Talk:Omphalos hypothesis

A deceptive creator

I would challenge this: "the idea that God would create appearances that are so completely deceiving to every level of detail is not consistent with most benevolent theistic theologies". If a God exists he is clearly hiding from us in these modern times. Should we be surprised that he excels at hiding? Such hiding would clearly require "completely deceiving to every level of detail". In general, benevolence can clearly include deception where ever the truth would do more harm than good. Deception can also be required in certain processes in order to achieve some good end. PS: I now believe that this section should have been placed at the bottom? FortyYrOldUniverse (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait... are you arguing that God can and will fool us if its for our own good? Do you have some sort of supporting evidence for this assertion? If a mortal man went to as much trouble as the Omphalos hypothesis implies God did, just to fool another human being into thinking one thing rather than another, we'd accuse that person of criminal fraud at worst and being a scheming manipulator at best. Why does God get a pass on this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackFloridian (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

God is very adept at hiding; just check out the Gospel of John. Whenever there's an angry mob after him, the scripture reads that "he hid himself," and no-one ever found him that's for sure...well...until it was time.58.105.159.28 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have heard the argument made that if we can be so misled by the physical evidence, is it not also possible that we can be misled by the testimony of Scripture: Maybe it just looks like the Bible is saying that the earth is 6000 years old. I bring this up, not to argue the point, but to ask whether there is a quotable source for this argument, someone famous who could be cited in the article. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Overall

This article is confusing.

I second this, not because the subject matter is confusing, but because the article itself (particularly the intro) is rather poorly written. I suggest it be revised. (I bumped this heading from the bottom and merged it with the one on the top to emphasize how many people seem to agree that the article is confusing).Jamshyd 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have much confusion how hair, fingernails and navels are related wrt the Omphalos (book) or the omphalos hypothesis.

I suppose that I understand the basics of the navel question (If A/E were created by God from dust and rib would each or either have a navel?). Links here would be helpful.

I don't have such an understand for hair or fingernails.

How does Omphalos (the book) or the omphalos hypothesis link hair and fingernails to navels and thence to a "functional" world ?

Hair and fingernails are conventionally seen as artefacts remaining from our evolution from animals with functional fur and functional claws. The Omphalos hypothesis argues that God created us with remnants of body hair and non-functional fingernails to make it look as if we had evolved from such ancestors. Likewise fossils of hominids were created by God to make it look as if we evolved from these ancestors. --Tediouspedant (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The point in question is: were Adam and Eve created with full heads of hair, or did it grow in after they were created. Similiarly fingernails. Both seem, by their existence, to imply a history that would be false if they were created as is. Not a very thorny conundrum, but I suppose, pre-science, one had to contemplate such things. - Nunh-huh 04:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Because some things change over time, the fact that they exist doesn't imply time has passed. But our experience is that time is required, so we assume time is required. There is no deception involved, its an "optical illusion". User:Unknown

It is not the mere existence of hair or nails that implies a previous development process that would have required time to have passed. Nor is it merely the microscopic sequential layers of dead cell casts or excretions. But if these were to show signs of having aged over the length of a nail or strand of hair, here then, is evidence of time having passed or deception having occurred. This can be more clearly seen in the case of a large tree, created in one day, and yet exhibiting two hundred seasonal growth rings of varying sizes. FortyYrOldUniverse (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Um... doesn't this fit almost exactly with Pastafarianism? Specifically, Bobby Henderson included the idea that the FSM uses its "noodly appendage" to change every scientific measurement taken- ever- to look more like [a scientific worldview] than "the truth." This is, of course, just another front of his assault on Creationism, but as long as Young Earth is mentioned doesn't FSM deserve a mention? The concept is inherent to that faith. User:Nemesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.143.218 (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is poorly written. I will go ahead and clarify some things, especially in the intro and maybe some later paragraphs. Feel free to reverse my edits if wanted, I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I know I'm necroposting here but this place has to have some participants so I'm gonna contribute anyways DoIBelongHere? (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

bertrand russell

um, whoever wrote the main part of this article knows nothing of bertrand russell. in the link given he even states "I am not suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable, but uninteresting. All that I am doing is to use its logical tenability as a help in the analysis of what occurs when we remember." --MilkMiruku

• The article doesn't say Bertrand Russell believed this, merely that he discussed it (which he did, and notably so).  BD2412 ^talk 23:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

the line "A world in which some essentially followed Russell's theory as a..." makes it sound like the theory was russells alone when he specifically called it an uninteresting sceptical hypotheses. how about changing it to "A world in which some essentially followed a similar theory as a...". is there any info anywhere if Jorge Luis Borges was directly influenced by Bertrand Russell? --MilkMiruku 10:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've improved that a bit, clarifying that it was really Russell's observation of Gosse's theory - will research Russell's possible influence on Borges (which seems logical in light of their respective eras).  BD2412 ^talk 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

