Editing Creation science (section)

==Kinds of creation science==

==={{anchor|Creation biology}} Biology ===
{{main|Created kind}}
Creationist arguments in relation to biology center on an idea derived from Genesis that states that life was created by God, in a finite number of "created kinds," rather than through biological evolution from a common ancestor. Creationists contend that any observable [[speciation]] descends from these distinctly created kinds through inbreeding, deleterious mutations and other genetic mechanisms.<ref>{{cite podcast |url=http://www.goucher.edu/news-and-events/podcasts/eugenie-scott |title=Eugenie Scott: The Evolution of Creationism |website=[[Goucher College]] |date=March 13, 2006 |access-date=2014-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141018023859/http://www.goucher.edu/news-and-events/podcasts/eugenie-scott |archive-date=October 18, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Whereas evolutionary biologists and creationists share similar views of [[microevolution]], creationists reject the fact that the process of [[macroevolution]] can explain common ancestry among organisms far beyond the level of common species.<ref name="evc"/> Creationists contend that there is no empirical evidence for new plant or animal species, and deny fossil evidence has ever been found documenting the process.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Morris |first=Henry M. |author-link=Henry M. Morris |date=June 1986 |title=The Vanishing Case for Evolution |url=http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=260 |journal=Acts & Facts |volume=15 |issue=6 |issn=1094-8562 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

Popular arguments against evolution have changed since the publishing of Henry M. Morris' first book on the subject, ''Scientific Creationism'' (1974), but some consistent themes remain: that [[Transitional fossil#Missing links|missing links]] or gaps in the fossil record are proof against evolution; that the increased complexity of organisms over time through evolution is not possible due to the law of increasing [[entropy]]; that it is impossible that the mechanism of natural selection could account for common ancestry; and that evolutionary theory is untestable. The [[human evolution|origin of the human species]] is particularly hotly contested; the fossil remains of [[Hominidae|hominid]] ancestors are not considered by advocates of creation biology to be evidence for a speciation event involving ''[[Homo sapiens]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html |title=Comparison of all skulls |last=Foley |first=Jim |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> Creationists also assert that early hominids, are either apes, or humans.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html |title=CC050: Hominid transition |date=September 30, 2004 |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2013-09-01}}</ref>

[[Richard Dawkins]] has explained evolution as "a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity," and described the existing fossil record as entirely consistent with that process. Biologists emphasize that transitional gaps between recovered fossils are to be expected, that the existence of any such gaps cannot be invoked to disprove evolution, and that instead the fossil evidence that could be used to disprove the theory would be those fossils which are found and which are entirely inconsistent with what can be predicted or anticipated by the evolutionary model. One example given by Dawkins was, "If there were a single [[Hippopotamus|hippo]] or [[Precambrian rabbit|rabbit in the Precambrian]], that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Wallis |first=Claudia |date=August 7, 2005 |title=The Evolution Wars |url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-1,00.html |journal=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |volume=166 |issue=7 |pages=26–30, 32, 34–5 |pmid=16116981 |access-date=2013-09-01}}</ref>

===Geology===
====Flood geology====
{{main|Flood geology}}
Flood geology is a concept based on the belief that most of Earth's geological record was formed by the [[Flood myth|Great Flood]] described in the story of [[Noah's Ark]]. Fossils and [[fossil fuel]]s are believed to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while [[submarine canyon]]s are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents at the end of the flood. [[Sedimentation|Sedimentary]] [[Stratum|strata]] are also claimed to have been predominantly laid down during or after Noah's flood<ref name="HoweEtAl1999">{{cite journal |last1=Howe |first1=George F. |last2=Froede | first2=Carl R. Jr. |date=June 1999 |title=The Haymond Formation Boulder Beds, Marathon Basin, West Texas: Theories On Origins And Catastrophism |url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_1/haymond.html |journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly |volume=36 |issue=1 |issn=0092-9166 |access-date=2008-06-13 |archive-date=2008-07-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080725063512/http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_1/haymond.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> and [[orogeny]].<ref name="Snelling2008">{{cite journal |last=Snelling |first=Andrew A. |year=2008 |title=Catastrophic Granite Formation: Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusion and Cooling |url=https://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/Catastrophic-Granite-Formation.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150420033837/https://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/Catastrophic-Granite-Formation.pdf |archive-date=2015-04-20 |url-status=live |journal=Answers Research Journal |volume=1 |pages=11–25 |issn=1937-9056 |access-date=2008-06-13 }}</ref> Flood geology is a variant of catastrophism and is contrasted with geological science in that it rejects standard geological principles such as uniformitarianism and radiometric dating. For example, the [[Creation Research Society]] argues that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reed |first1=John K. |last2=Woodmorappe |first2=John |date=June 2002 |title=Surface and Subsurface Errors in Anti-Creationist Geology |url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm |journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly |volume=39 |issue=1 |issn=0092-9166 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130128125415/http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm |archive-date=2013-01-28 |access-date=2013-09-01 }}</ref>

