Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Erasmus Darwin

2012-02-08T03:42:47Z

AsherL: Please conserve the colons

[[Conservative|User:Conservative]], I've seen that you reverted my deletion of a section that I considered to be irrelevant. Do you believe we should add this kind of information on other articles (For example for the overweight [[Newt Gingrich]] ?)--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:38, 2 February 2012 (EST)
:No answer for this simple question ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:22, 5 February 2012 (EST)
::Philip, Erasmus was a proponent of biological evolution and a physician. It has some relevance - especially in light of Hippocrates' sensible advice. As far as you wanting to add material to the Newt Gingrich article, I will leave that to your best judgment. I may be mistaken, but I think the last overweight president America had was William Howard Taft (also known as "Big Bill"). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:45, 5 February 2012 (EST)
:::User:C, have you posted ''your'' height/weight stats in support of this contention of yours?[[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 23:25, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::AsherL, you don't even know if I/we are one person or many. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Ah, then User:C, this begs the question as to whether ''you'' know the answer to that poser. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 22:37, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Erasmus Darwin

2012-02-08T03:37:57Z

AsherL: No one will hold their breath for an answer

[[Conservative|User:Conservative]], I've seen that you reverted my deletion of a section that I considered to be irrelevant. Do you believe we should add this kind of information on other articles (For example for the overweight [[Newt Gingrich]] ?)--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:38, 2 February 2012 (EST)
:No answer for this simple question ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:22, 5 February 2012 (EST)
::Philip, Erasmus was a proponent of biological evolution and a physician. It has some relevance - especially in light of Hippocrates' sensible advice. As far as you wanting to add material to the Newt Gingrich article, I will leave that to your best judgment. I may be mistaken, but I think the last overweight president America had was William Howard Taft (also known as "Big Bill"). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:45, 5 February 2012 (EST)
:::User:C, have you posted ''your'' height/weight stats in support of this contention of yours?[[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 23:25, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::::AsherL, you don't even know if I/we are one person or many. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Ah, then User:C, this begs the question as to whether ''you'' know the answer to that poser. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 22:37, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Erasmus Darwin

2012-02-07T04:25:57Z

AsherL: As holy as you are you ought to be dropping over any day now.

Talk:Worst College Majors

2012-01-13T07:33:53Z

AsherL: /* One list for Worst (liberal) Majors and one for Worst Majors for job prospects? */ fix

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Garbage in, garbage out. The "murdering psychopath" (your phrase) was indeed an English Lit. major. The failure to see the problem in the killer's work and the reaction of his English Lit. professors afterward struck me as very bizarre.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: But exactly, how could one have "seen the problem in the killer's work" beforehand? Were there dissertations and projects in which he displayed strange ideas and behavior? And what exactly was the reaction of his English Literature professors afterward? Sorry if I keep asking but I am not very familiar with the details. Anyway, had he been studying Engineering or Information Technology I don't think it would have changed much :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 18:38, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Marco, the better approach is to gather the facts first, with an open mind, and only afterward draw the conclusion. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

:::::: As discussed here in detail at the time, the killer's work did display "strange ideas and behavior," but English Lit. professors continued to pass him and accept his work. Other details are readily available here. But if you're going to insist that ideas and majors cannot have any effect on behavior, then it won't matter to you what the facts are. Please reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: A person's major clearly affects them and the choices they will make later in life. The Virginia tech shooter chose English lit. and used it to write down his perverse fantasies. Even if someone majoring in English lit. doesn't become a murderer they are wasting money by studying something that won't give them skills valuable in the [[Free market]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm sorry, I guess I'm a bit "partisan" in the debate because I have a Master's Degree in English and French literature, and I consider myself completely normal, and everyone else I met (and I met many people) also seemed to be a perfectly normal and healthy human being! But I guess that to an already troubled mind, studies of literature or philosophy may provide a "spark" of madness more easily than other studies. After all, literature often touches on the dark side of the human soul. I guess it could count as a factor... but I think that a mind would already need to be troubled beforehand :) Just my two cents! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 19:46, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Andy Schlafly, I joined this site with the hope of improving the (frankly dismal) articles related to English literature, from a conservative, Christian point-of-view. Considering the lack of such material here, I thought this would be appreciated. However, if such awful generalizations will be made about my major after the actions of a VT student with serious problems in his mind, faith, and family, my only conclusion can be that I was wrong, and you have very negative pre-conceived tendencies against English literature. My edits would therefore have gone unappreciated, and I am disappointed. Enjoy the few embarrassingly incomplete literature articles you do have, and enjoy, of course, your open-mindedness. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:56, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Ckirk, your [[Parthian shot]] illustrates my point well. You criticize me personally while also trying to insult this site, and then announce your grand exit after a mere handful of edits. Of course, I did not criticize "English literature"; rather, the criticism is of the major of English Lit. as it is taught today. May I suggest you consider ranting elsewhere now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: "At best, last wordism is childish. At worst, it reflects a lack of restraint or bullying, a characteristic of wrongdoing or sin." - from the Conservapedia article on [[last wordism]]. If you think I left, why direct a comment at me other than to obtain the "last word" here? I only say this because I think you could learn a lot if you adopted conservative principles. You seem to have more in common with radical liberals than with true conservatives. Somehow I think you know that to be true. Now please block me. I've wasted enough of my time here. And don't forget to add the last word. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 23:28, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you have no one to blame but yourself if you choose to rant rather than produce. Please find a different scapegoat. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Do these majors even exist? ==

First, I’d like to concur with others’ opinion that claims that these majors “leave the student with relatively few job opportunities” should be properly documented, or withdrawn. But some of these alleged “worst college majors” don’t seem to even exist. There are several easily located websites with comprehensive lists of available college majors, and none of them contains Comic Book Art, Parapsychology, Surfing Studies or Gambling/Gaming. As for the list of courses, yes, most of them seem silly, but they don’t fit the stated category of “fields of study.” [[User:GregF|GregF]] 23:41, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:Women's studies is a major having many tens of thousands of students nationwide. Gambling/gaming is a big major in Nevada, and perhaps some other states that now also have expansive gambling. I don't doubt that your other three examples exist too, at least at some schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

::I said nothing about Women's Studies, which I am aware is a common course of study at American universities. You "don't doubt" that the others exist but fail to provide any reason for this lack of doubt. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::One reason I don't doubt it is because they are too absurd and useless for someone to make up with a straight face!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:: GregF, did you even bothered looking before posting this complain? A quick google search show that the four degrees you mentioned in the message actually exist:
::Comic Book Art: Called "Sequencial Art", offered by [http://www.scad.edu/sequential-art/index.cfm Savannah College of Art and Design].
::Parapsychology: Offered by [http://wwwm.coventry.ac.uk/ptshortcpd/pgpt/Pages/pgpt.aspx?itemID=151 Coventry University].
::Surfing Studies: Called "Surf Science and Technilogy", offered by [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/course.asp?id=1645 The University of Plymouth]
::Gambling/Gaming, offered by the [http://www.umac.mo/iscg/courses/gmdiphome.html University Of Macau]. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, I did look. I didn't find them; you did. Thanks. My point was that they should be documented. Now perhaps they should be listed by their correct names. Sequential Art is much broader than "Comic Book Art" and appears to be a type of Fine Arts degree and no less valid than one in Sculpture or Photography. And the "Gambling" degree is actually in Casino Management, which, given the importance of that industry in Macao, could be quite practical there. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:24, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Film==

I noticed that 'Film' has been reinstated, with the comment that the business is shrinking and jobs are scarce. I am one of those not-as-rare-as-you'd-think people - a Christian in the film business in 'Hollywood' (there are a surprising amount of us), and I'd love to see where you're getting your facts from. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects between 10-30% growth in movie business employment between 2008-2018, for example[http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm]. The production companies I work for as a freelancer are ''all'' staffed almost entirely by film school grads (dating from 2011 students back to grads from the 60s), are growing and hiring like crazy, and they are desperately searching for more film school grads. There are graduates from all over the world working in this business, and I personally know film school grads from ''at least'' ten different film schools in the US who are busily at work here in Los Angeles - schools like Tisch, SCAD, Arts Centre, UCLA, USC, Vasser, Colorado Film School, etc - there's countless programs nowadays. In a business where experience is everything, film school grads are eminently hirable, and I think the suggestion that it is one of the "Worst College Majors" is utterly incorrect. If you can back up your claim with some figures, I'd be interested, but for now it seems you may be pre-judging these kids, based on the fact that they want to work in what is often a not particularly Christian business. But rest assured, there are plenty of art department, post-production, gaffers, DP's, runner and producers who are people of Faith, and we welcome more into our fold every day. Try not to pre-judge what is a highly employable field. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 13:33, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:The California government gives special benefits to the film industry there to prop it up and keep it going. The industry is generally declining. In other places I don't think most students who major in film have a realistic chance of getting a good job, and the benefits to the industry are likely to be cut. See, e.g., "Michigan spent $137.5 million in incentives to generate $80.6 million in film industry revenue" [http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/02/michigans_film_industry_to_fade_away_alo.html]. If a student knows someone in the industry who can get him or her a job, then that may work for a while. But if not, it looks pretty hopeless. I knew one college film major who struggled to find a summer job opportunity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

== One list for Worst (liberal) Majors and one for Worst Majors for job prospects? ==

The current list is a mixture of two negative qualities: liberalism (e.g. women's studies) and poor job-outlook (video game design). A major like video game design or architecture don't intrinsically embody liberal philosophies, but the job outlook for graduates with these majors is poor these days, while a major like evolutionary biology has liberal connotations but the job-outlook for these graduates is not bod (though not great, but certainly better than a film major, etc.). Some majors, like women's studies, fall into both camps. '''So should there be two lists: one for extremely liberal majors and one for majors that offer poor job prospects?'''

:Conciseness is favored here. If the major is at least partially a waste of time, then it belongs on the (one) list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

::Then how is ranking supposed to work for this list? At present, it's difficult to organize the list when it incorporates both liberal biased majors and non-liberal, useless majors. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 02:11, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

:::It's obviously good to take down bs-y and preachy topics like "gender theory" and less obvious ones like comparative religion which is tinted with disbelief and lack of respect for religion. But should people turn away from majors like architecture and astronomy just because they're not as easily profitable? People with true ability and work ethic can go far in these fields and I would recommend any talented conservatives pursue those options. I would be proud to see more successful architects and astronomers with strong conservative values. {{unsigned|KingHanksley}}

==Video game design should be removed==

I find video game design to be a somewhat confusing entry. The video games industry is now larger than the film industry and a typical graduate with some experience can expect to enter a well paid job with good security. I'm involved in computer science research and I interact regularly with video games companies and the students themselves. Generally companies are interested in recruiting our graduates.

It's by no means a wasted degree, it's a good practical skill for a booming industry.

Furthermore, the source given for this leads nowhere, it's just an arbitrary statement. It means nothing. The claim that it's a bad major is unfounded and irrelevant.[[User:SecularConservative|SecularConserative]]
:Hi, I'm someone who has a degree in Video Game design and can't find a job because I don't live in California or Montrial. The places that hire video game designers are very limited and otherwise, someone will have to start their own business with no promise of a paycheck. That is why it is a poor choice of a diploma unless you are REALLY good at it or live in a prime location for the job. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
::Thanks for the reply MHarris. I think that is a common factor across many industries, not just video games. Many of my colleagues have either a background in physics or computer science, which are very highly regarded fields of eduction. However, many of them have specialities and have had to travel to work. I admit though, my University has strong ties with video games companies and we are quite near one the major UK hubs of the video game industry.