--The line "Reverend Canon Brian Hebblethwaite, for example, preached that Russell's concept of such a recent creation," needs to be rephrased. As written, it (along with the earlier statement that Russell was "influenced by Gosse") implies that Russell put this forward as a serious concept for philosophical discussion, whereas--as quoted above--it was merely a vehicle towards a discussion of memory. Russell was stating that the world could have been created five minutes ago, as there is nothing that states that memories must be based on events that actually occurred. Your poorly written line, however, gives the sense that Russell was, like Gosse, an actual believer in the idea that the world was created five minutes ago--which he certainly wasn't.

Please feel free to correct any language with which you disagree, this being Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cheers!  BD2412 ^talk 02:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a touch in the direction you've suggested. Cheers!  BD2412 ^talk 21:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As of 8/6/07 it still sounds like the idea is being attributed to Russell. 76.2.12.155 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)bemusedoutsider

I merged the content of a redirect page that holds information on the five-minute hypothesis into this article. BR84 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Omphalos (book)?

We have this article describing the Omphalos theology, and another article on the Gosse book that gave the doctrine its name. Neither is excessively long. I would suggest that these articles be merged, and that the book's article, much shorter than this one, be redirected here. Smerdis of Tlön 16:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it would be sensible to merge both these pages. DFH 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - although the theory was named for the ideas in the book, the theory has taken on a life of it's own, separate from the book. The modern theological arguments of the Omphalos theory have little to do with the book. The book and the theory are separate entities that should have their own page unless a major rewrite of both articles is undertaken.--WilliamThweatt 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, "life of its own" indeed. bd2412 T 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral as is, but support if you re-write the stuff about the book as the origin of the name.

You'd need to re-write the book article to fit in here, but it could be done, though I feel the same as the above, that contemporarily they are different things, the book as the origin of the name could easily be explained and fit in here. SchmuckyTheCat 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak support - the book could be a separate stand alone section in this article. However, I think that the mention in Edmund Gosse's book, Father and Son, should be included, as that is the source for most knowledge of it. John Wilkins 10:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE The book is very notable on its own, and has sold lots of copies in aseveral reprints. It has led to more philosophical discussion than to other website represents, and is clearly important enough for its own article. There are lots of trivial books with their own article: work on them.Edison 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Haven't been through this already? The book is very important in its own right, as a predecessor of Darwin's Origin of Species. Notable, encyclopedic and verifiable. It is not some sub-topic of the religious view, and people should not have to plow through that to find info about the book. Most of its content is natural history, not theology: the life cycles of plants and animals. If Wikipedia has articles on every high school, every subway station and bus line in the world, every character in a video game and every episode of popular TV shows, it should give an article to something of actual historical amd philoshical importance.Edison 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose; as per above. As an aside, don't we need to close off this vote now? Or has that happened already? --Plumbago 08:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Book title

The proper title of the book is Creation (Omphalos): An attempt to untie the geological knot. I have a copy of the original edition, and can send anyone who doubts it a scan of the title page.

The misunderstanding is based on the title as given in Father and Son by Edmund Gosse, who is presumably remembering how it was referred to in the family.John Wilkins 09:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is puzzling, since the Ox Bow reprint, apparently a facsimile of the original (ISBN 1-88197-10-8) by Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge Connecticut, done in 1998, says it is of the 1857 edition published by John Van Voorst, London, and printed by R. Clay, London. On its title page it say "Omphalos An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot" and nowhere on the page does the word "creation" appear. Did Ox Bow reprint the same edition you own and omit part of the title?

I first read of this book in a book by Martin Gardner, perhaps his "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science," which I no longer own. If someone can verify that is the book where he discussed Omphalos, it would be a good link to add to this article and to the article on that book. Edison 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(Comment: you are correct, see pp. 124-125 of Gardner's book, which states, "although it won not a single convert, it presented a theory so logically perfect...that no amount of scientific evidence will ever be able to refute it." DB, Sept. 13, 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.33.72 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but as I have the first edition on my desk, I can verify that title. John Wilkins 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC) If it is the "First edition" what is the info as to Publisher, printing, etc? The facsimile eedition does not have the title you state. Thanks.Edison 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't say about the facsimile edition, but here's the details of the copy I have:

P. H. Gosse, Creation (Omphalos): an attempt to untie the geological knot (London: J. Van Voorst, 1857), xiii, [1], 376.

John Wilkins 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I now think that it was released under two different titles, perhaps in a later reprint (although this is confusing if Gosse fils is correct that it was discarded). In any case I most certainly have a physical copy dated 1857 with this title. John Wilkins 09:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can see a photocopy of the original on Google books, though only on archive.org, at http://www.archive.org/details/omphalosanattem00gossgoog . This clearly shows the original title. Evidently it was reissued the same year with the "Creation" title in an attempt to boost sales. Chris55 (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

5 minute earth

5 minute earth should be merged here because it is essentially a copy and paste of a chunk of information from this article, and contains nothing requiring a separate article. bd2412 T 18:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Does no one have any comment on this? bd2412 T 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• The merge is fine, I think, but some sort of mention should be placed in the article. It's rather confusing finding your way to this article via 5 minute earth, as well as the skepticism category template at the bottom with no real explanation. 68.101.68.179 (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Last Thursdayism?

Someone suggested merging Last Thursdayism into this article. I disagree, because I think that the other article has too many contents that are not related to the omphalos hypothesis to merge it into this article. Another problem is that Last Thursdayism is contained in the Category:Joke religions and this article should not be contained in that category. --Danogo 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this already - scroll up a few cm. It's just as well you've reminded me though - I forgot to vote. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

How exaxtly is this related to creationism--I don't see the connectionTrevorLSciAct 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's related to creationism because it's an attempt to answer a major problem with Young Earth creationism. Young earth creationists say that the universe was created less than ten thousand years ago. Yet there are astronomical objects more than 10,000 light years away. Thus, some young earth creationists claim that these objects were created with the light from those objects already on the way to earth. (There are other responses by other young earth creationists.) Jhobson1 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chateaubriand

Borges' essay mentioned in this article pointed to Chateaubriand's book Genie de christianisme ("Genius of Christianity", 1802), Part I, Book IV, Chapter V, "Jeunesse et vieillesse de la terre" ("Youth and Old Age of the Earth"). This chapter begins:

"We now come to the third objection to the modern origin of the globe. "The earth," it is said, "is an aged nurse, who betrays her antiquity in every thing. Examine her fossils, her marbles, her granites, her lavas, and you will discover in them a series of innumerable years, marked by circles, strata, or branches, as the age of a serpent is determined by his rattles, that of a horse by his teeth, or that of a stage by his antlers.

"This difficulty has been solved a hundred times by the following answer: God might have created, and doubtless did create, the world with all the marks of antiquity and completeness which it now exhibits."

(I'm using the translation by Charles I. White published in 1857 - Italics in original.)

It seems appropriate to mention this early reference (full quotation not necessary). If no one complains, I will add a couple of lines about it. TomS TDotO

I just wanted to point out that the quote from this excerpt is misleading the way it is quoted. The quote cites the 1802 book, but goes on to talk about red-shifted light, which must have been added or revised in a later translation since the effect of red-shifted light was not observed experimentally until 1848 Grahampositive (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The red-shift quote is from Dovid Gottlieb's (undated) website not from Chateaubriand. Chris55 (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Borges Quote

Isn't that St Augustine originally? Leon 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned?

"In particular, Rabbi Natan Slifkin, an author whose works have been banned by those who either fear the controversial potential of their content or take offense at his perceived irreverence to classical thought"

Banned where? By whom? And did these banners literally declare "I fear the controversial potential of his work's content"? Roarshocker (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Last thursday

Why does "last thursday" link here? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read through the second paragraph of the article, you will see why. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have a citation. I thought it was vandalism but unsure. Anyway thanks for clearing that up. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you keep looking, there is a paragraph about Last Thursdayism later in the article. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be helpful to have some kind of pointer to this paragraph? Perhaps a mention at the top of the article? Perhaps the link from "Last Thursday" could be directly to this paragraph, rather than the article as a whole? Perhaps the discussion of "Last Thursday" could get its own heading? (BTW, I'd say that putting it under "Other religions" is not quite appropriate.) Or, at least, put the first use of the expression in boldface? TomS TDotO (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have hoped that Next Thursdayism would have been established as a WIki page. Not sure if it's worthwhile noting this concept in the article... --195.137.54.23 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Was looking for this concept now on Wikipedia, was disappointed to see that it results in a biased redirect like this. I agree that it should be established as its own Wiki page. 2600:1700:7F:9000:D0EE:728F:2318:DE70 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah right

What does the fact that R' Slifkin's works have been banned have to do with this article? And why do we have to know the reason ("goes against the tenents of the Talmud" -- that's misleading at best. According to Rabbi Aaron Feldman, that's not the reason R' Eliashiv banned it.).