Geologists conclude that no evidence for such a flood is observed in the preserved rock layers<ref name="Montgomery2012"/> and moreover that such a flood is physically impossible, given the current layout of land masses. For instance, since [[Mount Everest]] currently is approximately 8.8 kilometres in elevation and the Earth's surface area is 510,065,600&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup>, the volume of water required to cover Mount Everest to a depth of 15 [[cubits]] (6.8 m), as indicated by Genesis 7:20, would be 4.6 billion cubic kilometres. Measurements of the amount of precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere have yielded results indicating that condensing all water vapor in a column of atmosphere would produce liquid water with a depth ranging between zero and approximately 70mm, depending on the date and the location of the column.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nwcsaf.org/HTMLContributions/TPW/Prod_TPW.htm |title=Total Precipitable Water |website=Nowcasting Satellite Application Facility |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110905114509/https://www.nwcsaf.org/HTMLContributions/TPW/Prod_TPW.htm |archive-date=2011-09-05 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> Nevertheless, there continue to be adherents to the belief in flood geology, and in recent years new creationist models have been introduced such as [[catastrophic plate tectonics]] and [[Orogeny#History of the concept|catastrophic orogeny]].<ref name="HoweEtAl1999" /><ref name="Froede1995">{{cite journal |last=Froede | first=Carl R. Jr. |date=March 1995 |title=Stone Mountain Georgia: A Creation Geologist's Perspective |url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4b.html |journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly |volume=31 |issue=4 |page=214 |issn=0092-9166 |access-date=2014-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110403204942/http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4b.html |archive-date=2011-04-03 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

====Radiometric dating====
Creationists point to flawed [[RATE project|experiments]] they have performed, which they claim demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of [[Radioactive decay|nuclear decay]] took place over a short period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying [[nuclear physics]] generally, and [[radiometric dating]] in particular.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Humphreys |first=D. Russell |author-link=Russell Humphreys |date=October 2002 |title=Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World |url=http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-352.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706194518/http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-352.pdf |archive-date=2008-07-06 |url-status=live |journal=Impact |issue=352 |pages=i–iv |isbn=9780914513407 |oclc=175308381 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

The scientific community points to numerous flaws in the creationists' experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental [[geochronology]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html |title=Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion 'Dates': Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data |last=Henke |first=Kevin R. |author-link=Kevin Henke |date=June 20, 2010 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-09-18}} Original version: March 17, 2005; Revisions: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006 and June 20, 2010.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm |title=R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research |last=Meert |first=Joseph G. |date=February 6, 2003 |website=Gondwana Research |publisher=Joseph Meert |location=Gainesville, FL |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> They have also been criticised for widely publicising the results of their research as successful despite their own admission of insurmountable problems with their hypothesis.<ref name=isaac>{{cite journal|last1=Isaac|first1=Randy|title=Assessing the RATE project|journal=Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith|date=June 2007|volume=59|issue=2|pages=143–146|url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007070845/http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf |archive-date=2008-10-07 |url-status=live|access-date=3 October 2015}}</ref>

The constancy of the decay rates of [[isotope]]s is well supported in science. Evidence for this constancy includes the correspondences of date estimates taken from different radioactive isotopes as well as correspondences with non-radiometric dating techniques such as [[dendrochronology]], ice core dating, and historical records. Although scientists have noted slight increases in the decay rate for isotopes subject to extreme pressures, those differences were too small to significantly impact date estimates. The constancy of the decay rates is also governed by first principles in [[quantum mechanics]], wherein any deviation in the rate would require a change in the fundamental constants. According to these principles, a change in the fundamental constants could not influence different elements uniformly, and a comparison between each of the elements' resulting unique chronological timescales would then give inconsistent time estimates.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html |title=CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates |date=June 4, 2003 |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