==Interior Design==

Is interior design necessarily a bad major or is it just because the housing market is so bad? Do you really want to live in a box?
[[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 09:35, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

==Worst College Majors==

I read [http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2011/11/07/10-worst-college-majors-for-employment/ this article on Marketwatch today] and was interested in the topic, so I googled around a bit and found your article. You might want to add some of this info. [[User:EdRichstein|EdRichstein]] 14:45, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2011-11-25T22:44:01Z

AsherL: /* Just my answers, for fun! */ Ibid

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.

2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no

3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.

4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?

5. I was 11 months old.

6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?

7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.

8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.

9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.

10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!

11. It is possible, yes.

12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.

13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.

14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

::I find it very odd to use the phrase "undeniably true" in the context of trying to develop an open-mindedness test. I should like to discuss how this relates to the following question:
::"1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"
::Sure, I have a certain amount of latent resistance to that statement, having received a fairly liberal education, with which I am quite satisfied. However I could not categorically say that a conservative approach would not have been better. Personally I think that a mixed approach, with some of the good elements of both educational styles would probably be better than either in isolation. So by the standards of this test I get a closed-minded point for my answer. At the same time, a strongly conservative person who dogmatically believes that the superiority of a conservative education is an “undeniable truth” will get a point towards the open mindedness score. This seems like a totally unbalanced way of testing open mindedness.
::It feels that like the same theme runs through most of the questions, questions which basically exempt strong conservatives from any danger of having to answer “yes”.
::I think the idea of a test like this is an interesting one, but in my opinion it has a long way to go.
::Having said all that, I just had a look around at some other "open-mindedness" tests and I must admit that the ones with a liberal slant are just as biased, but that doesn't make it ok.--[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 10:58, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::I just find it amusing that this is supposed to be an "open mindedness test," but the creator of the test is nowhere near open minded as evidenced by his statement that the statements following the phrase "resist admitting" are "undeniably true." An open mindedness test is not effective when made but someone who is not open minded.

==Gay marriage and the Olympic Games==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd question. --[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 11:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Am I wrong, or could socialism actually help a country on the Olympics? Without people shopping their own labor in the free market, you could track promising athletes and force them into training to win Olympic events, instead of letting them go professional to pursue their own careers, or even chose the amateur events they personally love. China had great success in the most recent Olympics doing just that, to the detriment of their people but to the ill-gotten glory of their country. But I would never trade America's freedom for a little Olympic success. I'm glad the American athletes representing our country in the Olympics made the free choice to do so(3/20 "yes" answers by the way)[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

You are absolutely right King, though the practice may be morally wrong. I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with the Olympics, many other countries don't have the same attitude about gay marriage as the U.S. does.

== Berlin Wall question ==
I think there should be an alternative question for those who weren't born yet, or weren't old enough to have any what it was/to care about it. Maybe add an alternative that addresses the same idea, but is more relevant to today? Such as 'Do you think it is impossible that Cuba will become a democracy?' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

: How about adding it as an alternative question on the same line, without erasing the original? The advantages of the original question is that it is historical, not speculative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::That is what I meant, wasn't as clear as it could've been, but that is what I meant. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Objectivity ==
Wouldn't it be better to ask more objective questions ? For example by replacing
* Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
by
* Do you think that evolution '''or''' creation must have occurred? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]]

: The first question is meaningful, because if someone thinks that evolution '''''must''''' have occurred then he is closed-minded to what the evidence may show to the contrary. That question does address the degree of openmindedness. The second question doesn't seem to disclose any information: lots of closedminded and openminded people would answer "yes", and the question does not distinguish between the two mindsets.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Even if there is strong evidence to support [[Creation]], you can never be 100% sure and I believe it is a sign of open-mindedness to acknowledge the fact that there may be another answer, unlikely as this may be. --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:::I see your point, but the revised question does not differentiate between those who are closedminded in their belief in evolution, and those who are openminded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Then what about this: If there was an absolute proof that either [[evolution]] or [[creation]] is true, would you change your mind ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:42, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would suggest altering that to say "Is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of evolution, and is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of creation?" (With 1 yes and 1 no counting as yes for the essay)That way people can't go 'sure, I'd believe evolution if there was absolute proof. But it isn't so there can't be absolute proof' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 19:09, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Equivalent? ==
Many of the questions in the test can be rewritten in a reversed form. I am interested to hear people’s views on whether they believe these opposite questions could be substituted for the current ones without affecting the validity of the test. If you feel that these reversed questions would affect validity, then how can they be valid in their current form either? If you don't think it would affect validity, then why not make the test a mixture of conservative and liberal slanted questions?

Two examples
: 1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
:12. Do you think that evolution ''must not'' have occurred?

== Answers from a liberal Atheist ==
1. It depends on your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." But generally, any approach to education can be effective at some things and ineffective at others. So no. This question is a bit oddly phrased, though, as the words "resist admitting" assume that the following proposition is true and if someone believes the opposite, they are wrong.
 

2. Of course not. That would be stupid and annoying.
 

3. If something I accepted for over a decade was proven to be false, yes, I would drop it. Same as the first question.
 

4. That depends on what you mean by "Hollywood Values." However, generally, any value system can prove to be harmful. Yes, even the one pushed by this site. In real life, everything is not black and white. That is only in movies. And books.
 

5. Of course not. It could very well be the case. That is an objective fact, and therefore I can not have an opinion on it.
 

6. I am a bit to young for this question to understand what it is referring to, but obviously a wall can be torn down with applied force and lots of heavy machinery.
 

7. Again, to young to know what that is.
 

8. Nothing is impossible. It also depends on what you mean by "authentic." If you mean the claim that the shroud comes from the time it is claimed to have come from, than possibly. if you mean some sort of religious thing, than no, probably not. Nothing is impossible, but many things are improbable.
 

9. This is an odd question. It is also an objective fact, and I can not have an opinion on it. I am also not knowledgeable enough to answer it.
 

10. Not at all. Again objective fact, and again I'm not knowledgeable enough.
 

11. Not necessarily. But I'm not a fan of these types of tests. I don't actually believe the IQ test measures "intelligence" because that word can be used to indicate many things, not just how much information you've crammed into your brain.
 

12. "Evolution" must have occurred, yes, because it is occurring all the time. We've even made it occur. The evidence is to staggering not to believe it happened and continues to happen. You mean the "common descent" theory, however, and the beginning of life is an objective fact. I can not have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the "common descent" part.
 

13. I honestly have no idea what that is, and I'm definitely not knowledgeable enough for it.
 

14. Of course there are things taught in school that are completely false, but the teachers may not know that. I, myself, was taught in elementary school the George Washington story, about him cutting down the cherry tree. I went to a religious school also, so I was taught many myths from the Bible and I was taught that all of the evidence for evolution was fabricated in a big conspiracy. The teachers honestly believed these things. Thus, I do think that there are things taught in schools that are completely false, but I don't think the teachers know that, because they believe everything they teach.
 
15. That, of course, depends on what theories you are talking about. It also depends on what you mean by the "progress" of science. Is science trying to reach some goal? I was under the impression that science exists for the exploration of the world and how it works.
 

16. Socialism and same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics. So this question makes no sense.
 

17. Just because someone is an "expert" does not mean they know everything about their topic. It just means that they know a lot more about their topic than the average person. So, of course, "experts" do not have all the answers. However, I would be inclined to go to one if I had a question about their particular field of study, because they would be more knowledgeable about their topic than I would. As for the "best of the public" idea, the idea is extremely vague. However, yes, of course, there are people who are knowledgeable about things that are not experts. Just because someone hasn't gone to school or doesn't have a degree, it doesn't make them not smart. However, I would trust an "expert" more than I would trust some random guy on the street because I assume they know more about their topic than any random person.
 

18. This question is vague and depends largely on what is meant by "read the Bible." It also depends on the definition of reading something. If you think that reading requires you to have read the entire text than no. If you think that reading something requires you to have read any part of the text than yes. However, there really isn't a reason to read the Bible "regularly," any more than there is a reason to read the Koran regularly or the Odyssey regularly.
 

19. This is an objective fact, so I can't have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer it.

So according to Conservapedia, this liberal atheist is open-minded. However, I would like to say that some of the questions are asked in such a way that they assume their proposition to be automatically true and every other proposition to be false. This is the case with phrases like: "Do you resist admitting" or "Do you deny." {{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:Your conclusion about Conservapedia does not follow. Some of your answers, even when they are a correct "no", are diluted by qualifications to such an extent that they would not receive full credit. Moreover, there is nothing defective about wording like "Do you resist admitting the possibility that ..." (question 1).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::The qualifications are needed because many of these questions are to vague for a yes or no answer. My answers are quite simply skeptical. I answer with a skeptical and logical mindset. The words "Do you resist admitting" imply that the following statement is absolutely true. Infact, you admitted as much further up. By saying that a proposition is absolutely true, you are not being open-minded. Open-mindedness requires that you might possibly be wrong. That is even a large part of this questionnaire. By having questions that are not open-minded, the open-mindedness test becomes invalid.{{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:::Your first 5 out of the 19 questions would get full credit, but after that many of the answers would not. Your answers to 9 and 12, for example, would not get credit. Your answer to question 14 would not receive credit because of its statement that teachers in school "believe everything they teach." Surely some school teachers sometimes teach things they do not believe, such as aspects of evolution (only about 10% of the public believe it as taught in school).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== The Questions Slanted Liberally ==
Just for fun:
 
1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
 
2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
 
3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
 
4. Do you resist the possibility that conservative values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
 
5. Do you think it is impossible that decreased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
 
6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was possible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
 
7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is possible?
 
8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is inauthentic?
 
9. Do you think that there must be a purely religious-based explanation (such as creationism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
 
10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have stayed the same in the past?
 
11. Do you think that it is possible to measure openmindedness?
 
12. Do you think that evolution must not have occurred?
 
13. Do you think that is possible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
 
14. Do you believe that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
 
15. Do you believe that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
 
16. Do you believe that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
 
17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may have the answers, and that the best of the public may not have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
 
18. Do you think that people should read the Bible regularly?
 
19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are not guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
 
Same qualifications as the conservative biased version. What is your score?

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2011-11-25T22:41:55Z

AsherL: /* Just my answers, for fun! */ Format

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

::I find it very odd to use the phrase "undeniably true" in the context of trying to develop an open-mindedness test. I should like to discuss how this relates to the following question:
::"1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"
::Sure, I have a certain amount of latent resistance to that statement, having received a fairly liberal education, with which I am quite satisfied. However I could not categorically say that a conservative approach would not have been better. Personally I think that a mixed approach, with some of the good elements of both educational styles would probably be better than either in isolation. So by the standards of this test I get a closed-minded point for my answer. At the same time, a strongly conservative person who dogmatically believes that the superiority of a conservative education is an “undeniable truth” will get a point towards the open mindedness score. This seems like a totally unbalanced way of testing open mindedness.
::It feels that like the same theme runs through most of the questions, questions which basically exempt strong conservatives from any danger of having to answer “yes”.
::I think the idea of a test like this is an interesting one, but in my opinion it has a long way to go.
::Having said all that, I just had a look around at some other "open-mindedness" tests and I must admit that the ones with a liberal slant are just as biased, but that doesn't make it ok.--[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 10:58, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::I just find it amusing that this is supposed to be an "open mindedness test," but the creator of the test is nowhere near open minded as evidenced by his statement that the statements following the phrase "resist admitting" are "undeniably true." An open mindedness test is not effective when made but someone who is not open minded.