Obviously from the article's context -- it continues in an attempt to refute this claim quoted in the name of R' Slifkin -- this is a POV issue and an attempt to make R' Slifkin look bad. --Yodamace1 (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the statement that his works have been banned may not be relevant here. If this is specifically due to the particular works cited here, and if this "ban" is notable (i.e. is Slifkin's work widely viewed as "heretical"?), then it might be worth remarking in passing that these specific views are opposed. But, otherwise, I reckon that we don't need a mention. --PLUMBAGO 10:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To say something like his views aren't in vogue in the chareidi world -- which I see an earlier version of this article did -- would be one thing, but this is bordering on slander. Some rabbis think his arguments are heretical, some were vocal supporters of him. In addition, the rabbi who's considered the "biggest" in chareidi circles banned it not because he thought it was heretical, but because he thought a community wasn't ready for it.

And his arguments are obviously more complex than that quote would indicate. R' Slifkin doesn't believe in dismissing anything from the Torah, but he does believe in allegorization and reinterpretation. --Yodamace1 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

With unlimited allegorization and reinterpretation, any statement can be proven no matter how absurd, no matter whether the statement is true or false. Phil_burnstein (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Formal systems

We've a section in the article on formal systems at the moment (chess and The Game of Life). While I found them very interesting and educational (they were welcome news to me), I don't believe that they belong here. Both describe states of formal systems that cannot have been reached from earlier states by applying the "rules" that guide these systems.

This is quite different from the omphalos argument which boils down to: "the initial state of the universe in 4004 BC (or whenever; last Thursday for instance) contains within it the appearance of having evolved from earlier states, but the Good Lord faked these". This 4004 BC state is entirely consistent with known rules (i.e. it could be reached by applying them to earlier states), but it just didn't use them to get there (i.e. it was created ex nihilo in that state). The omphalos argument tacitly accepts that the world gives the appearance of earlier states, but claims that these were necessarily put in for the universe to be "functional". The formal systems are describing something quite different: states that could not have arisen from earlier states.

Anyway, I'll leave the text in for now in case anyone wants to defend it, but I'll otherwise delete it in a few days. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree; they're interesting to note in a general sense but don't seem to have any relevance to the article. The whole point of the omphalos argument is that whether the observed states could be reached from earlier ones or not is irrelevant, because the "creator" could do whatever it wants. KarlM (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that this was irrelevant, since the point of the omphalos hypothesis is to "explain" why the world contains evidence of earlier states despite not having them (e.g. supernovae, sedimentary rocks, umbilical scars). Anyway, in the absence of any explanation for why we should retain it, I've now removed the section. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Logical issues, three questions

(1) Re "Logical issues" I would point out that the section seems to have been moved and cropped, most likely by Skomorokh, but as it stands now the text of that section is an echo of the lines directly above it. So, It should probably just get deleted. I was originally trying to point out that the quote cited was wicked-retaaaded from a logical stand point. I have been enlightened by Skomorokh that doing this directly is not done in an encyclopedia. As it stands now I believe I/we have done more harm than good. Both because there is now redundancy and, moreover, because the new "Logical issues" section implies that there is a logical problem with the topic when, in fact, there is a logical problem with the citation. Is deleting the sentence the best thing to do in such a case?

2) Also, I am lost as to why the history pages for the article do not seem to contain a record of the section having been moved. Is there something I am missing, a way to see the record of it?

3) I need to ask a question about some of the unquoted parts of one section in particular, I am pasting that section below:

"However, careful consideration shows that the false history was most certainly not complete."[12] Did Adam have memories of his non-existent childhood? Would he have mementos of his non-existent childhood? Would he have scars from the non-existent proverbial fall off of his non-existent proverbial tricycle? If one answers these questions with a smile and a quick nod of the head, why is it that Adam would possess a scar from his non-existent umbilical cord not being removed? "Since the false history must have necessarily been incomplete, it is difficult to argue that God should have created a false history at all."[13]

in the above, there are four sentences each ending with a "?". The section begins and ends with quoted sentences which are tagged with citations. But how is it that the four sentences/questions are being allowed here. They look to me like the sort of thing that I was corrected for? But much worse. FortyYrOldUniverse (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello FortyYrOldUniverse, and yes I am the culprit; I moved/cropped the section in this edit. I agree that it would be best to start again with the section until we have something we can agree on. Yes, you are right that successive questions can't really be referenced (unless directly quoted). The article does contain original research, which it is not supposed to. If we could replace the uncited material with references, that would be ideal. Thanks for you interest in improving the article! Regards, the skomorokh 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and consider that I have realized that my 3 questions were, regrettable. FortyYrOldUniverse (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