In refutation of young Earth claims of inconstant decay rates affecting the reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specializing in isotope dating states:
{{blockquote|There are only three quite technical instances where a [[half-life]] changes, and these do not affect the dating methods:<ref name="Wiens_2002">{{cite web |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html |title=Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective |last=Wiens |first=Roger C. |year=2002 |orig-year=First edition 1994 |publisher=[[American Scientific Affiliation]] |location=Ipswich, MA |access-date=2014-08-27 }} Dating methods discussed were [[K–Ar dating|potassium–argon dating]], [[argon–argon dating]], [[rubidium–strontium dating]], [[samarium–neodymium dating]], lutetium–hafnium, [[rhenium–osmium dating]], and [[uranium–lead dating]].</ref>}}
#"Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. ... The artificially-produced isotope, [[Isotopes of beryllium|beryllium-7]] has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment. ... Heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent."
# "... Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. 'Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. ... All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees."
#"The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by [[atomic clock]]s in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates."{{sfn|Wiens|2002|pp=[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2020 20–21]|ps=}}

====Radiohaloes====
{{see also|Radiohalo}}

In the 1970s, young Earth creationist [[Robert V. Gentry]] proposed that radiohaloes in certain granites represented evidence for the Earth being created instantaneously rather than gradually. This idea has been criticized by physicists and geologists on many grounds including that the rocks Gentry studied were not primordial and that the radionuclides in question need not have been in the rocks initially.

Thomas A. Baillieul, a geologist and retired senior environmental scientist with the [[United States Department of Energy]], disputed Gentry's claims in an article entitled, "'Polonium Haloes' Refuted: A Review of 'Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological and Cosmological Perspective' by Robert V. Gentry."<ref name="Polonium Haloes">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html |title='Polonium Haloes' Refuted: A Review of 'Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological and Cosmological Perspective' by Robert V. Gentry |last=Baillieul |first=Thomas A. |date=April 22, 2005 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> Baillieul noted that Gentry was a physicist with no background in geology and given the absence of this background, Gentry had misrepresented the geological context from which the specimens were collected. Additionally, he noted that Gentry relied on research from the beginning of the 20th century, long before radioisotopes were thoroughly understood; that his assumption that a [[polonium]] isotope caused the rings was speculative; and that Gentry falsely argued that the half-life of radioactive elements varies with time. Gentry claimed that Baillieul could not publish his criticisms in a reputable scientific journal,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/creation-halos-stand-unrefuted.htm |title=It Stands Unrefuted |last=Gentry |first=Bob |author-link=Robert V. Gentry |publisher=Earth Science Associates |location=Knoxville, TN |access-date=2013-09-01}}</ref> although some of Baillieul's criticisms rested on work previously published in reputable scientific journals.<ref name="Polonium Haloes"/>

===Astronomy and cosmology===
====Creationist cosmologies====

Several attempts have been made by creationists to construct a cosmology consistent with a young Universe rather than the standard cosmological [[age of the universe]], based on the belief that Genesis describes the creation of the Universe as well as the Earth. The primary challenge for young-universe cosmologies is that the accepted distances in the Universe require millions or billions of years for [[speed of light|light to travel]] to Earth (the "starlight problem"). An older creationist idea, proposed by creationist astronomer Barry Setterfield, is that the speed of light has decayed in the [[Chronology of the universe|history of the Universe]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html |title=The Decay of ''c''-decay |last=Day |first=Robert |year=1997 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> More recently, creationist physicist Russell Humphreys has proposed a hypothesis called "white hole cosmology", asserting that the Universe expanded out of a [[white hole]] less than 10,000 years ago; claiming that the age of the universe is illusory and results from [[general relativity|relativistic]] effects.{{sfn|Humphreys|1994|ps=}} Humphreys' cosmology is advocated by creationist organisations such as [[Answers in Genesis]]; however because its predictions conflict with current observations, it is not accepted by the scientific community.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html |title=CE412: Fast old light |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |date=February 6, 2006 |access-date=2012-07-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#humphreys |title=Evidence for the Big Bang |last1=Feuerbacher |first1=Björn |last2=Scranton |first2=Ryan |date=January 25, 2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