==Gay marriage and the Olympic Games==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd question. --[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 11:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Am I wrong, or could socialism actually help a country on the Olympics? Without people shopping their own labor in the free market, you could track promising athletes and force them into training to win Olympic events, instead of letting them go professional to pursue their own careers, or even chose the amateur events they personally love. China had great success in the most recent Olympics doing just that, to the detriment of their people but to the ill-gotten glory of their country. But I would never trade America's freedom for a little Olympic success. I'm glad the American athletes representing our country in the Olympics made the free choice to do so(3/20 "yes" answers by the way)[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

You are absolutely right King, though the practice may be morally wrong. I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with the Olympics, many other countries don't have the same attitude about gay marriage as the U.S. does.

== Berlin Wall question ==
I think there should be an alternative question for those who weren't born yet, or weren't old enough to have any what it was/to care about it. Maybe add an alternative that addresses the same idea, but is more relevant to today? Such as 'Do you think it is impossible that Cuba will become a democracy?' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

: How about adding it as an alternative question on the same line, without erasing the original? The advantages of the original question is that it is historical, not speculative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::That is what I meant, wasn't as clear as it could've been, but that is what I meant. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Objectivity ==
Wouldn't it be better to ask more objective questions ? For example by replacing
* Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
by
* Do you think that evolution '''or''' creation must have occurred? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]]

: The first question is meaningful, because if someone thinks that evolution '''''must''''' have occurred then he is closed-minded to what the evidence may show to the contrary. That question does address the degree of openmindedness. The second question doesn't seem to disclose any information: lots of closedminded and openminded people would answer "yes", and the question does not distinguish between the two mindsets.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Even if there is strong evidence to support [[Creation]], you can never be 100% sure and I believe it is a sign of open-mindedness to acknowledge the fact that there may be another answer, unlikely as this may be. --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:::I see your point, but the revised question does not differentiate between those who are closedminded in their belief in evolution, and those who are openminded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Then what about this: If there was an absolute proof that either [[evolution]] or [[creation]] is true, would you change your mind ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:42, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would suggest altering that to say "Is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of evolution, and is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of creation?" (With 1 yes and 1 no counting as yes for the essay)That way people can't go 'sure, I'd believe evolution if there was absolute proof. But it isn't so there can't be absolute proof' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 19:09, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Equivalent? ==
Many of the questions in the test can be rewritten in a reversed form. I am interested to hear people’s views on whether they believe these opposite questions could be substituted for the current ones without affecting the validity of the test. If you feel that these reversed questions would affect validity, then how can they be valid in their current form either? If you don't think it would affect validity, then why not make the test a mixture of conservative and liberal slanted questions?

Two examples
: 1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
:12. Do you think that evolution ''must not'' have occurred?

== Answers from a liberal Atheist ==
1. It depends on your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." But generally, any approach to education can be effective at some things and ineffective at others. So no. This question is a bit oddly phrased, though, as the words "resist admitting" assume that the following proposition is true and if someone believes the opposite, they are wrong.
 

2. Of course not. That would be stupid and annoying.
 

3. If something I accepted for over a decade was proven to be false, yes, I would drop it. Same as the first question.
 

4. That depends on what you mean by "Hollywood Values." However, generally, any value system can prove to be harmful. Yes, even the one pushed by this site. In real life, everything is not black and white. That is only in movies. And books.
 

5. Of course not. It could very well be the case. That is an objective fact, and therefore I can not have an opinion on it.
 

6. I am a bit to young for this question to understand what it is referring to, but obviously a wall can be torn down with applied force and lots of heavy machinery.
 

7. Again, to young to know what that is.
 

8. Nothing is impossible. It also depends on what you mean by "authentic." If you mean the claim that the shroud comes from the time it is claimed to have come from, than possibly. if you mean some sort of religious thing, than no, probably not. Nothing is impossible, but many things are improbable.
 

9. This is an odd question. It is also an objective fact, and I can not have an opinion on it. I am also not knowledgeable enough to answer it.
 

10. Not at all. Again objective fact, and again I'm not knowledgeable enough.
 

11. Not necessarily. But I'm not a fan of these types of tests. I don't actually believe the IQ test measures "intelligence" because that word can be used to indicate many things, not just how much information you've crammed into your brain.
 

12. "Evolution" must have occurred, yes, because it is occurring all the time. We've even made it occur. The evidence is to staggering not to believe it happened and continues to happen. You mean the "common descent" theory, however, and the beginning of life is an objective fact. I can not have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the "common descent" part.
 

13. I honestly have no idea what that is, and I'm definitely not knowledgeable enough for it.
 

14. Of course there are things taught in school that are completely false, but the teachers may not know that. I, myself, was taught in elementary school the George Washington story, about him cutting down the cherry tree. I went to a religious school also, so I was taught many myths from the Bible and I was taught that all of the evidence for evolution was fabricated in a big conspiracy. The teachers honestly believed these things. Thus, I do think that there are things taught in schools that are completely false, but I don't think the teachers know that, because they believe everything they teach.
 
15. That, of course, depends on what theories you are talking about. It also depends on what you mean by the "progress" of science. Is science trying to reach some goal? I was under the impression that science exists for the exploration of the world and how it works.
 

16. Socialism and same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics. So this question makes no sense.
 

17. Just because someone is an "expert" does not mean they know everything about their topic. It just means that they know a lot more about their topic than the average person. So, of course, "experts" do not have all the answers. However, I would be inclined to go to one if I had a question about their particular field of study, because they would be more knowledgeable about their topic than I would. As for the "best of the public" idea, the idea is extremely vague. However, yes, of course, there are people who are knowledgeable about things that are not experts. Just because someone hasn't gone to school or doesn't have a degree, it doesn't make them not smart. However, I would trust an "expert" more than I would trust some random guy on the street because I assume they know more about their topic than any random person.
 

18. This question is vague and depends largely on what is meant by "read the Bible." It also depends on the definition of reading something. If you think that reading requires you to have read the entire text than no. If you think that reading something requires you to have read any part of the text than yes. However, there really isn't a reason to read the Bible "regularly," any more than there is a reason to read the Koran regularly or the Odyssey regularly.
 

19. This is an objective fact, so I can't have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer it.

So according to Conservapedia, this liberal atheist is open-minded. However, I would like to say that some of the questions are asked in such a way that they assume their proposition to be automatically true and every other proposition to be false. This is the case with phrases like: "Do you resist admitting" or "Do you deny." {{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:Your conclusion about Conservapedia does not follow. Some of your answers, even when they are a correct "no", are diluted by qualifications to such an extent that they would not receive full credit. Moreover, there is nothing defective about wording like "Do you resist admitting the possibility that ..." (question 1).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::The qualifications are needed because many of these questions are to vague for a yes or no answer. My answers are quite simply skeptical. I answer with a skeptical and logical mindset. The words "Do you resist admitting" imply that the following statement is absolutely true. Infact, you admitted as much further up. By saying that a proposition is absolutely true, you are not being open-minded. Open-mindedness requires that you might possibly be wrong. That is even a large part of this questionnaire. By having questions that are not open-minded, the open-mindedness test becomes invalid.{{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:::Your first 5 out of the 19 questions would get full credit, but after that many of the answers would not. Your answers to 9 and 12, for example, would not get credit. Your answer to question 14 would not receive credit because of its statement that teachers in school "believe everything they teach." Surely some school teachers sometimes teach things they do not believe, such as aspects of evolution (only about 10% of the public believe it as taught in school).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== The Questions Slanted Liberally ==
Just for fun:
 
1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
 
2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
 
3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
 
4. Do you resist the possibility that conservative values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
 
5. Do you think it is impossible that decreased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
 
6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was possible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
 
7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is possible?
 
8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is inauthentic?
 
9. Do you think that there must be a purely religious-based explanation (such as creationism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
 
10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have stayed the same in the past?
 
11. Do you think that it is possible to measure openmindedness?
 
12. Do you think that evolution must not have occurred?
 
13. Do you think that is possible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
 
14. Do you believe that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
 
15. Do you believe that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
 
16. Do you believe that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
 
17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may have the answers, and that the best of the public may not have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
 
18. Do you think that people should read the Bible regularly?
 
19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are not guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
 
Same qualifications as the conservative biased version. What is your score?

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-10-18T12:51:50Z

AsherL: /* Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article */ Format

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Altruism ==

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Devil's Advocate ==

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.

Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.

Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.

Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.

I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):

:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.

:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:

::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.

::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.

::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.

::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.

::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.

::: As to the specific points:

::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.

::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.

::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.

::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

:Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== HIV and Evolution ==

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

==Rate of extinction==
"The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human. 
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity). 
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.

::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Declining human fertility ==

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fossils ==

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trichinella spiralis ==

According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Deletions will be restored ==

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)

::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation. If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so. But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and '''Character Evolution'''", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

== Wait...what? ==

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:

'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''

'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

:The [[theory of evolution]] is based exclusively on materialism. Those observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation. If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample ==

Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Kidney donor ==

I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a '''''deceased''''' donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need ''either'' kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.

Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.

Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.

A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.

I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this: Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed. It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article ==

I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.

I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.

===With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page===

"Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.

"1. The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." - '''There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.'''

"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - '''This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.'''

"3. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]" - '''First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.
'''

"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - '''Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.'''

"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -'''This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.'''

Pat Robertson

2011-10-03T21:02:45Z

AsherL: he's 81

'''Pat Robertson''' (b. 1930)<ref>http://www.patrobertson.com/education/</ref> is a [[conservative]] [[American]] [[evangelist]], [[spiritual]] leader and [[politics|political]] leader, also owner and presenter of the [[TV]] show ''[[The 700 Club]]''. Robertson sought the 1988 [[Republican]] Presidential nomination and even managed to carry [[Washington]] State in the primary caucuses by mobilizing his supporters. He also ran in 1992 and helped in the initial formation of the [[Christian Coalition]]. Robertson attacks anti-Christian bias in America and around the world and sticks up for Christian liberties.

