal coordinates, but rather it would be the singularity we extrapolate. Joshuaschroeder 16:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of the criticisms of humphrey's theory was that stars should appear blue shifted if we are in a gravitational well. Correct me if I am wrong, I believe Humphrey's theory calls for us to have emerged from the white hole several thousand years ago, so we would no longer be in the gravitational well. I will let this site a couple days, and then if no response, remove the criticism.

If we emerged from a white hole, the conformal diagram would have us able to peer back to the singularity. Joshuaschroeder 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One serious objection that I don't see here, is that Humphrey's theory implies that the solar system emerged intact from the white hole within the last few thousand years. That implies that the curvature of space at the event horizon to be mild enough not to disturb the earth/sun orbital system. It also implies that the "center of the universe" was in orbit about the milky way for millions of years before the solar system emerged and after the emergence of the milky way itself, and that there should be evidence of the remnant of the massive white hole within a few thousand light years of earth. Such a large mass should leave evidence of a significant recent disturbance in the solar neighborhood. We see no such evidence.--Silverback 04:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is true. You can add this argument. Joshuaschroeder 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Horizon problem

This is the second time I've removed inclusion of the horizon problem. If anyone wants to make an argument for its inclusion, please make it here. Joshuaschroeder 14:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schoeder should stop being so revert-happy. He removed a lot more of the previous editor's changes than just the Horizon Problem. And it does seem fair to note that creationists use a tu quoque argument about what seems to be a still-unsolved problem.138.130.201.204 16:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm completely mystified by this. The horizon problem is well-explained on the Big Bang page and doesn't belong here. This is a page about creationist cosmologies, not a critique of the Big Bang. Joshuaschroeder 17:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well ask before vandalizing not after! It should be obvious even to you -- this was a section on current creationist responses, and one is the tu quoque point about the horizon problem. There was even a link for a creationist article on that. And of course Schroeder deceitfully deletes other responses in the process. 138.130.201.204 09:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Careful with accusing others of vandalizing. JS's edit was not vandalizing. You may want to consider turning down the agression dial a notch.--FeloniousMonk 10:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your edits were not vandalizing, but all JS does is chop. Meanwhile he keeps blatant POVs in, and even undoes minor punctuation corrections in his bazooka-style edits. He is also willing to call others "trolls" simply because they undermine his POV pushing. 138.130.201.204 12:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To the anonymous contributor: I've reverted to the version of Joshuaschroeder. Your change doesn't make sense. Especially by presenting stuff which is not related at all to the article's lemma. This article is about creationist cosmologies. Problems in other cosmological models, most importantly in the standard model, must be included in those articles, but on a higher level of expertise than you are providing at the moment. Contrary to your believe, the "New Scientist" isn't a first rate scientific journal. It's just journalism. --Pjacobi 14:42, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

It is your POV that New Scientist doesn't count -- it is still a reference! But your justification for reversion is unjustified. The section was "creationist repsonses", and some DO use the tu quoque, as shown by the link. So it's going back in.

The reference doesn't matter: one can read about it in the non-standard cosmology article. As such it does not belong here.

Furthermore, there is blatant POV in other parts, e.g. "damaging critiques". NPOV should just present the critiques and let the reader decide whether they are damaging. And it is also NPOV to link to Humpreys's responses to his critics.138.130.201.204 02:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Scientist is included in the appropriate section in Non-standard cosmologies, it doesn't make any sense to include it here because none of the people who signed it had a creationist POV. Creationists using aging steady-staters to declare there is a "controversy" is like creationists using punctuated equilibrium to advocate that no animals evolved on Earth.

There may indeed be "blatant POV" in the article that needs to be removed. Please try to illustrate some of these here for consideration. Joshuaschroeder 14:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