I propose this article for deletion on the grounds that it is a non-topic and unsupported by citations. I can find no evidence that anyone has proposed or defended an "Omphalos hypothesis" apart from the original author of the book, which already has its own article. Two philosophers (Chateaubriand and Russell) who were claimed to have something to do with it never expressed themselves about it - one for the good reason that he was writing 50 years before the book was published. The only reference to someone who believes anything like this is a mathematical logician (Dovid Gottlieb) and he doesn't mention it. Other creationists steer well clear. Any references to the tag seem to reflect each individual's ideas, not that of the original author, which was a quite specific idea he called prochronism.

The fact that the article has a "creationism2" tag shows that it is part of the creationists' general tendency to sow confusion about the issue. This is supported by the number of links to the article (and to Omphalos (theology)) which mostly appear to have been deleted already. The only remaining links I can find are from creationist pages. Wikipedia should not be used for this type of partisan promotion.

I'd be willing for the page to be redirected to Omphalos (book). Chris55 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Creationsits Here is a link to Al Mohler,president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, endorsing the idea in response to the recent detection of Gravity waves.

https://baptistnews.com/ministry/people/item/30924-mohler-applauds-discovery-of-gravitational-waves-but-says-it-doesn-t-prove-anything

I would the article needs a major rewrite rather than a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.220.112 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

strongly disagree This article should be kept. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

could you give some reasons please. Chris55 (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The "omphalos" concept is widely discussed (for example, SJ Gould has an essay somewhere about it), there was enough interest for the book to have been reprinted in the 20th century, and a discussion of it sheds light on some issues of epistemology. As an extreme position it has more importance than just how many people explicitly adhere to it, rather like, in their own ways, Pyrrhonian skepticism or Flat earth. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

But this article is not about the book. That has its own article at Omphalos (book) which is a much better discussion than this. This article has become a dumping ground for other deleted articles such as Last Thursdayism and Five minute hypothesis which have little more substance. Let me quote you what Russell said immediately after the quote which is here: "I am not suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable, but uninteresting." Most philosophers would agree. (Last Thursdayism is traced to a quip on Usenet.) Unlike the cases you quote, nobody appears to believe in the Omphalos hypothesis, even Gosse. Chris55 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It's the focus (if not the actual origin) of "deceptive creator" arguments. These occur frequently in creationist lit, explaining away evidence by claiming that the universe was created with the "appearance of age". KarlM (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the recent (12:31, 16 February 2016) editor who thinks that this needs a major rewrite. What suggestions are there for rewriting? TomS TDotO (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does the universe look so old?

My attention has just been called to this essay, which might have something relevant to a recent defense of the Omphalos hypothesis, "Why does the universe look so old", by Albert Mohler, at the "Biologos" website:

http://www.biologos.org/resources/albert-mohler-why-does-the-universe-look-so-old

TomS TDotO (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I haven't read the article thoroughly, there seems only one sentence that could be taken to be "omphalos-like", it starts: "The universe looks old because the creator made it whole." The poor guy is grappling with a lot of contradictions that he'd like to believe in and it seems he needed some way of rounding off his speech. But he doesn't elaborate. The website stands by "theistic evolution" so they probably can't be classified as creationists in the normal sense. Chris55 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. (Except that the website does not appear to be endorsing, but merely reporting, the talk.) TomS TDotO (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-Notable?

The material by Frank Close was deleted because it was "non-notable". Since Wikipedia's notability policy states "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article", I don't understand it's application to a passage and an inline citation within an article. Perhaps someone could explain.

I inserted the information because it seems relevant to the article, and is from a reliable source. I agree that, in its current form, it might not fit well in a featured article. But I figured that if someone decides to take the article to GA or FA, the information could be integrated with more material as a paraphrase or shorter quotes from the larger citation. That cannot be done now since the material is simply gone. In that light, its outright removal violates WP:Preserve. Besides the "non-notability" explanation, an explanation as to why the guidelines in WP:Preserve shouldn't be followed here would be welcome. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't using it in the article sense. Close may be noteworthy, but in the part you put in he's simply quoting an anonymous student who repeats an exceptionally simplistic version of omphalos, indistinguishable from Last Thursdayism. It doesn't add anything to the article. KarlM (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a fairer description is that in your opinion it doesn't add anything to the article—apparently both in this version and in a finished version, although neither of us knows now what it will look like. I'll be interested in seeing if any other editors have an opinion here. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so what, in your opinion, does it add to the article? KarlM (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's debatable at this point, but not sure it's necessary to clearly identify now how it will fit into a finished article. There are some possibilities: (1) it could be a better description of Last Thursdayism than what exists in the article ("simple" may be more digestible for the average reader), (2) it could add more context along with the current description of Last Thursdayism in the article, (3) portions of it (paraphrased or short passages) could be used in a later version of the article—perhaps in an expanded section that discusses various aspects of people's beliefs.