Robertson graduated from Washington and Lee University in 1950, served in the [[Marine]]s during the [[Korean War]], then earned a law degree from [[Yale]] (1955) and a masters degree from the New York Theological Seminary (1959).<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/patrobertson.html</ref>

In November, 2007, Robertson endorsed [[liberal]] Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani for President. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308997,00.html Fox News - Robertson endorses Giuliani]</ref>

In in 2008, Robertson appeared with [[Al Sharpton]] in a commercial urging people to fight [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmpsUMdTH8 The commercial on YouTube]</ref>

== Quotes ==

Robertson has a long history of being a prolific speaker appearing as the main host on the daily TV program The 700 Club. Over those years quite a collection of quotes have been assorted by critics, among them:

* "Just like what [[Nazi Germany]] did to the Jews, so [[liberal]] America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the [[liberal-based media]], and the [[homosexual]]s who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and [[discrimination]] and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." <ref>Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.</ref>

* "The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref>

* "How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, [[communist]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[Occult|New Age]] worshipers of Satan, [[secular humanist]]s, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, [[adulterer]]s, and homosexuals are on top?" <ref>Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227</ref>

* "You say you're supposed to be nice to the [[Episcopalian]]s and the [[Presbyterian]]s and the [[Methodist]]s and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense! I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the [[Antichrist]]. I can love the people who hold false opinions, but I don't have to be nice to them." <ref>Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 14, 1991.</ref>

* "Many of those people involved with [[Adolf Hitler]] were [[Satanist]]s, many of them were [[homosexuals]]."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993</ref>

* To Zambian President [[Frederick Chiluba]], who in 1991 declared [[Zambia]] "A Christian Nation:" "Your country is a a standard for not only Africa but the rest of the world...Wouldn't you love to have someone like that as president of the United States of America?...The term 'Christian nation' seems to scare a lot of people in this nation of ours, but what Chiluba said is that it gives us a yardstick to measure the performance of the government. Otherwise, we have no yardstick." (As President of Zambia, Chiluba saw to it that public schools and state-run radio and television would conform to standards of Christian principles. Among his concerns was abolishing pornography; he called upon Christian ministers and missionaries to help him in this cause.)

* "I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992</ref> (In regard to [[South Africa]])

* "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people may not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French –you know, Napoleon III or whatever –and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, “We will serve you if you get us free from the French.” True story.<ref> Napoleon III was not yet born, and [[Napoleon]] was not yet in power.</ref> And so the Devil said, “Okay, it’s a deal.” … But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other … "<ref>http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-cursed-after-pact-devil</ref> (In regard to the 2010 Haiti Earthquake)

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Robertson, Pat}}

[[category:Clergy]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Christian Media]]

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T23:40:32Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */ clarity

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just ''happens'' (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T23:39:43Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that ''happens'' one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation. No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T23:38:59Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */ Last post

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that ''happens" one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation. No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T23:26:26Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */ Sounds suspiciously like a veiled threat

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T23:22:22Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */ Don't actually know

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T23:21:35Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */ But we don't KNOW nor should we

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Miss Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T23:10:29Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Miss Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T23:09:37Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */ I'm glad I wasn't born in Thailand!

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Miss Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle.
But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T22:38:27Z

AsherL: /* The "not-so-fun" part */ I don't know

Nicknames for the President of the United States

2011-08-20T22:57:52Z

AsherL:

[[File:Chester arthur.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[Chester Arthur]], 21st President of the United States, and called "Walrus" by children who were fascinated by his whiskers]]
[[File:Ulysses grant.jpg|right|150px|thumb|He was born Hyram Ulysses Grant, but a misspelling of his name at West Point gave him the name [[Ulysses S. Grant]]; his "government-issued" initials would cause his new friends at the academy to call him "Sam".]]
[[File:Theodore roosevelt.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] lived in the Badlands of [[North Dakota]] when a cattleman made the mistake of calling him "four eyes"; the physically-powerful Roosevelt would immediately teach him not to do it again.]]
[[File:Reagan graduation.jpg|right|150px|thumb|A few years after he graduated from Eureka College, [[Ronald Reagan]] would land a role in the film ''Knute Rockne All American''; his portrayal of George Gipp earned him the monicker "Gipper"]]
Nicknames for Presidents of the United States have been bestowed on these men since [[George Washington]]. Some are childhood nicknames - such as "Dutch" for [[Ronald Reagan]] - while others are political or military names given prior to reaching the presidency. Others are rather disparaging, and meant to insult the person in some degree by critics and detractors.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Name
!Nickname
|-
|[[George Washington]]
|The Father of His Country; American Cincinnatus
|-
|[[John Adams]]
|Atlas of Independence; The Duke of Braintree; His Rotundity <ref>http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/artifact/Sculpture_22_00001.htm</ref>
|-
|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
|Sage of Monticello; Mad Tom; The Apostle of Democracy
|-
|[[James Madison]]
|Sage of Montpelier
|-
|[[James Monroe]]
|The Era of Good Feelings President
|-
|[[John Quincy Adams]]
|Old Man Eloquent
|-
|[[Andrew Jackson]]
|Old Hickory; King Andrew; The Hero of New Orleans
|-
|[[Martin Van Buren]]
|Old Kinderhook; The American Talleyrand; The Careful Dutchman
|-
|[[William Henry Harrison]]
|Tippecanoe
|-
|[[John Tyler]]
|His Accidency
|-
|[[James Knox Polk]]
|Young Hickory; Napoleon of the Stump
|-
|[[Zachary Taylor]]
|Old Rough and Ready
|-
|[[Millard Filmore]]
|The American Louis Philippe
|-
|[[Franklin Pierce]]
|Handsome Frank; Young Hickory of the Granite Hills
|-
|[[James Buchanan]]
|The Bachelor President; Old Buck; Ten-Cent Jimmy
|-
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|The Rail-Splitter; The Great Emancipator; Honest Abe
|-
|[[Andrew Johnson]]
|The Tennessee Tailor
|-
|[[Ulysses S. Grant]]
|Unconditional Surrender Grant; Hero of Appomattox; Sam
|-
|[[Rutherford B. Hayes]]
|Granny Hayes; His Fraudulency; Old 8 to 7
|-
|[[James A. Garfield]]
|Boatman Jim
|-
|[[Chester A. Arthur]]
|Prince Arthur; Gentleman Boss; Walrus
|-
|[[Grover Cleveland]]
|The Beast of Buffalo; His Obstinacy
|-
|[[Benjamin Harrison]]
|Kid Gloves Harrison; The Human Iceberg
|-
|[[William McKinley]]
|Idol of Ohio; The Major
|-
|[[Theodore Roosevelt]]
|The Rough Rider; Trust Buster; The Lion; Old Four Eyes; Teddy; TR
|-
|[[William Taft]]
|Big Chief; Old Bill
|-
|[[Woodrow Wilson]]
|The Schoolmaster
|-
|[[Warren G. Harding]]
|Wobbly Warren
|-
|[[Calvin Coolidge]]
|Silent Cal; Sphinx of the Potomac
|-
|[[Herbert Hoover]]
|The Chief; The Great Engineer
|-
|[[Franklin Roosevelt]]
|The New Dealer; FDR
|-
|[[Harry S. Truman]]
|Give 'Em Hell Harry; the haberdasher
|-
|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|Ike
|-
|[[John F. Kennedy]]
|Jack; JFK; King of Camelot
|-
|[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|LBJ; Landslide Lyndon; Uncle Cornpone
|-
|[[Richard Nixon]]
|Tricky Dick; Gloomy Gus
|-
|[[Gerald R. Ford]]
|Jerry
|-
|[[Jimmy Carter|James E. Carter]]
|Jimmy; President Malaise
|-
|[[Ronald Reagan]]
|The Gipper; The Great Communicator; Dutch
|-
|[[George H. W. Bush]]
|Bush 41; Papa Bush; Poppy; Bush the Elder
|-
|[[Bill Clinton]]
|Slick Willie; Bubba; The First Black President; Comeback Kid
|-
|[[George W. Bush]]
|Dubya; Bush 43; Bush II
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|The First Anti-American President; The Affirmative Action President; TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States); The Great Jobs Killer; Mr. Transparency; Obummer; No-Drama Obama; The Food Stamp President; Zero; President Downgrade.
|-
|}
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-17T23:19:49Z

AsherL: /* Artistic beauty argument */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-17T17:06:02Z

AsherL: /* Artistic beauty argument */ No death before the fall canard

Talk:Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather

2011-07-22T18:02:05Z

AsherL: Timing

== I think it might be worthwhile... ==

...to discuss the role that psychotherapy often plays in moral relativism, in that it denies the existence of "evil." The therapist is supposed to be non-judgmental, and thus, the person undergoing therapy has a guilt-free confessor without the prospect of penance. Just think of the well-publicized cases of "mob therapists."

You might also wish to include a section focusing on the misdiagnosis and overmedication of children, and the manner in which psychotherapists enable parents who wish to convince themselves that their child's behavior issues are not due to lax discipline on their part, but rather a "medical condition" that can be easily fixed with a pill. Such "quick fix" snake oil salesmanship is doubtless a contributing factor to the decline in the overall quality of education in this country.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:03, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:It sound like you want me to go into the ADHD issue and other pediatric issues and that is something I am not inclined to do. For example, I don't pretend to know much about the various ways divorce and single parenting effects kids other than missing Dad's often contributing to discipline problems within the single parent households.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::Well, I admit that it's a big, complex undertaking. I was thinking more of focusing on the ways in general in which psychotherapy makes excuses for personal shortcomings, rather than helping people actually acknowledge their flaws, acknowledge their inability to overcome those flaws, and seek help from the One who CAN help them overcome those flaws. I think it's significant to note that one of the most successful therapy programs in the country--AA--is explicitly predicated on the idea of acknowledging personal powerlessness and placing trust in God. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:09, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't know if it is the most successful, but it is well known. I believe their success rate is about 3-5% which doesn't sound that spectacular. I also am not fond of their "Higher power" which is rather impersonal being a mere "power". "Higher being" would be more appropriate. And God would be even more precise. My guess is that many people who are alcoholics have a rebellious/opposition personality type and so they watered it down to "Higher power".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:43, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::It's unfortunate, true...but I suspect that if you looked at the numbers, AA will have a higher success rate than any purely secular psychotherapy-based group. It would be interesting to have a three-tier comparison: purely secular psychotherapy, groups like AA which make limited use of the principles you've described here, and Christian counseling programs. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:50, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I didn't know relying on psychotherapy was so unBiblical. After reading this "essay" I'm convinced my autistic daughter needs better help so she doesn't scream and thrash in public when people get too close to her, touch her, or make eye contact while speaking to her. Would you recommend a protestant minister over our family priest? Maybe my wife hasn't been doing a good enough job as a layman after 8 years of homeschooling and should try harder. I look forward to your sage insights. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:08, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I have a family member who has benefited from AA: the key there (apparently) is the non-judgmentalism. This allows the person to stop judging themselves, thus bottling up and hiding their sins...no healing (nor, indeed, forgiveness) can occur unless and until ''all things'' are out in the "open", (fifth step), only then can healing begin.
::::::It is a process not an event and if it occurs through a group setting or one-on-one counseling, who cares...there is a time when it is better to ''listen'' without finger pointing and telling the person that they are sinners; they know that already and are shamed by it. Take away the shame and then they are able to actually deal with their core issues. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 14:02, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather

2011-07-22T17:53:39Z

AsherL: Easy on the colons please.