138.130.201.204, I've reworked your edits to line 4 in the article. The subject being discussed in the paragraph was YECs who claim to have alternatives to the Big Bang model, removing the mainstream science reaction and replacing it with cite of two secular scientists who also reject the big bang in line with YECs was a non sequitur. There are indeed many scientists, secular or otherwise who reject the big bang, but that is peripheral at best to the YEC's who reject the big bang. Careful with what you remove and what you select to replace it with. Edits like that can be perceived as favoring a particular POV by censoring the opposing POV. Since mainstream science's response to YEC alternatives is highly pertinent, I've added the statement of the NAS, attributed. Also, the link citing Arp and Lerner was malformed and misplaced. See: Wikipedia:Cite_sources--FeloniousMonk 10:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reworking is what should have been done by JS, rather than chopping. I will try to take note of your comments. Also, I maintain that it's fair game to use Arp and Lerner to show that the big bang is not quite cut and dried, and we were careful to state that they still believed in billions of years, so it was not out of context. 138.130.201.204 12:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was fair to put back the link to the article by the creationist astrophysicist. JS is not qualified in astrophysics, so he should not be allowed to dictate that certain creationist arguments are not allowed, especially by creationists far more qualified than he is.71.100.184.44 00:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

continued reversion attempts by annonymous user

I will continue to revert the revisions of the annonymous user until they can demonstrate the utility of their edits. The creationist argument against the "soft gap" theory is the only part of the inclusion I think may be worthy, but the reference given is opaque at best. We need a better explanation of what this objection means. Otherwise, every other edit by this user was terrible and was removed. Joshuaschroeder 07:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will continnue to undo the censorship of this Schroeder who completely lacks scientific standing despite acting like he is the spokesman for the "scientific community", whatever that is. And who cares about Schroeder's opinion on whether something is terrible, when he clearly lacks understanding of the astronomical issues involved in things like the horizon problem.203.213.77.138 04:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's you lacking the understanding. We can do a straw poll anytime. Whether limited to contributors with a degree in physics or an unlimited one, I don't have many doubts your bold statement above will be proven false. Or we should proceed in Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. --Pjacobi 08:01, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Humphreys answer his critics

I removed the remark from the last item and put it in a separate paragraph [this may have simply been an oversight by the original editor].

I also put the actual URL where the repository of Humphrey's responses are located.

Finally, I will add some remarks about the difficulty of cosmological systems in general in an effort to lend at least a little parity to the page. Phantym 01:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Setterfield Balanced

I was surprised at the criticism aimed at Setterfield, since most of those issues are answered directly in his papers or on his page. I have included a description of this as well as a link.

Most of the issues are dealt with on his page by making nonsensical arguments. For example, the opacity of the star effects only the hydrostatic equilibrium, not the nuclear timescale. To claim that an opacity can result in the same observed steady state we see today is simply untenable from simple "dimensional arguments". Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Setterfield and Phantym make the claim that the scaling arguments he uses carefully balance the incredible effects that a change in the speed of light has on ordinary physics. However, this kind of analysis is the most prone to error because one can always find non-dimensional scaling to make one feel better (it's the old captain of the ship problem -- to get the characteristic speed of the boat, just divide the length of the ship by the age of the captain). If the speed of light is changing dramatically, there would be observed physical effects that cannot be accounted for just by looking at unrelated physical effects.

Quantized redshifts do not exist. See nonstandard cosmology for more. Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, how in the world can you cite a 1983 source to attack Setterfield???? His report [as far as I can tell] was only published in 1987...

Setterfield has been trying since long before he published anything. Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Phantym 02:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous revert

I was disgusted to see that a mound of information,

there was no information, but there was a lot of misinformation and propaganda.

mostly simply allowing the reader to see what the various physicists had said in their own defense, was reverted.

physicists? Barry Setterfield is not a physicist. Russel Humphreys is a physicist in a field that is unrelated to cosmology.

Please read carefully the policies of wikipedia.

fact reigns supreme.

It is not our place to judge whether we happen to think a scientist's views are logical, that is not what we are here for. It is certainly not reasonable to remove an entier theory [as the reversion did].

The removal of an entire theory was not done.

Finally, to flatly say "Quantized Red shift doesn't exist" and refer me to an article that does not even discuss it is ludicrous. Physicists in the US, at Cambridge, and at Canada's National Research Council support it.

Baloney. Show me any paper on the totality of redshifts that shows quantization.

IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO JUDGE things that publishing scientists do not agree on. That is arrogant and very much non-neutral.

The publishing scientists agree: Humpreys is a hack, Setterfield uneducated, and Halton Arp a has-been.

And it is absolutely ridiculous to remove a post simply indicating how a physicist answers his critics.

It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the answers were not addressed originally.

Refer readers to the criticism, refer them to the responses, refer them to all the 'debunking' pages you want, but don't remove a vast array of information simply because you do not like it.

I will remove nonsense and lies because wikipedia should not support them.