Wikipedia is a work in progress. It's OK for people to add passages of relevant, reliably sourced information to stub-class articles that don't immediately manifest as smooth and polished prose. No one wants articles to look like coatracks, but if someone wants to edit this article and nominate it as a GA or FA, Close's material will simply not be available for consideration/integration now. WP:Preserve offers alternatives to simply deleting material in this manner. If you haven't reviewed them before, please take a look.

Not saying I'm right. Just offering thoughts. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to experiment with drafting the article, you can use the sandbox. But it doesn't fit as its own section at the very top of the article. KarlM (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with this last statment of yours more than "it doesn't add anything to the article." WP:Preserve does make room for "moving text within an article" as an alternative to deleting.

Another alternative to deleting is to "preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change". Since we seem to be agreeing to disagree, I'll just do that myself in case someone might want to use it in the future. That should close the issue unless someone else wants to weigh in in the future. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Frank Close passage

The below is recorded in lieu of adding it to the article as of 26 June 2011. It might be used in future versions of the article.

A modern position is described by physicist Frank Close as follows:

As a student, I first met someone who fervently and seriously believed in the 6,000-year-old universe. I explained to him the idea of parallax, how when we move from side to side nearby things appear to move relative to those farther away; that the earth's annual circling of the Sun provides enough 'side to side' motion that we can see parallax in the stars, which shows them to be light years away. Even without getting into the many other temporal measures, such as the natural radioactivity of rocks that places the earth at 5 billion years, the evidence in front of our eyes, literally, reveals a universe that is far older than a mere 6,000 years. [new paragraph] He agreed, but then went on to claim what had happened 6,000 years ago was that some divine act had created a fully-fledged universe with a built-in memory: uranium in its various isotopic forms balanced so as to appear 5 billion years old; light beams created in mid-flight so as to appear to be coming from remote galaxies. From Close, Frank (2009). Nothing: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 41–42. ISBN 978-0199225866.

Citations still needed

This article is still lacking any proper evidence that creationists are actually using the Omphalos hypothesis, particularly in its extension to light millions of years old. I've just spent 10 minutes googling and all I could come up with was statements such as:

As a young Christian, the explanation I heard most often was that “God wanted us to be able to enjoy the stars, so when He created the earth and the stars, He also created the light waves in-between.” I later realized this view led to some pretty strange conclusions.(link)

This seems to be a 'pew legend' - a throwaway remark by a preacher who is not able to be questioned. There are some pretty weird creationist attempts on the web to get round the issue of light travel, but I can't find anyone who supports an Omphalos-like approach, although many mention it and immediately discard the idea.

Can someone find a direct citable instance of this -- otherwise it needs to be rephrased. Chris55 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Try looking at this Biblical Chronologist TomS TDotO (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you thinking about his idea of virtual history? I couldn't find anything about light. He certainly does manage to have his cake and eat it. Consider this:

Creation with Appearance of Age runs into a theological snag with things like fossils of fish with other smaller fish in their stomachs: "Do you mean that God chose to paint, of all things, a facade of SUFFERING and DEATH onto the creation when He gave it this arbitrary appearance of age at the time of creation?" The virtual history paradigm recognizes simply that all creation type miracles entail a virtual history, so the Fall, with its creation type miracles (by which the nature of the creation was changed --- "subjected to futility") carried with it its own (fallen) virtual history, which is the virtual history we now see. We do not see the original utopian pre-Fall creation with its (presumably utopian) virtual history.

It seems this takes another twist: the choice in the garden has created its own history. I think he's been reading too much science fiction. Chris55 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What?