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-06-20T23:37:59Z

AsherL: /* Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia */ formatting, really next time you C&P from w'pedia try not to mess it up

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

Let's be fair on this one, you can't Carbon date water because water is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, not Carbon. You can Carbon date the contents of the water that contain Carbon-14, but there's no point to that because all you get is the date of the contents and not the date of the water. I could test the water and get a 100 year old piece of plant mater and get 100 years, or I could test the water and get 5000 year old plant matter and get a date of 5000 years. It's a poor claim to say this method has any bearing on the date of the Earth, no-one who understands the process would make that claim

Furthermore, Carbon dating could never be used to date anything older than say 25,000 years because the half life of Carbon-14 is so short. Even when you do Carbon date something you can never use it to tell the age of the Earth because you would hit a brick wall at that point due to majority of Carbon-14 having decayed into Carbon-12. Other radiometric dating methods are used for telling the age of the Earth because their "clocks" extend further back. I strongly suggest that this point should be removed because it is far too weak, people knowledgeable on this topic would just not take this page seriously.--[[User:SecularConservative|SecularConservative]]

I removed carbon dating of ground water argument for the rather straightforward fact that C14 does not have a sufficiently long enough half-life to measure its decay over billions of years, thus it cannot be used to test the old Earth hypotheses, merely confirm that Earth is '''at least''' several thousand years old, that is if the groundwater has sufficiently high enough concentration of carbon to measure radioactive decay products. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:15, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

::::In regards to the SAT, I think a number of points warrant sharing: Firstly, the idea that the dropping of SAT scores would be indicative of dropping human intelligence is predicated on the idea that the SAT is actually an accurate measure of human intelligence. It is not. In fact, the College Board who administers the test has admitted it: Where the SAT used to stand for Scholastic Aptitude Test, that acronym was removed when the College Board was forced by numerous studies to admit that the test is not a measure of scholastic anything. The test measures precisely how good students are at taking tests, nothing more. An increasing amount of research agrees with this fact. I can provide additional citations if you wish, but this information is readily available.
::::Furthermore, if the SAT were an accurate measure of intelligence and scores were dropping, a number of baseless assumptions would still be being made: Namely, that the people taking the SAT are the same in make-up and number every year. This is not the case. Unfortunately, despite the increasing information that the SAT is a useless examination, more and more students every year are taking it. What that means, however, is that if test scores are indeed going down, we cannot assume that it is indicative of dropping intelligence because every year the makeup of the students is changing. I'll put it more simply: It used to be that only the best students took the SAT, because only the best students went to college and only the best students went to colleges that required high SAT scores for applications. As the national attitude towards secondary education becomes that EVERYBODY needs to go to college, more states have begun requiring SAT testing for students. Thus, not just the best students are taking the SAT - but everyone is, including less intelligent students that otherwise would not take the test. So of course test scores are going to drop. If you were a teacher, and could select the top three students in your class to take a test, and have those test scores reflect your entire class, wouldn't you do that? Of course. Because those students would do well (hopefully), and make your class look intelligent. If, however, your entire class - including the struggling students - had to take the test, the score would not compare well with the test score of the three students. Yes? It's the same thing here.
::::And lastly, you should be aware that the SAT is not the same test every year. It is consistently made more or less difficult in the name of 'raising standards.' That is, when scores get too high, test-makers don't assume that people are getting more intelligent, they assume that the test was too easy, and make it harder. Thus, you see a test today that is far more difficult than it was even a decade ago. Again, for all of this citations are easily found online, but I can provide if that is desired. I would suggest removing the statement about declining human intelligence, as it is not backed up by the evidence presented, and CERTAINLY not backed up by the SAT statement. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 13:39, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Point 1 (your claim that the SAT measures only test-taking skills, and nothing more) is rejected by the vast majority of colleges and scholars and even the NCAA -- as well as common sense. Scores on the test clearly have some correlation with "aptitude", which was the historical purpose of the exam. [[Political correctness]] in changing the name of the test does not change the truth. Individual SAT scores may mean less than averages over many students.

::::: Point II (bigger numbers of people are taking the SAT, which lowers its average) would only be valid if backed up by data, and I doubt there has been any increase in takers of the SAT big enough to account for the decline in scores.

::::: Point III: The writers of the SAT are not making it more difficult. If anything, they are making it easier.

::::: The most plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is the also the most straightforward: people are getting dumber.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Actually, Aschlafly, the majority of colleges and scholars (I don't know about the NCAA) are beginning to realize the inefficiency of standardized testing as a measure of scholastic achievement, and most colleges today are placing less and less emphasis on test scores in regards to admission. Many colleges - off of my head I can name Bates, Bowdoin, Connecticut, and Mount Holyoke - no longer require any standardized testing scores at all. And while those certainly aren't Ivy Leagues, they're not community colleges either.
::Furthermore, year after year the College Board's own statistics depict a virtually linear correlation between things like SAT scores and family income or race. In fact, more than half of the difference in SAT scores can be explained purely on the basis of parents' level of education.
::And consider this: Since 1984, College Board studies of the SAT have shown that only about 12 to 16 percent of the variance in freshman grades could be predicted by SAT scores, which suggests that even in regards to something as subjective as grades, the SAT is a worthless measuring tool. In the 1980s a review in the American Education Research Journal concluded that test scores from high school and college accounted for less than 3 percent of variance in job performance and income, and that such scores had absolutely no predictive power whatsoever over who eventually earned more Ph.D.s or M.D.'s.
::I cannot find the article at this moment, but in a 1996 issue of the Harvard Educational Review, it was reported that participation rates accounted for an incredible 85% of variance in test scores from state to state. Eighty-five percent. That's incredibly significant. So in regards to Point II, yes, a massive amount of score variance can be accounted for by differences in the test taking body.
::Finally, let's look at the idea of standardized testing in general. In a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, students were classified as "actively" engaged in learning if they asked questions of themselves while they read and tried to connect what they were doing to past learning; and they were classified as "superficially" engaged if they just copied down answers, guessed a lot, and skipped hard sections. It turns out that high test scores - including scores on the SAT - were more likely to be found by students who exhibited the superficial approach, rather than the engaged approach.
::Let's face the facts: Standardized testing has never been an effective measure of intelligence. One's ability to spit back facts and answer scholastically useless questions within a time limit is not a measure of intelligence. So to claim that test scores dropping (a fact which hasn't actually been backed up by citations yet) is a measure of a dropping human intelligence is just ridiculous. That would be like saying the Earth is getting warmer by measuring the temperature on the moon. (Something I swear some scientists actually try to do, but whatever). It's not an accurate measuring system. It never has been. I suggest again the removal of the SAT point. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 15:39, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Some studies to back up my earlier claims: Regarding test scores and their predictive power over grades: Ford, Susan F. & Campos, Sandy. Summary of Validity Data from the Admissions Testing Program Validity Study Service. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1977.
::::That study showed that, at best, the SAT showed an 8-15% accuracy in predicting freshman GPA. In other words, for an average 88% of applicants, random chance would do an equal or better job predicting their freshman grades than their SAT scores would.
:::•Astin, Alexander W. "Racial Considerations in Admissions." The Campus and the Racial Crisis. Eds. David C. Nichols & Olive Mills. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1970: 113-141.
•Astin, Alexander W. Predicting Academic Performance in College. New York: Free Press, 1971.
::::Those two studies found that using SAT scores to predict successful graduation resulted in a less than 5% accuracy for both men and women. The SAT cannot, therefore, determine who is going to graduate college, completing an education that would, by golly, make them generally regarded as "intelligent."
:::"Selecting College Material." New York Times 4 April 1976: E7
::::Statistics on test scores and college success, however, can never reveal what might have been. In a rare practical experiment Williams College admitted 358 students, ten percent of each year's new admissions, over a ten year period who would otherwise have been rejected by the school's normal test score and grade requirements. The identities of the "ten percenters" were kept secret from faculty and students. They were subjected to the same academic requirements as other students and received no special aid. In 1976 the results were announced — 71% of the "ten percenters" graduated, compared with the school average of 85%. In one graduating class, the class president, president of the college council, and the president of the honor society were all "ten percenters"
::::Just to back up my claims.[[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 15:52, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::You do a good job of criticizing the SAT, I'm not claiming it to be a perfect measure of aptitude. But it is an approximation and 95% of colleges agree. The most straightforward and plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is declining intelligence. No other explanation is as plausible ... at least not to an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Wait. What? An open mind is closed to '''all''' possibilities as to ''why'' SAT scores have dropped over the last few years, except for the option of people becoming less intelligent? Shouldn't we check whether the SAT's as they existed in the 1970's and as they existed in 2005 (say) to make sure the tests aren't just ''harder''? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:48, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
::OK, so it seems like we could expect any matter that is billions of years old to be in a completely random, disordered state by now. Maybe this counterexample doesn't need to refer specifically to underground well water. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 16:25, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::The example of water is particularly striking. If I see a bucket full of water in a desert, then I can infer it has not been there more than a day or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

''1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.''

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

''2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.''

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

''3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]''

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

''4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]''

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

''5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

''1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].''

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

''2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.''

See above.

''3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.''

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

''4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.''

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

''5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.''

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

''6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.''

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

''7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]''

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

''8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].''

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Here's an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

''9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.''

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

''10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.''

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

''11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.''

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

''12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago!''

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

''13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

''1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.''

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

''2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]''

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.''

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

''4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

''5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''6. The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

There are fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

''7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.''

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.''

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Inferences about a lack of equilibrium (i.e., lack of very long term stability) can be drawn from the drying of a major river like the Colorado River.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Even if it were 'unstable' in the 'long-term' (both highly ambiguous and undefined terms I might add), a lack of stability is not equal to non-existence. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 10:14, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Similar inferences are drawn in other contexts without objection. For example, if there are puddles of water on the ground in the morning, then it is reasonably inferred that it rained the night before, not every night for the last seven days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::I agree with the analogy. Saying that the earth is young because one river dries up is a lot like saying you believe that it rained because you saw one puddle. Do you also infer that new rivers imply that the earth is young? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 21:29, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
When it next rains one might reasonably expect that a puddle will form in the same place and will once again dry up afterwards. How then can we possibly draw any conclusions about the age of the earth from looking at just one wet-dry cycle? We can't. Looking at one cycle doesn't tell us how many cycles there have been. The decreasing discharge of the river has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of the age of the earth. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:16, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Fundamental misunderstanding of dog breeding ==

The article stated under the Biology section: "The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today." The statement asserts that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing, suggesting that if we extrapolate backward in time, an old-Earth would be overrun with pure breed dogs. Dogs, however, were domesticated only a few thousand years ago by man from more docile wolves, and even then only a few pure breed dogs existed for centuries. Only in the 19th century did the number of dog breads exploded in the western world as designer dogs because a status symbol amongst the newly emerging middle class and new uses for dogs were discovered. The argument directly states that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing due to crossbreeding - while the genetic purity of older dog breeds is slowly being diluted, new designer dog breeds are always being developed (as tradition stretching back over a century).unsigned by User:Mike127

== Diminishing intelligence, etc. ==

The first argument under Biology reads: "The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[24] music, personal letters,[25] quality of political debates,[26] the quality of news articles,[27] and many other measures." While this statement may work well for arguing that the world is nearing its end, it certainly doesn't support or refute old Earth or young Earth theories.unsigned by User:Mike127