We have to weight the sources, and a first, but usually telling, attempt gives the result that "Quantized Red shift" is not a topic of scholarly discussion in the field. See:

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Quantized+Red+shift%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
• Same result on http://www.arxiv.org/find

Pjacobi 20:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Well put Pjacobi. Joshuaschroeder 20:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV reminder

There was a horrid degree of non-neutral language in the entire article. Please remember that we are not here to judge whether we like a given scientists work.

It is certainly not POV to state that the age of the universe is constrained to a certain age in an article on cosmologies that would suggest otherwise. Each cosmology gives a mechanism for the obverved radioactivity, and to flat out state as a fact the very thing these scientists are objecting to with theories is far out of bounds.

Patently untrue. The cosmologies give mechanisms for their own guesses at reality, but do not state how observations of reality contradict their inaccurate ideas.

If you wish to state what ANOTHER scientist has said, or give other such disinterested remarks, that is another thing, but they should be written from a middle-distance.

The appropriate distance is to state that the creationist cosmologies are nonsense.

For example Setterfield...used fault techniques. is clearly not NPOV.

And it is most definitely not appropriate to simply remove relevant information, even if you do not like or agree with it. You cannot deny that Setterfield has answered his critics,

I am aware of Setterfield's "answers" in regards to criticisms that are incorrect. False information can be presented, but need not be.

you cannot deny that many scientists [not just creationists] believe that there is something strange going on with redshift,

I do deny that most scientists believe that nothing "strange" is going on with redshift.

And I suppose you are going to say that the 150 or so scientists signing an open letter suggesting this exact thing (mostly completely secular scientists with no particular religious axe to grind) are all chopped liver? Open letter.

One of the signers, just as an example, is Herman Bondi. He just happens to be a recipient of The Royal Astronomical Society highest award, are you going to suggest that he is also a hack? Phantym 23:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

With all do respect to Hermann Bondi who has done wonderful work with accretion, his work on cosmology is nonsense and everyone in the community accepts that. He's one of the last of the old guard who stick to their guns and do not keep up with advancements in the field. Hoyle was an example of another one who was like that. As is often the case in science, old ideas "die" (and I do mean die, literally) hard. People like Bondi represent a connection to past ideas before the scientific revolution, but their inability to answer their critics causes them to be discredited in the field. The "Open letter" was signed by no one who is active in the cosmology field, but was signed by the usual cast of grumpy characters and a number of scientists who have never even studied the idea. This is not a statement that holds any validity in the scientific community, nor can it be called evidence of a controversy any more than the time cube can be called evidence that Einstein is wrong. Joshuaschroeder 14:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

you cannot deny that Gentry claims certain things.

Gentry is a poor example of an arguer when it comes to science. Why should we deny his claims? Because they are not scientific.

If you wish to quote those who have criticized a theory, or give a link to the page that criticized it, fine, but removing perfectly relevant information is poor form.

They aren't theories in the scientific sense.

Phantym 20:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Your edit concentrates on "Why"-questions, but physical cosmology, as all physics, is not in the business of answering "Why"-questions. It is in the business of creating theories that (a) are compatible with current observations, (b) make predictions for future observations (falsifiability) and (c) are as simple as possible (Occam's razor). The standard Lambda-CDM model scores high on all three accounts. The "Why"-questions may be puzzling, but they are not a problem of the theory but of human curiosity. --Pjacobi 20:28, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

No, my edit concentrates on removing judgmental language and not claiming that any of the theories are correct or incorrect. To the extent that these cosmologies predict results different from their standard model counterparts, they differ in more than a "why" context. Gentry's model, for example, differes in prediction to the standard model on many counts, including mineral composition in quasars and existence of far objects. Furthermore, this is an article on Creationist cosmologies, and hence both the Why and the What are relevant.