A quote from person A criticizing person B, followed by a statement in Wikipedia's voice that B did not actually say what A criticizes him for ("Gosse, however, did not assert that God deceived us, only that...") sounds like WP:NOR to me. I didn't delete this because I don't want to get into a minefield and it's not really fair to take out only the example I happened to notice, but someone ought to look at this. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish views

Rabbi Slifkin's view can be counted, but it's not the only one, and it's definitely not the majority Orthodox Jewish view. Omphalos is widely accepted among Orthodox Jews, and the charge of "divine deception" is countered by citing the Orthodox Jewish doctrine that the entire material dimension is designed, for the sake of free will, in such a way that HaShem's providence is hidden from plain sight--it is Olam HaSheqer, Alma DeShiqra, the World of the Lie, in the Sages' strong terminology, although we might in gentler terms call it a world of scenery hiding the true, spiritual Divine Play going on behind. Omphalos fits right in with this view, hence its popularity among Orthodox Jewish believers. (Appearance of age; but not of history--Darwinism is widely rejected, especially by the Ultra Orthodox, mostly on account of blurring the division between mankind and beast.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.95.79 (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Not falsifiable? Then don't call it a "hypothesis."

A hypothesis is testable and falsifiable by definition. This is neither. It's speculation, epistemologically meaningless noise. Please don't call it a "hypothesis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.169 (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that "A hypothesis is testable and falsifiable by definition" incorrectly assumes only one definition for the word "hypothesis." In reality, the word has several definitions, not all of which adhere to your strict definition of the term as used in the scientific fields.

Wiktionary gives three main definitions: "(1) (sciences) Used loosely, a tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation and/or experimentation. As a scientific term of art, see the attached quotation. Compare to theory, and quotation given there. (2) (general) An assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation. (3) (grammar) The antecedent of a conditional statement."

Websters gives four main definitions: "(1) (a) an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument; (b) an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action; (2) a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences; (3) the antecedent clause of a conditional statement."

Wikipedia itself further elucidates the term: "A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. . . . A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research. A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question. The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis"." Here in the definition, and elsewhere in the article, Wikipedia differentiates between the general term "hypothesis" and the concept of a "scientific hypothesis."

The omphalos hypothesis has never been presented as a scientific hypothesis. It's "an assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation." It's "an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action." It's "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical consequences." It's always been a philosophical/theological hypothesis attempting to reconcile an incongruity between scientific facts and a specific theological position. It's just another version of the classical, skeptical "head in a vat" concept.104.6.0.13 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Apology for Gosse

I'm not going to revert the text that you deleted, because it (what you deleted) seems to me to be WP:OR. If there is a secondary source which makes this point, I would say that such a source may address your objections. I think that the Principle of charity justifies making the best reasonable case, however weak it may seem. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of the terms "pseudoscientific" and "false evidence" in the opening sentence

On May 26, 2016, the terms "pseudoscientific" and "false evidence" were added to the opening sentence to define the subject of this article. The justification given was as follows: "If it is going to be a "hypothesis", it needs to be clarified as Category:Pseudoscience."

The previous opening sentence read: "The Omphalos hypothesis is the argument that God created the world recently (in the last ten thousand years, in keeping with Flood geology), but complete with signs of great age." The new opening sentence reads: "The Omphalos hypothesis is the pseudoscientific argument that God created the universe recently (within the past ten thousand years, in keeping with Flood geology), but also introduced false evidence that the universe is of great age."

The new opening sentence has added two strong, negative, critical words that are not claimed by proponents of this belief system nor have they been applied by any third party sources which meet Wikipedia's standards. I think that this change is problematic for several reasons.

First, "pseudoscientific" is defined, by Wikipedia's own page, as "a term used to describe a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms." I can see nowhere in any of the citations where this concept is presented as scientific in nature. This is purely a philosophical and/or theological argument. In fact, the very nature of the argument itself presupposes that it exists outside of science. It is a philosophical proposition that is an attempt to harmonize a seeming incongruity between a particular theological argument and scientific evidence. This is not the same as creationists claiming a scientific fact that does not comport to the scientific method. This is not acupuncture or naturopathy or reflexology. Heck, this isn't even creationism. This is philosophy pure and simple.

Second, the term "false evidence" implies a determination of truth/falsehood which is not at issue in the philosophical theory. Opponents of the theory will argue that it creates false evidence, but such a claim is much more appropriate in the "Criticisms" section of the article, rather than the definition of the theory. Opponents to a philosophical theory do not get to define the theory itself. The theory makes no claim as to the truth or falsehood of evidence of age. Rather, it accepts the evidence of age and merely attempts to reconcile it with a competing, separate, theological position.

The use of the word "hypothesis" in the concept does not, automatically, imply a claimed reliance upon the scientific method. This is just a straight up logically fallacious. Since this was the only reason given, I can't see any other justification for this change.