: Sure it does. The observed slope of the intelligence curve over time is sharply negative. Extrapolate backwards and before long the IQs are astoundingly high. But there's no evidence of astoundingly high IQs for man, so the conclusion is clear: time does not extend much backwards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:52, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:: But if the slope is so steep, then Earth couldn't be even 6,000 years old. If the decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon, then extrapolation would produce erroneous results. This website [[http://tamlin.info/graphs_aclu_page.htm]] plots SAT scores starting from the 1960s, and if one were to extrapolate backwards using these scores, then we would have to assume all people from the 18th century and before, if SATs had existed then, would have gotten perfect scores. If the website is correct that the removal of prayer from schools caused this decrease in SAT scores, and before God was removed everything was fine, then that means this meter of human intelligence is flawed: it is subject to outside sources of variability. I cannot find a graph that plots IQ scores for a population over any long length of time, but the point would be the same, extrapolation of intelligence in a dubious means of gauging the age of Earth, the extrapolation is inappropriate either because human intelligence levels fluctuate over time (i.e. the user's perceived decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon) or because if extrapolation was appropriate, we would expect people just a few hundred years ago to all be geniuses, and this was not the case. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 13:32, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Adam and Eve were a lot smarter (before the fall) than IQ tests could possibly measure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:34, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::I am unaware of any part of Genesis that states that Adam and Eve were '''astronomically''' smarter than humans today. The point I was making above, to restate, is that if human intelligence could drop so quickly in the 20th century, and extrapolation backwards is justified, then humans just a few hundred years ago or less, perhaps just a hundred years ago depending on what data you look at, must have been extraordinary geniuses, and that is simply not factual by any historical standards. Thus, I fail to see your point: the bible does not corroborate your statement and even if it did, it would still suggest that human intelligence is declining by a nonlinear function, thus linear extrapolation, as the article implies, is not justified.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I feel it necessary to point out that if the extrapolation of human intelligence backwards in time is not a justifiable proof of young Earth, this does not mean that this is in some way a proof of old Earth theories. The concept is simply flawed and cannot delineate one theory from another, thus it should not be included on this list.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Mike, this is simple logic. Extrapolation backward more than a half-dozen or so thousands of years is simply inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, this is simple math. My point is that extrapolation backward even 6000 years would also be inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years. We would be forced to conclude that the Earth isn't even 6000 years old but far far younger if the slope of this decline is consistent. If the slope is not consistent (meaning the acceleration of the decline of in intelligence is variable), then any extrapolation is not appropriate and will lead to erroneous results, like the earth being only 1000 years old for instance. If the argument is to be kept in the article, then an accommodating graph should be presented or linked as a reference, showing key markers of intelligence in recent decades and how the proposed extrapolation would yield an age for the Earth that is 6,000 years rather than something far younger than this.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:04, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, I am a great fan of this website and your counterexamples are normally very sound, but I have to disagree with you on this one. You are assuming that the rate of decline in human intelligence is constant, whereas it changes over time, according to the interplay of many complex factors.
::Using the same type of logic, and keeping in mind that average height has increased by one inch since 1960, I could argue that the Earth could not possibly be more than 3000 years old, because before then, people would have had a negative height. And that is assuming that before the birth of Christ, they were less than 2 feet and a half tall on average. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 22:17, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Neither objection above withstands scrutiny. The counterexample does not "prove too much," because 800 SAT scores in the past would not be inconsistent with the high quality works and reading abilities of common people centuries ago. Nor are increases in height analogous, because that is obviously affected by diet, sleep, medicine and other advances in society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Andy, if neither of the above arguments are enough to convince you of the central flaw of this line of reasoning, then may I ask that you or another contributor supply this article with a graph illustrating how this backward extrapolation gives an age of 6000 years using actual quantifiable means of measuring human intelligence (i.e. IQ scores). Or, if someone has posted such a graph on the internet, please provide a link to this graph in the article as a reference. I only ask that the math actually be conducted and not assumed to fit a given theory. And I again feel like I should add that removal of this argument as proof of young Earth does not in effect support an old Earth, it supports neither.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:41, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps we've become so unintelligent as to ignore the lack of evidence for the underlying assumption that the rate of decline is constant? Andy, if it were the case that people were becoming more intelligent, would that be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The rate of decline need not be constant, and nothing in the counterexample implies that it would be. But it's continuous and differentiable -- surely not a step function.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You have provided no evidence that the rate has always been negative. Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::So, would I be right in saying that in 200 years mankind's intelligence will disintegrate into nothing more than walking apes or are we headed toward [[liberal stupidity]] against [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]. Striking. [[Paulhernandez]] 00:37, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I think the most reasonable approach here is to remove this counter example until such time that evidence can be provided that supports it. This is my concern: if a new reader, a homeschooler, or anyone interested in the subject comes to this article and comes across this flawed argument, this would tend to discredit the other arguments on the page. For example, if you were to meet someone for the first time, and you share a conversation with them, agree with everything they have to say about a subject, but then this person makes some outlandish statement about the subject, wouldn’t that make you question their other statements and even your own beliefs since you share some many beliefs with this individual? Essentially, a rotten apple spoils the bunch, and that's what this counter example is. Let's remove this counter example, and if someone can provide an analysis of declining human intelligence, if it is in fact declining, that fits the counter example, then the subject can be reopened for debate. If we are to make headway in establishing this website as a preeminent educational resource, we must make sure our statements are well thought-out, that the arguments made by this site hold water, and that those arguments that don’t hold water are not allowed to spoil the others that are most certainly valid.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 15:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::Brad's comment is like suggesting that heat may flow to hotter locations. There's something called [[entropy]] that means disorder does increase over time, also known as the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. Argue against it if you like, but I doubt you're going to persuade anyone.

:::::::::::Explain this: why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth? When you can look at your own position objectively, then you can realize great insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Andy, your analogy is fatally flawed and fails to persuade. You're essentially arguing that your mind is closed. Is your mind open to outside influence? Then the law of entropy does not apply, as it is not closed.
::::::::::::Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? Why can't you answer the question? Wouldn't the [[Flynn effect]] (a theory much more widely accepted than your assertion to the contrary) be stronger evidence for a young earth because if you extrapolated it backwards, society would have been so unintelligent as to not survive?
::::::::::::How do you reconcile your insight that society becomes less intelligent with your insight that society becomes more conservative?
::::::::::::I'm not opposed to the existence of a young earth. Is your mind open to that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 17:46, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You raise an interesting point there, Brad. Society IS inevitably becoming more and more conservative, as can be seen by the evolution of language, and as conservativism favours logical thinking, IQ should rise as an effect. What is the data showing that average IQs are decreasing, by the way? I'd love to see those studies myself, I am very interested by this subject. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:35, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Brad, perhaps some graphs will help. [http://static.inky.ws/image/400/image.jpg this graph] shows liberalism (in red) increasing linearly, conservatism (in green) increasing quadratically. The point is that when we talk about liberalism or conservatism 'increasing', it means the strength and persuasiveness of the ideas; that's how both can be increasing at once. The scope and magnitude of the policies demanded by liberals increases, as does the strength and coherence of the conservative alternative. In the marketplace of ideas, the stronger ideas win out in the long run, so on average the number of adherents of either side will be in the same proportion as the relative strengths of the ideas. I hope that's clear... [http://static.inky.ws/image/401/image.jpg This graph] shows the effect of the previous graph on numbers. Obviously these are just demonstrations of general trends, but it does show how these two effects can be reconciled. In fact, I think the graphs are rather interesting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:49, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks, Jcw, the graphs do make it a bit more easy to understand and to digest, although it's a complex matter and I am not sure I grasp it completely still. What do the numbers in the graphs stand for, exactly? Thanks for taking the time to try to explain this, I am feeling really dense now :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::No problem Leonard. Here's how I interpret it; others may well disagree. As Andy observes, the rate at which new conservative ideas are produced and refined is increasing rapidly. Andy's original observation was of an exponential increase, but I think that's an artifact of the measurement - if you look at the top right part of the green line on the first graph, it looks exponential in that region, but taken as a whole it's a quadratic curve. Likewise, Andy's observation of words since 1600 shows exponential growth, but graphing exponential growth over several thousand years shows that it can't be that fast over the whole period. It has also been observed that liberalism is on the increase. In both cases, what we're talking about is - in my opinion - the relative strength of the two world-views. As humanity develops, ideas are tested against each other, old ideas are tested against new ideas and so on, with the better ideas surviving in the long run. The previous observations about growth of conservatism and liberalism can be reconciled on that assumption; the two sides are both developing their ideas and improving them. Thus the first graph shows how conservative ideas develop faster than liberal ones - liberals merely add more ideas linearly, while conservatives can combine new with old productively, so each year the increase is greater than the year before.
::The second graph shows (again, hypothetical) numbers of conservatively or liberally inclined people, based on the previous graph - the number of adherents of each view is assumed to be proportional to the ratio of the numbers in the previous graph. Again, it's all just a demonstration rather than an assertion about the details of actual politics, but hopefully it illustrates what we're talking about here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:10, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Jcw, Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative. Andy's new insight asserts that society will also become less intelligent. I don't believe you've reconciled anything.
:::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The apparent decrease in intelligence is easily explained by the increase in liberal influence in teaching. Liberal ideas hold disproportionate sway in the education field in many Western countries: note that homeschoolers' performance isn't falling, so it's not that humans are getting inherently less intelligent, but that the influence of growing liberalism is leading to less-educated people who use their God-given intelligence far less than they used to. My hypothetical graphs suggest that liberals are getting more liberal and conservatives more conservative, which seems perfectly in line with the observations. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::The influence of liberalism on eduction is decreasing because the geometric growth in conservative insights implies that the obstacles -- liberal censorship and deceit -- lose ground at a geometric rate in a free society. True or false?
:::::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:25, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Brad, your tone makes it abundantly clear that you're not trying to engage in a reasonable discussion on this point. What's more, your point doesn't make sense. As I said above, liberal and conservative ideas aren't distributed evenly in all areas, so one area - education - can be increasingly liberal while another - the US population a whole - can be increasingly conservative. Please think your points through before posting them and try to be more civil; it will help the discussion immensely. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'm sorry you feel that way, Jcw. I am trying to engage in a reasonable discussion by positing that an increase in intelligence (as evidenced by the Flynn effect) is a stronger argument for a young earth. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:54, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I too disagree with the analogy you drew between Brad's comments and the Laws of Thermodynamics. And as far as your question goes: ''"why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth?"'' -- I don't think anyone in this conversation is suggesting that they do not support a young Eart, we just don't support this argument for young Earth. This issue is not as black and white as you seem to see it: removal of this counterpoint does not inherently advantage the arguments for an old Earth. If I said that an alien came to me and told me that the Earth is billions of years old, or that it is 6000 years old, you and no other logically minded person would agree that this was proof for one theory vs another. And you shouldn't, it's a ludicrous argument, and just because you support the theory that this so-called proof supports, it doesn't mean you have to support this "proof" as well. As an earlier contributor posted, using the same logic about declining human intelligence to extrapolate the age of the Earth, one could use increasing human height to argue that the Earth is far younger than 6000 years (the contributor suggested it would be closer to 3000 years and that means everyone during Jesus's time would be under 2 feet tall, which is not true). You have yet to provide any extrapolation based on hard numbers, only supplying us with anecdotes like civil war letters and the federalist papers as examples of declining intelligence. Even if these examples were valid (and that is doubtful), it would suggest a very steep slope for the decline of intelligence over the past 200 or so years, thus people 1000 years ago should all be genius is the slope is consistent according to your argument. And the slope does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested; this is basic mathematics and regression theory. Again, the argument is poorly thought out and does not seem to be supported by any hard evidence or even the majority of commentators here, thus it should be removed from the article until such time when an analysis is presented that supports this argument. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:Pick any measure you like, and it's clear that intelligence is declining. Read, for example, [[Civil War]] letters and compare them to what the average person produces today. How long could intelligence be declining at a significant rate? Not hundreds of thousands of years, or even tens of thousands of years.