No, your edit is about inserting creationist pap into an article describing the pap. Gentry's "model" doesn't exist. Joshuaschroeder 20:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Gentry's Halo Universe

I read the refered to paper. Is this supposed to be a model? Gentry puts in a new variable (vacuum energy density) and rederives some basic cosmology equations with this new variable. He makes no predictions other than to say that this new parameter allows (without explanation) sollutions to "problems" (which don't exist) with the standard model as of 1998. So, what are we to make of this? Has Gentry tried to innovate, keep up to date, or continue to pursue this idea? It doesn't seem to be. I'm not sure he accepts it as a model. Setterfield and Humphreys at least are trying to maintain their model, but as with the enigmatic polonium halos (now disavowed by most creationist organizations), Gentry simply runs through a weird argument that isn't true. Should it be included? I'm not sure. I'll have to read more about it. But certainly the edit Phantym tried is not going to cut it. Joshuaschroeder 21:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Gentry's model is portrayed in a 2003 paper, followed by another in 2004, how is that not "keeping up with it." And since he EXPLICITLY mentions predictions in the paper, I do not see how you can claim it does not make predictions. Perhaps you are reading the wrong paper? He wrote a paper in 1998 or so which was not a completely cosmology, but was fleshed out to a full cosmology in 2003. Finally, when are you gonig to learn that it is not YOUR opinion on his results that matters? We are not here to judge; we are here to report information. Phantym 21:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The information is about full-fledged creationist cosmologies. We need to gather the information appropriately to present in a non-biased way. I will continue to read the bits by Gentry to see how we would include his stuff in the work (or if we should at all). I will go back and read his 2003 and 2004 ideas. Joshuaschroeder 00:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have completed reading Gentry's papers. I have to conclude that this is not a creationist cosmology as defined by the article because it does not deal with the problem associated with young earth creationism. It is in actuality a hybrid of the quasi steady state idea of Einstein's with an artificial "expansion" term introduced associating a kind of tired light with the cosmological constant. Gentry doesn't dispute distances nor does he dispute the speed of light being constant. He disputes the Big Bang. The cosmology, if it is to be presented should be on the non-standard cosmologies page. However, it is already well dealt with in the ideas about tired light and about quasi-steady state and the criticisms of those ideas apply equally to his ideas. Joshuaschroeder 00:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Concluding Gentry's cosmologies do not count as Creationist is ludicrous. As quoted from a single [1] paper of his:

This led to my discovery that the locally observed, spherically symmetric galactic redshift distribution is unique and hence that a universal Center exists nearby. I identify it as the location of God's eternal throne, as per Hebrews 8-10 and Revelation 20. Finally, I describe my Cosmic Center Universe model that reproduces eight of BBC's major predictions.

This approach necessarily means I believe there are flaws in the current evolutionary paradigms, and that part of revealing God's glory of creation means exposing the scientific flaws in these paradigms as well as promoting those evidences of creation that affirm the Genesis record. This is the philosophical basis of my work, and I realize it is a minority view, both scientifically and within the Christian community

CBR is shown to be gravitationally redshifted blackbody cavity radiation from an anciently-created outer shell of galaxies (see note 59) that circumscribes those of the more recently-created (6,000 yr.) visible universe [How is a cosmology that shows our and local galaxies as being around 6000 years old not creationist??????

Dispute Resolution: RFC

I will be seeking first an RFC, and if necessary further steps, in seeking that this page realign to one that shows a NPOV.

Recently this obvious NPOV is found in reversions which have removed WHOLESALE the following:

• A short discussion listing the many paradoxes and concerns cosmologists have had over the past 50 years to give an indication of the difficulty any theory will have in accounting for all observed phenomena. This is meant to temper the series of criticisms that follow.

Irrelevent to the subject at hand. We are here to describe creationist cosmologies and show the common criticisms leveled against them, not to criticize mainstream cosmology except where the creationist cosmology explicitly does so. We have a section on criticizing astronomy as is, and so any information with regards to this should be included there. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Two isntances in which information was removed discussing a scientist's own responses to specific criticisms

In actuality, the one bit of information was inaccurately reported and patently false. In the other (with regards to Humphreys) there was no need to include the duplicate material already covered in the response section. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

'Patently false'? How can it be patently false that I report someone else has something posted on a website. Are you claiming that I made up the entire quote? Surely not. If you disagree with the quote, then too bad. Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because something is found on the internet does not make that thing worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. We are here to report on the main creationist cosmologies and report the main criticisms of those cosmologies. We aren't writing a page about "responses of those supporting creationist cosmologies to their critics". That said, if something is glaringly wrong in the criticism of the creationist cosmology in question, it should easily be made known in the full text. To say that "dimensional analysis" solves Setterfield's problems is obviously patently false. It doesn't because he is comparing two dynamically disparate processes in order to come up with a response that he likes (it just so happens that c^2 is in the denominator of the opacity while E=mc^2 is in the numerator of nuclear fusion calculations -- but numerology of Setterfield's is not what this article is about, it's about his decaying speed of light idea. Joshuaschroeder 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Two links showing where the scientists involved give a collection of their responses to other concerns. In no way can it be considered legitimate to remove the resource to readers.