The original opening sentence was a fair, even handed definition of the theory. There are plenty of criticisms of the theory, to be sure, but those criticisms should not work their way into an opening sentence.104.6.0.13 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If god emplaced evidence that makes it appear that the universe is older than it actually is, then is this not "false evidence"? No judgement is being made, but it would be "false evidence". I wouldn't know what else to call it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

To claim that signs of age are (a) evidence and (b) false presupposes a specific purpose and interpretation of those signs. It's certainly your interpretation and argument that the signs of age would constitute evidence of age and that that evidence would be false, but that's your personal interpretation of the signs of age within this theory. The omphalos hypothesis makes no such claim. It's not an attempt to explain why signs of age are present or why a god would have created the earth that way. Rather, the theory simply states that (a) there are signs of age, and (b) for a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis to be true, those signs must have been created by god. It doesn't presume that one or the other must be true and that the other is false. It doesn't approach that question. Rather, it just says that if both are true then the signs have to have been created. You state "I don't know what else to call it." Why do you have to call it anything? The original language in the article stated "signs of age," which is perfectly neutral and not lacking in any way.104.6.0.13 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the cited source calls it pseudoscience, and if the evidence is intentionally and knowingly made to give the wrong conclusions, then it is "false evidence". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources or not, this seems to fit cleanly into the field of philosophy, not pseudoscience. The use of these terms reflects a bias that isn't usual for Wikipedia. — Supuhstar * — 04:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That reasoning would be more impressive if you made it on a website that, unlike Wikipedia, values the impressions of users higher than sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Does Martin Gardner call the Omphalos hypothesis "pseudoscientific"?

Hey! Currently, the opening sentence of this article states that the Omphalos hypothesis is pseudoscientific. This is cited by an excerpt from Martin Gardner's book Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience. This excerpt, pages 7 through 14, can be read for free on Google Books (at least here in the US).

After reading through the chapter, it does not appear to me that Gardner explicity calls the Omphalos hypothesis pseudoscientifc anywhere. He does call Gosse's book "one of the strangest books ever written" and clearly believes the theory worthy of ridicule. But he also says that "Gosse's argument is, in fact, quite flawless. . . there is no logical way to refute this as a possible theory."

Because of this, I have marked the citation with the "disputed" tag. Let me know what you think. Xylospongium (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion as a chapter in the book means Gardner considers it "Pseudoscience". There is no way to prove it was created 6,000 years ago or 6 seconds ago using that logic. There is no way to test it. The value of science is in its ability to predict and that theory provides no value. StrayBolt (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I got redirected here when trying to find out what the Five minute hypothesis was. It appears that this was added in 2016 without a source, on the grounds that anything that's called a "hypothesis" (and wrong) must be pseudoscience. This is not true, and the reason why it's not true are also why it's not relevant. This isn't a story about the scientific method, or even about what would have been called natural history when the idea was published; it's a story about theology, philosophy, and (in the section that I was redirected to) the need to be skeptical about human memory. The term hypothesis in the title is used in the sense of formal logic, not in the sense of the scientific method. I therefore think that this poorly explained and basically irrelevant claim should be removed from the lead. (I'd be perfectly happy to have this whole made-up history of the universe denounced as scientific nonsense elsewhere in the article, but what exactly the scientific method has to do with this question about the nature of this allegedly deceptive creator needs explanation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I expanded (and sourced) parts of this article today, and I think that the difficulty is that we're doing a poor job of differentiating between "the logical proposition" (theoretically the subject of the article) and "the views of certain people who advocate for the religious option rather than the scientific option". The hypothesis itself is, roughly, "You can believe your religious story about the Earth being <10K years old, or you can believe scientific evidence about the Earth being >4B years old, but you can't believe both".

So I've technically got an error in the first sentence, because I sloppily described the whole idea as the belief in a particular outcome of the proposition rather than the whole thing, but I think that overall my expansion today was a net improvement, even though there's much more work to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I support removing the label "pseudoscientific" if the reference pointing to Gardner, a biased admitted ridiculist, is phony. In my opinion the intro should read "a God or omnipotent deity" or similar. It has not been proven that "God" exists, yet the intro of the article assumes just that. 5Q5 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Got any evidence backing up your claim of Martin Gardner calling himself a "ridiculist"? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue with section Red Shift Challenge

"Among the many problems with this hypothesis (including lack of any evidence and lack of reference to the phenomenon in the Bible) is that it would require that God adjusted the shift in exquisitely precise ways for each of the billions of individual galaxies" An omnipotent entity is by definition capable of anything, including this. In addition, the phrasing does not appear to be NPOV. I suggest that this be revised. 2603:9001:4706:D2:C7C:762A:AF97:D4FB (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)