:The logic is simple and unmistakable. I doubt you've heard it before, but that's not a reason to reject it. Honestly, after all this discussion, I still don't see a logical objection to this counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a few glaring problems with using the change in language between the Civil War and now to measure intelligence. Firstly, you're ignoring how the language has developed during the period, and has become more practical and less "flowery" - hardly a sign of less intelligence. Unless you're referring to text-speak of course, which hasn't exactly entered mainstream literature or business yet. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that for every Civil War letter that was written, there was at least an equal number of illiterate soldiers on either side. And the final point, which is baffling me, is that here you're using diminishing language skills to show that people are becoming less intelligent, and yet elsewhere on Conservapedia, you claim the language is becoming more conservative. Which is it, because you can't use language to prove two entirely contradictory points? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:14, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: There's no contradiction. Technology will improve despite people getting less intelligent. The counterexample is well-supported and can hardly be doubted. Examples are numerous for the obvious decline in intelligence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::There might not be a contradiction, but you are claiming that language is becoming more conservative, which implies society is becoming more conservative, whilst at the same time claiming people are becoming less intelligent. Likewise, you use Civil War letters as an example, compared to modern day writing, and yet you claim the Babylonians - who must have been very intelligent compared to us - had a language that could not express complex terms, such as "sin" ([http://www.jstor.org/pss/1196058 actually they could - in very definitive terms]). I have no problem with you claiming humans are becoming less intelligent, but by using language as an example, you're shooting your other theories in the foot. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, you forgot to do any math to support this counter example, and this counter example depends on a mathematical principle: regression and extrapolation. Let’s assume for the sake of any argument that human intelligence is declining, and let's also say it is declining rapidly, as you have insisted. If it is declining so rapidly in the last 200 years, then why wasn't the average person during the middle ages a genius by today's standards? If the slope is as steep as you insist, estimates the intelligence of people during Jesus's time would suggest that they were many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, and while a few might have been, the Bible is full of examples of stupid, ignorant people, so this too seems unlikely according to the Bible and historical records. And remember, Andy, the slope of the decline does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested, this cannot be argued, this is math, math is not biased. Please, provide us with the math that your argument holds water, until then, this counter example should be removed, '''let’s not let this flawed counter example spoil the bunch.''' --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 00:09, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::My revisions to the article have been once again reverted by Aschlafly. Andy, shouldn't you at least err on the side of caution, given that several members of the community have given very cogent examples as to how this line of reasoning is flawed, and allow the counter example to be removed from the article until such time that consensus amongst contributors can be reached, or at least some actual data is presented in support of this claim. And by data I mean '''the regression analysis and interpolation the counter example alludes to''' but neither you nor any other member of this community have produced yet. If the counter example must stay in the article because of one member of the community's desire to see it stay, then we should at least include that this counter example points to a VERY young Earth, far less than 6000 years.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:08, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Mike, the counterexample does not require precise mathematical analysis. Intelligence is significantly declining in a way that could not have lasted for tens of thousands of years with the level of intelligence and historical evidence seen today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy, the reason why a mathematical analysis is needed is because you've insisted that the slope of the decline in intelligence is steep enough that intelligence could not have been declining this fast for all that long (not hundreds of thousands of years, but instead only thousands). However, if the slope is as steep as you say (e.g. comparing the federalist papers to today's news) then it would seem that the decline of intelligence would have been so rapid that it couldn't have been declining for even thousands of years, but perhaps only hundreds. The examples you give of SAT scores, civil war letters, the federalist papers, etc. as you have interpreted them would all seem to suggest that if we extrapolate backwards even a thousand years the human race would have been many fold more intelligent than it is today, but that is untrue - the middle ages were a time of great trials for humans, lack of education, lack of freedoms, etc. What I have proposed to you or anyone one else in favor of this argument is that the slope of this decline be determined (meaning quantifiable scores of intelligence be used, e.g. IQ scores - SAT would be problematic due to biases in the design of this test). This is why the math is important, to discern whether the human race is 6000 years old, older or younger. All I ask for is a graph, and I believe it would help future readers of the article understand your point better. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

===I'm confused===
Maybe I'm proof of a young earth, but please can you reconcile your two theories to me, as they don't make sense:
* In one, you say that the decrease in language skills since the civil war, shows a decrease in human intelligence.
* In the other, you say that the number of conservative words has increased exponentially - even more so since the civil war.
Thus it seems as if you're implying that as people become less intelligent, and language skills decrease, the number of conservative words in use increases. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:48, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

: There's no contradiction. The dumbest people imaginable would still improve technology, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::So you're saying really dumb people would build a better Large Hadron Collider? Or the next Space Shuttle? By your argument, technological progress is inversely proportional to intelligence. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Israelites must have been more intelligent than us, yet were technologically backwards.

::Plus you're also implying that dumb people are improving the language by making it conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:22, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I've also found an excellent [http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/letters.htm archive of Civil War letters]. Having read through them - especially those of the less educated rank-and-file soldiers, I can't find any basis to support your assertion that language skills have decreased since the Civil War. If anything, the introduction paragraphs for each letter are in many cases far more eloquent than the letters themselves. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Technology -- and language -- build on what exists. Yes, dumb people improve both. I don't know why that would be so difficult to understand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Bear in mind also that there are more people around than there were in the past. Yes, technology is increasing more rapidly than it used to, but that is a result of the combined efforts of billions of people - and existing technology allows more time for advancement by increasing the efficiency of menial tasks that took up a lot of time in other eras.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 17:42, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::Well put. Note also that the English language has a wiki-like quality that enables it to build on prior improvements. For example, once "free speech" becomes a term, it facilitates many more insightful terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== People are getting less intelligent over time. ==

....but they're also, given the increase in new conservative words, getting more conservative over time. Is there a correlation between these facts? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 19:56, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:The consensus seems to be that society becomes more conservative ''despite'' becoming less intelligent. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::Society builds on what is accomplished, and does not have to reinvent the wheel. So technology and conservatism grow over time, but each generation is obviously less intelligent than the one before it. [[The Federalist Papers]], for example, ran in an ordinary newspaper 224 years ago; today an average college student has trouble understanding them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::But they *can* understand Foucault and Derrida, and a much more complex level of mathematics, things that would possibly have been quite difficult 224 years ago [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 20:21, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::No, the average person cannot understand even mildly advanced mathematics. We've been discussing average intelligence, and its decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, you were the one who brought up "average college students," who need to understand ideas that are far more complex than what their counterparts did a couple of centuries, or even decades ago. And do you have any evidence that the average college student, or man in the street, does not understand the Federalist Papers? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 21:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::There is an article stating that man's brain has shrunk 10%. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] Another that says obesity shrinks the brain significantly. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] The source is less than credible with their faux conservatism and their evolutionary clap trap but I am positive it is not the only source discussing the issue described. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: In response to Jpatt, minor differences in brain size between humans are poorly correlated with intelligence. Take, for example, the average size of a woman's brain vs. a man's brain, the woman's brain is smaller (by about 2% if memory serves), but women are no less intelligent than men. Before one jumps to the conclusion that I am saying that an individual person's brain can shrink without damaging cognitive function, let me assure you that I am not. Alzheimer’s Disease patients suffer from, amongst other things, the general atrophy of their brains, loosing significant volume and mass over the progress of the disease. And at the same time, one may also assume I'm saying that animals with small brains (like rats) may be just as intelligent as humans, and let me assure you that I am not saying this - a rat's brain is several orders of magnitude smaller than a human's brain and their level of intelligence is reflected by this. What I am saying is that small percentage differences in humans' brains over time (like what is detailed in the above reference form Jpatt) of minor difference between individual people cannot relay any significant different in intelligence. Here are some interesting anatomical facts about brain sizes: [[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html]] --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::ok, my great-grandfather lived to be 106 years old without ever eating dog food or cashing a Social Security check. Several members of Congress claim their elder constituents, after a lifetime of learning and experience, must eat dog food ''if they don't'' collect and cash Social Security checks. Could this be quantifiable standard to extrapolate backwards a measurement of human intelligence? After all, it not only measures whether or not the species is less intelligent than a generation ago, it could reveal if an individual person gets more stupid with longevity, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Rob, what you presented was a ''qualitative'' (not quantitative) anecdotal (i.e. single example) piece of evidence. Also, I don't see how eating dog food is a sign of lack of intelligence if the alternative for these elders is to starve, that is a very sad state of affairs. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::It could be quantitative if the phenomenea becomes widespread, as has been alleged by several members of Congress. Getting stupider as one gets older is indeed a sad state of afffairs, especially if it becomes wiespread as is apparent. Take for example the Parable of Ten Virgins ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=KJV Mathew 25]) or wise King Solomon's admonition, "A good man leaves an in heritance to his children", ([http://bible.cc/proverbs/13-22.htm Proverbs 13:22]). How many people today choose to ignore the inherited wisedom passed down through the ages that simply says, "prepare for the future", and choose rather to squander their resources on riotous living? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Main page is now protected from editing ==

Andy, the reason you stated as to why you protected this article is because of edits to remove one counter example (the decreasing intelligence argument), and that you have refuted the criticisms to this counter example. However, you merely rested the counter example several times on this talk page and offered nothing new to support it, and it was other members of this community, myself included, that provided new information and new perspectives and new analyses that refute the inclusion of this counter example in the article. It is unfortunate that we can no longer add to this page because you are intent on keeping this one counter example, no matter how erroneous it is or how bad it makes the other more intelligent counter examples look. '''The unfortunate thing is that this isn't even a liberal vs. conservative issue, it's an issue about math.''' I suppose that I and others should stop talking about this issue on this page now, as to avoid the 90/10 rule, but when editing is reopened for this article, be sure that it will either be I, the other contributors here, or new contributors that will once again highlight the problems with this counter example and this cycle will begin again.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:38, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-06-20T22:50:29Z

AsherL: /* Another observation */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

Let's be fair on this one, you can't Carbon date water because water is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, not Carbon. You can Carbon date the contents of the water that contain Carbon-14, but there's no point to that because all you get is the date of the contents and not the date of the water. I could test the water and get a 100 year old piece of plant mater and get 100 years, or I could test the water and get 5000 year old plant matter and get a date of 5000 years. It's a poor claim to say this method has any bearing on the date of the Earth, no-one who understands the process would make that claim

Furthermore, Carbon dating could never be used to date anything older than say 25,000 years because the half life of Carbon-14 is so short. Even when you do Carbon date something you can never use it to tell the age of the Earth because you would hit a brick wall at that point due to majority of Carbon-14 having decayed into Carbon-12. Other radiometric dating methods are used for telling the age of the Earth because their "clocks" extend further back. I strongly suggest that this point should be removed because it is far too weak, people knowledgeable on this topic would just not take this page seriously.--[[User:SecularConservative|SecularConservative]]