These resources are referenced by means of other groups (AiG in particular, but also Setterfield). Resources/references should be placed in an external references sited section of the article. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, to state that Humphreys claims to defend his theory and then REMOVE the information is ludicrouse.Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a reference to Humphreys defense, though it is to a different website. They information is simply duplicate that you posted. Joshuaschroeder 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• An entire cosmology was removed, and then it was claimed that no such cosmology was removed. It can be plainly seen in the edits that an entire section on Gentry's model existed and now has been removed, twice.

This cosmology, as seen above, is actually not a creationist cosmology in the sense that it doesn't have any creationist import. The only connection seems to be that it is proposed by a creationist. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a creationist cosmology in that it supports a young cosmos. Your claim that it does not count as a creationist cosmology is a thinly veiled effort to cover yourself for removing it wholesale and then claiming you hadn't. Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, no it doesn't. Gentry makes claims external to his idea that this "supports a young universe", but nowhere in the proposed idea does he state that such is the case. He is simply trying to discredit the Big Bang. There is a big difference between that and a creationist cosmology. Joshuaschroeder 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Please just admit that you are trying to cover your butt after recklessly deleting an entire cosmology in a hasty revert. I accused you of removing an entire cosmology, you denied it flat out [without any other disclaimer]. You did this [deleted it] twice, and then I showed you specifically the cosmology you removed, from then on you have tried to get around this.

In this latest effort you suggest that this is not a Christian cosmology when it certainly is on several points.

1. It is blatantly anthropocentric [the cosmic center is right in our backyard]

2. It is presented by a scientists completely devoted to creationism

3. One of its aim is to debunk the big-bang, hence showing secular science's lack of self-criticism.

4. Most damning, it could not be more clear from the first few pages of this article by Gentry, where he discusses the recently created universe being made in the last 6000 years.

• A reversion to obvious judgmental language that itself goes outside of NPOV. In other words, I removed the NPOV from statements such as "Gentry used faulty methods" cahnging them to "...accused Gentry of using faulty methods." And that edit was reverted! There are many, many cases of this.

But it is a plain fact that Gentry used faulty methods. I'm sure Gentry disputes this, but he's not a good scientist and his judgements about the fact of his faulty methods as witnessed by previous encounters he has had with science shows the problems he has -- the judgement of the cosmology stands on its own. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, it is not your job to judge whether he used faulty data. It is completely honest to state someone else's allegation, but it is not at all NPOV for you to presume to speak for all wiki-editors. Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as a scientist it is my job, but that's not the point here. The point is that when a hack like Gentry makes a claim that's easily refuted, there is no reason not to include that refutation in the encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Then your refutations are both POV and original research, neither being allowed. If you think Gentry and other scientists are out to lunch, post what OTHER critics have suggested as well as Gentry's response and leave yourself on the porch.

In addition to the above egregious abuses of wikiettiquette [which always supports the inclusion of relevant material rather than reverting the wholesale], the following statements have appeared on the talk page, showing that the authors clearly have a flawed sense of NPOV.

there was no information, but there was a lot of misinformation and propaganda.

The above is one posters summary of my reporting what other scientists have said and giving readers access to their own responses.

I will remove nonsense and lies because wikipedia should not support them.

The above was given as an excuse for removal of all the extra information that was given. That information was largely comprised of stating what scientists had to say in response to criticism. Why it is okay to claim what critics say as facts while removing any reference to what the scientist had to say in response is beyond me.

The greatest indictment of this clear misconcept of NPOV comes in the following quote:

The appropriate distance is to state that the creationist cosmologies are nonsense.

In addition to the above there is also the repeated unfactual accusation that these theories are not scientific when they meet the requirements given on wikipedia's own page on the matter. They describe present evidence and make predictions.

Given the hostile nature of the editors of this article, and their propensity for calling everyone who does not agree with them idiots [including professors at Cambridge University, Canada's National Research Center, and secular universities in the US], as well as discounting evidence as recent as 2003 for trends they claim do not exist at all, I am seeking RFC, in the hopes that others can make known to these editors that there actions are not in the spirit of wikipedia, which is dedicated to all sides being given a fair opportunity to state their claims without the 'editors' judging them.