====Planetology====
{{see also|Planetary science}}{{Unreliable sources section|date=June 2024}}
Various claims are made by creationists concerning alleged evidence that the age of the [[Solar System]] is of the order of thousands of years, in contrast to the scientifically accepted age of 4.6 billion years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=6150 |format=PDF |title=IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution |author=IAP Member Academies |date=June 21, 2006 |website=[[InterAcademy Panel|IAP]] |publisher=[[TWAS|The World Academy of Sciences]] |location=Trieste, Italy |access-date=2014-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929023534/http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=6150 |archive-date=September 29, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> It is commonly argued that the number of [[comet]]s in the Solar System is much higher than would be expected given its supposed age. Young Earth Creationists reject the existence of the [[Kuiper belt]] and [[Oort cloud]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Faulkner |first=Danny |date=December 1997 |title=Comets and the age of the solar system |url=http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system |journal=Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=264–273 |issn=1036-2916 |access-date=2010-03-31 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Sarfati |first=Jonathan |date=June 2003 |title=Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth? |url=http://creation.com/cometsportents-of-doom-or-indicators-of-youth |journal=Creation |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=36–40 |access-date=2010-03-31}}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=September 2020}} They also argue that the [[Lunar distance#Tidal dissipation|recession of the Moon from the Earth]] is incompatible with either the Moon or the Earth being billions of years old.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sarfati |first=Jonathan |date=September 1998 |title=The Moon: The light that rules the night |url=http://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night |journal=Creation |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=36–39 |access-date=2010-03-31}}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=September 2020}} These claims have been refuted by planetologists.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html |title=CE110: Moon Receding |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |date=September 7, 2004 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html |title=CE261: Old Comets |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |date=September 30, 2000 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

In response to increasing evidence suggesting that [[Mars]] once possessed a wetter climate, some creationists have proposed that the global flood affected not only the Earth but also Mars and other planets. People who support this claim include creationist astronomer Wayne Spencer and Russell Humphreys.<ref>{{cite web |title=Water on Mars: A Creationist Response |url=http://creation.com/water-on-mars-a-creationist-response |last=Humphreys |first=D. Russell |date=August 1997 |website=Creation.com |publisher=Creation Ministries International |access-date=2007-02-14}}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=September 2020}}

An ongoing problem for creationists is the presence of [[impact crater]]s on nearly all Solar System objects, which is consistent with scientific explanations of solar system origins but creates insuperable problems for young Earth claims.<ref name="HovindsProofs">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof4 |title=How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? |last=Matson |first=Dave E. |year=1994 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2008-08-11}}</ref> Creationists Harold Slusher and Richard Mandock, along with Glenn Morton (who later repudiated this claim<ref>{{cite web |url=http://home.entouch.net/dmd/publi.htm  |title=Publications by Glenn R. Morton |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222001133/http://home.entouch.net/dmd/publi.htm |archive-date=2012-02-22 |access-date=2009-08-02 |quote=Comment: I no longer support the ideas in that book. The arguments are typical young-earth arguments which I have totally rejected as being totally fallacious.}}</ref>) asserted that impact craters on the Moon are subject to rock flow,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kumagai |first1=Naoichi |last2=Sasajima |first2=Sadao |last3=Ito |first3=Hidebumi |date=February 15, 1978 |title=Long-term Creep of Rocks: Results with Large Specimens Obtained in about 20 Years and Those with Small Specimens in about 3 Years |url=https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsms1963/27/293/27_293_155/_pdf |format=PDF |journal=Journal of the Society of Materials Science (Japan) <!-- |location=Kyoto |publisher=The Society of Materials Science, Japan --> |volume=27 |issue=293 |pages=155–161 |doi=10.2472/jsms.27.155 |issn=0514-5163 |access-date=2008-06-16 |doi-access=free }}</ref> and so cannot be more than a few thousand years old.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Morton |first1=Glenn R. |last2=Slusher |first2=Harold S. |last3=Mandock |first3=Richard E. |date=September 1983 |title=The Age of Lunar Craters |journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=105–108 |issn=0092-9166 }}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=September 2020}} While some creationist astronomers assert that different phases of meteoritic bombardment of the Solar System occurred during "creation week" and during the subsequent Great Flood, others regard this as unsupported by the evidence and call for further research.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Faulkner |first=Danny |date=April 1999 |title=A biblically-based cratering theory |url=http://creation.com/a-biblically-based-cratering-theory |journal=Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=100–104 |issn=1036-2916 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Spencer |first=Wayne R. |date=April 2000 |title=Response to Faulkner's 'biblically-based cratering theory' |url=http://creation.com/response-to-faulkners-biblically-based-cratering-theory |journal=Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=46–49 |issn=1036-2916 }}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=September 2020}}