Claims of creationists are stated in this article and the claims they make are refuted. The counter-arguments that are made by the creationists to the arguments are a tit-for-tat reapportionment of ideas that is something to be eschewed in an encyclopedia article. We should have a simple statement of what the creationist believes and what the criticisms are and that is it. Further information can be incorporated into either of these parts. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)The information was relevant and allowed a reader to easily retrieve both sides of the issue. Removing relevant information in this way is the thing that should be eschewed.

Morton 1983

Interestingly I found the following page, part of which purports to be from one of the authors of the cited work. The page describes various theories, and partway down one of the authors of the Morton et. al. paper writes that General relatively is based on the concept that the speed of light is constant.

He also makes similar claims attempting to indicate that having a variable speed of light is incompatible with relativity. However, Breitenberger, The Status of the Velocity of Light in Special Relativity, Mernin's work, and most clearly [for the general relativity case] Singh's article suggest otherwise. In particular Singh describes how the results of General Relativity can be derived by simply allowing for some maximum velocity for any physical object...it is traditional, based on observation, to ascribe this the speed of light, but the derivations do not require it.

Moving toward a compromise

I am attempting to meet a reasonable compromise here. I have reverted to a previous edition and then removed some of my own POV edits.

I am also putting a todo list here so that I did not have to delete outright many currently statements.

Reversion to an older version

I tried to work with the current version of the article, but found it impossible to do since there was a lot of misinformation, bad editorializing, and some things that were just plain false (like redshifts being caused in FRW-Cosmology by a cosmological constant). I have included all the external links refered to by the creationist editors in the external links and I have included Gentry's model which is a derivative of Humphrey's bounded universe. Gentry's universe just happens to be bounded by an external shell similar to modern geocentrism. It would be good to include this in here as well. Joshuaschroeder 21:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your intention was when you reverted this article. I'm not sure exactly which sections you had a problem with. I have reverted, partially, by pasting paragraphs from the previous version into yours. You must admit that the first line atleast seems less accusatory now. -- Ec5618 15:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Your edits and additions for the most part are fine. I clarified a bit, especially in the intro paragraph for arguments still employed. Most of what I had issue with were references to "quantized redshifts" (which is a fringe-astronomy fantasy unrelated to creationism) and to disclaimers about such things as radioactivity and the "responses" of creationists to their critics. Joshuaschroeder 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert to EC's June 4 (with some revision)

I have reverted the article back to EC's July 4th edit, before massive POV were introduced. There was little to be salvaged from the later rewrites for myriad reasons:

1. Rampant POV

Not true.

2. Rampant uncited and/or original reserach

Again, not true

3. Discussion at length about mainstream science and/or its viewpoint on creationist cosmologies rather than the creationist cosmologies themselves.

Since mainstream science is the way cosmology is described, it needs to be there.

4. From the talk pages it is clear that some editors have an inaccurate viewpoint of the subject matter. For example, Gentry's cosmology is certainly not a modification of Humphrey's. One has a white-hole singularity instantiated at the beginning of time [the other does not].

The modification of the Friedmann Equations by Gentry has the same effect as the white hole.

Gentry's is not bounded (he only states the visible universe is bounded.

Actually, Humphreys only says that the visible universe is bounded too.

Gentry and Humphreys rely on different forces to cause time distortion.

Not technically. The forces are both claimed to be part of a gravitational initial point.

Another example is the remarks about quanitzed redshift. It is true that red shift is caused in mainstream science not by the cosmological constant but by the expansion of space-time (which is linked to the cosmological constant, but does not rely upon it), but this miswrite by one author does not call for the editorial response it received since the idea remains the same: that modern astronomy does not understand redshift correctly.

What is this supposed to mean? Redshift quantization is not a documented idea, it is cited as a non-mainstream critique and that is discussed.

Furthermore, disparaging quantized redshift [or flat out saying it does not exist] flies in the face of research done by scientists at Oxford [Bill Napier] the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh [Bill Guthries] and most recently the Canadian National Science Research Center [M. Bell, 2003]. Napier and Guthrie (the latter who has worked as an astronomer at the observatory for over 20 years) published research showing a quantization of redshift that had a p-value less than 1 in 10 million!

This does not address the main point made in nonstandard cosmologies which is that sky surveys do not show the quantization.

To simply dump this down the trash chute as "Fringe" or deny its existence altogether shows either a deep bias or an ignorance of the subject matter.

We don't need to entertain the ignorance of certain editors.

I have made some changes to the revision. For those keeping score, 5 of these corrections are, loosely, removing of POV on one side while the other 4 remove POV on the other side:

a) I have removed some discussion of the big bang (including some misplaced laudatory remarks...the big bang actually got the CBR wrong by orders of magnitude...and was "fixed" afterward.

b) Creationists do not discuss the Horizon problem as much as others (in particular redshift issues), so I have truncated that discussion

c) I have removed every criticism that is not accompanied by citation. Wikipedia is not original research. There has been a stated need for this documentation for over two weeks.

d) Removed the peacock expression lauding Setterfield's cosmology. Yes, it explains quantized redshift, but the reader who cares can discover that on his own.

e) Removed unneeded discussion of non-creationist, non-mainstream cosmologies.

f) Removed the "It is unclear what effect these constants not being constant has." The statement is probably true, but is POV. That paragraph already contains suitably neutral language.

g) Removed Peacock expressions from beginning of Gentry's discussion for the same reason Setterfield's

h) Removed the list of cosmic phenomena explained by Gentry's model in favor of three sentences describing its relation to new and future experiments.

i) Removed obvious POV from "light created in transit" paragraph.

-Phantym

I'm not very happy with your change, but not concerned enough to blindly revert.

But please do all of us a favour and learn something about Wiki editing and style, you always badly garble the Wiki source of the article.

Pjacobi 21:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

The change is unacceptable. I'm going to revert. Joshuaschroeder 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phantym's proposed changes

Editor Phantym is under the impression that the creationist cosmologies described in this article are somehow "scientific". This is far from the case. Not only are all these cosmologies considered bunk by nearly every competent cosmologist who looks at them, they are fraught with the same problems that most nonstandard cosmologies show. We are not apologists for creationist hacks who toot their own horns without being scientific in their pursuits. Humphreys, Gentry, and Setterfield are all poor excuses for scientists and have created some poor excuses for explanations of cosmological phenomenon. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia where all ideas no matter how crackpot should be described if they exist. We describe creationist cosmologies to show what YECs do to try to combat the very real problem they have of light-travel times. It is a cute aside to the creation-evolution controversy but has nothing to do with science, astronomy, or cosmology except that these creationists have to find justifications for their, frankly, fringe beliefs that jive with their limited understanding of the subject. Wikipedia is NPOV, but it is not accomodating. The skeptical tone of the article is completely warranted and needs to remain if people are to get an accurate understanding of these cosmologies. Complaints that criticisms aren't well "cited" and that there is too much "POV" and "original research" in the article are plainly untrue. The editor would be well-advised to read wikipedia policies on these subjects before making such claims. In any case, the article as it stands now describes each of the ideas well. Any more drastic changes that Phantym wishes to be made should be put forward to RfC or perhaps peer review. Joshuaschroeder 10:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calling scientists who work at the Canadian National Research Center, Oxford, the British Royal Observatory, and Los Alamos National Labs "hacks" gives a fair understanding of Joshuaschroeder's ability to edit in a POV manner.

What is drastic about requiring an editor to refrain from his own original commentary rather than cite outside material? It is not "drastic" it is wikipedia etiquette. Given that Joshuaschroeder's touts a self-congratulatory award on his user page lauding his efforts to "keep creationist bias out of wikipedia," I think it is clear which editor should be under the microscope here. Phantym 4 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Unfortunately not all scientists are only producing works which can be considered scientific, especially when they step out of their field of competence. Paulo Correa has a PhD in microbiology (or something like that), but that doesn't give credibility to Aethermetry. Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is a professor of statistics at an important university, but his application of statistics to the historical scieneces (New Chronology (Fomenko)) didn't get professional applause. --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 18:59 (UTC)

Reversion again

Once again the article is in a state of terrible POV, mostly due to Joshuaschroeder, who has the gall to say "With all do respect to Hermann Bondi who has done wonderful work with accretion, his work on cosmology is nonsense..." This is an wikipedian editor's statement about a scientist who has earned the Royal Academy's highest award, and shows just how much this editor chooses to allow his own attempts at original critique dominate an article.

If you wish to attack the theories presented, please summarize documented criticism with citation, as per standard wikipedian practice, not simply deluge the article with your own commentarty.

I will continue to remove remarks that are original scientific commentary. This is not POV, it is standard wikipedian ettiquette.

I hate reverting like this, but after all the mess caused by Joshuashroeder's edits, it is hard to do anything else.

Phantym 4 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

I've reverted your reversion as more editors are happily working on the other version to improve it. But I've kept the {{NPOV}} for now. Please give us your reasons to belief that the article doesn't conform to NPOV. Misconduct of other editors is in itself not such a reason. --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Oops, we had an edit conflict. Now part of the reason emerges. Then, why you don't remove the comments, instead of reverting whole-sale to version, which doesn't even get the basic formatting right? --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Biased

I must say I came to this article hoping for an enlightening review of the topic, which I can happily say is the case for most articles on this excellent site. But not this article. The page is inherently biased and any attempts to reform something biased are inherently biased. I do not support creationism or any other philosophy but seek out as much information on various topics as I can, as it intrigues me. I am thus very dissapointed at the lack of information and comparison of opposing views. I believe the current article should be dropped and a new one made from scratch, with the people who worked on the original article and the reformations of said article leaving it alone for unbiased individuals to handle.

Thanks for your comments, but the vague nature of them makes it very hard for editors to make improvements. While a wholesale trashing of an article is always something that can be done (remember, it's okay to be bold in editting) it would be nice to know exactly what in the article was biased. Excluding editors from articles is generally not something that is done at Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 11:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say to exclude anybody, but quite a few people have edited the page and disagree with each other strongly, I simply meant if they let one unbiased person take over the article, it would be more uniform and accurate, and once he/she was done with the first version allow others. As for biased parts of the article, here is a little of what I thought was biased: The use of the word Pseudoscientific, which is obviously not what supporters of the theory call it, thus it is biased; the phrase and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with their views is not necessarily true; the habit of ending each topic by trying to disprove it; general opposition of the creationist view; the edits the re-edits and the de-edits; all show that the page is biased. Perhaps a simple reorginazation would suffice to show that the editor is not supportive of one side, as the article currently is.

• pseudoscience is a very well understood and defined word. It isn't biased, it simply means that the scientific community judges the endeavor to be without scientific basis. Since, by definition, the word is about the scientific community and not supporters it is the essence of neutral.

• "reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with their views" -- you think this isn't the case, or at the very least isn't necessarily true. However, that statement is the essence of creation science's conceit. So I fail to say where you cam up with this idea.

• Ending each topic by trying to disprove it -- science isn't in the business of "proof" or "disproof". There is simply evidence that is available. If you're looking for "proof" try mathematics.

• general opposition to the creationist view -- can you be more specific? Keep in mind that NPOV does not mean Wikipedia is going to be apologetic.

• Supportive of one side -- this is perhaps the strangest of your accusations. It is assuming that there are "two sides". But there really aren't "sides" per se: there are just creationists who make claims about science that are wrong.

---Joshuaschroeder 12:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "creationists who make claims about science that are wrong?" Is this supposed to be a statement about criticism of evolution or geology, or of the theory of scientific study in general? Could you elucidate? Dan Watts 15:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think what he's saying is that science operates within it's own realm of creating theories and then evaluating them based on evidence, whereas creationists do not operate in an evidence-based realm. Therefore this isn't a debate between two sides, because both parties are operating in totally seperate spaces. Real debate requires that both sides be connecting and talking about the same things; creation-evolution controversy doesn't qualify because creationists are naturally talking about ideas originating out of faith whereas science should operate in a solely evidence-based realm. That is what I think he means. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So when evidence (hard, physical) is used in a criticism of a scientific theory is it (by definition) not a creationist claim? Is that your (or your understanding of Joshua's) position? Dan Watts 18:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What I was saying was the following: creationist made claims about science in this article. Those creationists' claims are shown to be wrong. Joshuaschroeder 18:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it fair to put in questions about the stability of Oort clout (and possibly Kupper belt) objects against interactions with the galactic arms (roughly every 25 million years), or questions concerning the (absence of) evidence of spallation products (from comet - cosmic ray interaction) seen in spectra of comets, or questions concerning the maximum age of visible lunar craters if the lunar basalt has anything like terrestrial viscosity (and, no, the talk.origins discussion of that problem is not conclusive)? Dan Watts 20:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No, these claims are not about cosmology but rather about space science and planetary science. Joshuaschroeder 00:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)