I removed carbon dating of ground water argument for the rather straightforward fact that C14 does not have a sufficiently long enough half-life to measure its decay over billions of years, thus it cannot be used to test the old Earth hypotheses, merely confirm that Earth is '''at least''' several thousand years old, that is if the groundwater has sufficiently high enough concentration of carbon to measure radioactive decay products. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:15, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

::::In regards to the SAT, I think a number of points warrant sharing: Firstly, the idea that the dropping of SAT scores would be indicative of dropping human intelligence is predicated on the idea that the SAT is actually an accurate measure of human intelligence. It is not. In fact, the College Board who administers the test has admitted it: Where the SAT used to stand for Scholastic Aptitude Test, that acronym was removed when the College Board was forced by numerous studies to admit that the test is not a measure of scholastic anything. The test measures precisely how good students are at taking tests, nothing more. An increasing amount of research agrees with this fact. I can provide additional citations if you wish, but this information is readily available.
::::Furthermore, if the SAT were an accurate measure of intelligence and scores were dropping, a number of baseless assumptions would still be being made: Namely, that the people taking the SAT are the same in make-up and number every year. This is not the case. Unfortunately, despite the increasing information that the SAT is a useless examination, more and more students every year are taking it. What that means, however, is that if test scores are indeed going down, we cannot assume that it is indicative of dropping intelligence because every year the makeup of the students is changing. I'll put it more simply: It used to be that only the best students took the SAT, because only the best students went to college and only the best students went to colleges that required high SAT scores for applications. As the national attitude towards secondary education becomes that EVERYBODY needs to go to college, more states have begun requiring SAT testing for students. Thus, not just the best students are taking the SAT - but everyone is, including less intelligent students that otherwise would not take the test. So of course test scores are going to drop. If you were a teacher, and could select the top three students in your class to take a test, and have those test scores reflect your entire class, wouldn't you do that? Of course. Because those students would do well (hopefully), and make your class look intelligent. If, however, your entire class - including the struggling students - had to take the test, the score would not compare well with the test score of the three students. Yes? It's the same thing here.
::::And lastly, you should be aware that the SAT is not the same test every year. It is consistently made more or less difficult in the name of 'raising standards.' That is, when scores get too high, test-makers don't assume that people are getting more intelligent, they assume that the test was too easy, and make it harder. Thus, you see a test today that is far more difficult than it was even a decade ago. Again, for all of this citations are easily found online, but I can provide if that is desired. I would suggest removing the statement about declining human intelligence, as it is not backed up by the evidence presented, and CERTAINLY not backed up by the SAT statement. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 13:39, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Point 1 (your claim that the SAT measures only test-taking skills, and nothing more) is rejected by the vast majority of colleges and scholars and even the NCAA -- as well as common sense. Scores on the test clearly have some correlation with "aptitude", which was the historical purpose of the exam. [[Political correctness]] in changing the name of the test does not change the truth. Individual SAT scores may mean less than averages over many students.

::::: Point II (bigger numbers of people are taking the SAT, which lowers its average) would only be valid if backed up by data, and I doubt there has been any increase in takers of the SAT big enough to account for the decline in scores.

::::: Point III: The writers of the SAT are not making it more difficult. If anything, they are making it easier.

::::: The most plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is the also the most straightforward: people are getting dumber.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Actually, Aschlafly, the majority of colleges and scholars (I don't know about the NCAA) are beginning to realize the inefficiency of standardized testing as a measure of scholastic achievement, and most colleges today are placing less and less emphasis on test scores in regards to admission. Many colleges - off of my head I can name Bates, Bowdoin, Connecticut, and Mount Holyoke - no longer require any standardized testing scores at all. And while those certainly aren't Ivy Leagues, they're not community colleges either.
::Furthermore, year after year the College Board's own statistics depict a virtually linear correlation between things like SAT scores and family income or race. In fact, more than half of the difference in SAT scores can be explained purely on the basis of parents' level of education.
::And consider this: Since 1984, College Board studies of the SAT have shown that only about 12 to 16 percent of the variance in freshman grades could be predicted by SAT scores, which suggests that even in regards to something as subjective as grades, the SAT is a worthless measuring tool. In the 1980s a review in the American Education Research Journal concluded that test scores from high school and college accounted for less than 3 percent of variance in job performance and income, and that such scores had absolutely no predictive power whatsoever over who eventually earned more Ph.D.s or M.D.'s.
::I cannot find the article at this moment, but in a 1996 issue of the Harvard Educational Review, it was reported that participation rates accounted for an incredible 85% of variance in test scores from state to state. Eighty-five percent. That's incredibly significant. So in regards to Point II, yes, a massive amount of score variance can be accounted for by differences in the test taking body.
::Finally, let's look at the idea of standardized testing in general. In a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, students were classified as "actively" engaged in learning if they asked questions of themselves while they read and tried to connect what they were doing to past learning; and they were classified as "superficially" engaged if they just copied down answers, guessed a lot, and skipped hard sections. It turns out that high test scores - including scores on the SAT - were more likely to be found by students who exhibited the superficial approach, rather than the engaged approach.
::Let's face the facts: Standardized testing has never been an effective measure of intelligence. One's ability to spit back facts and answer scholastically useless questions within a time limit is not a measure of intelligence. So to claim that test scores dropping (a fact which hasn't actually been backed up by citations yet) is a measure of a dropping human intelligence is just ridiculous. That would be like saying the Earth is getting warmer by measuring the temperature on the moon. (Something I swear some scientists actually try to do, but whatever). It's not an accurate measuring system. It never has been. I suggest again the removal of the SAT point. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 15:39, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Some studies to back up my earlier claims: Regarding test scores and their predictive power over grades: Ford, Susan F. & Campos, Sandy. Summary of Validity Data from the Admissions Testing Program Validity Study Service. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1977.
::::That study showed that, at best, the SAT showed an 8-15% accuracy in predicting freshman GPA. In other words, for an average 88% of applicants, random chance would do an equal or better job predicting their freshman grades than their SAT scores would.
:::•Astin, Alexander W. "Racial Considerations in Admissions." The Campus and the Racial Crisis. Eds. David C. Nichols & Olive Mills. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1970: 113-141.
•Astin, Alexander W. Predicting Academic Performance in College. New York: Free Press, 1971.
::::Those two studies found that using SAT scores to predict successful graduation resulted in a less than 5% accuracy for both men and women. The SAT cannot, therefore, determine who is going to graduate college, completing an education that would, by golly, make them generally regarded as "intelligent."
:::"Selecting College Material." New York Times 4 April 1976: E7
::::Statistics on test scores and college success, however, can never reveal what might have been. In a rare practical experiment Williams College admitted 358 students, ten percent of each year's new admissions, over a ten year period who would otherwise have been rejected by the school's normal test score and grade requirements. The identities of the "ten percenters" were kept secret from faculty and students. They were subjected to the same academic requirements as other students and received no special aid. In 1976 the results were announced — 71% of the "ten percenters" graduated, compared with the school average of 85%. In one graduating class, the class president, president of the college council, and the president of the honor society were all "ten percenters"
::::Just to back up my claims.[[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 15:52, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::You do a good job of criticizing the SAT, I'm not claiming it to be a perfect measure of aptitude. But it is an approximation and 95% of colleges agree. The most straightforward and plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is declining intelligence. No other explanation is as plausible ... at least not to an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Wait. What? An open mind is closed to '''all''' possibilities as to ''why'' SAT scores have dropped over the last few years, except for the option of people becoming less intelligent? Shouldn't we check whether the SAT's as they existed in the 1970's and as they existed in 2005 (say) to make sure the tests aren't just ''harder''? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:48, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
::OK, so it seems like we could expect any matter that is billions of years old to be in a completely random, disordered state by now. Maybe this counterexample doesn't need to refer specifically to underground well water. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 16:25, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::The example of water is particularly striking. If I see a bucket full of water in a desert, then I can infer it has not been there more than a day or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.

See above.

3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Heres an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[11] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago![Citation Needed]

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.[Citation Needed]

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

6. The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.

There are fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Inferences about a lack of equilibrium (i.e., lack of very long term stability) can be drawn from the drying of a major river like the Colorado River.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Even if it were 'unstable' in the 'long-term' (both highly ambiguous and undefined terms I might add), a lack of stability is not equal to non-existence. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 10:14, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Similar inferences are drawn in other contexts without objection. For example, if there are puddles of water on the ground in the morning, then it is reasonably inferred that it rained the night before, not every night for the last seven days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::I agree with the analogy. Saying that the earth is young because one river dries up is a lot like saying you believe that it rained because you saw one puddle. Do you also infer that new rivers imply that the earth is young? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 21:29, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
When it next rains one might reasonably expect that a puddle will form in the same place and will once again dry up afterwards. How then can we possibly draw any conclusions about the age of the earth from looking at just one wet-dry cycle? We can't. Looking at one cycle doesn't tell us how many cycles there have been. The decreasing discharge of the river has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of the age of the earth. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:16, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Fundamental misunderstanding of dog breeding ==

The article stated under the Biology section: "The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today." The statement asserts that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing, suggesting that if we extrapolate backward in time, an old-Earth would be overrun with pure breed dogs. Dogs, however, were domesticated only a few thousand years ago by man from more docile wolves, and even then only a few pure breed dogs existed for centuries. Only in the 19th century did the number of dog breads exploded in the western world as designer dogs because a status symbol amongst the newly emerging middle class and new uses for dogs were discovered. The argument directly states that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing due to crossbreeding - while the genetic purity of older dog breeds is slowly being diluted, new designer dog breeds are always being developed (as tradition stretching back over a century).unsigned by User:Mike127

== Diminishing intelligence, etc. ==

The first argument under Biology reads: "The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[24] music, personal letters,[25] quality of political debates,[26] the quality of news articles,[27] and many other measures." While this statement may work well for arguing that the world is nearing its end, it certainly doesn't support or refute old Earth or young Earth theories.unsigned by User:Mike127

: Sure it does. The observed slope of the intelligence curve over time is sharply negative. Extrapolate backwards and before long the IQs are astoundingly high. But there's no evidence of astoundingly high IQs for man, so the conclusion is clear: time does not extend much backwards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:52, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:: But if the slope is so steep, then Earth couldn't be even 6,000 years old. If the decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon, then extrapolation would produce erroneous results. This website [[http://tamlin.info/graphs_aclu_page.htm]] plots SAT scores starting from the 1960s, and if one were to extrapolate backwards using these scores, then we would have to assume all people from the 18th century and before, if SATs had existed then, would have gotten perfect scores. If the website is correct that the removal of prayer from schools caused this decrease in SAT scores, and before God was removed everything was fine, then that means this meter of human intelligence is flawed: it is subject to outside sources of variability. I cannot find a graph that plots IQ scores for a population over any long length of time, but the point would be the same, extrapolation of intelligence in a dubious means of gauging the age of Earth, the extrapolation is inappropriate either because human intelligence levels fluctuate over time (i.e. the user's perceived decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon) or because if extrapolation was appropriate, we would expect people just a few hundred years ago to all be geniuses, and this was not the case. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 13:32, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Adam and Eve were a lot smarter (before the fall) than IQ tests could possibly measure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:34, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::I am unaware of any part of Genesis that states that Adam and Eve were '''astronomically''' smarter than humans today. The point I was making above, to restate, is that if human intelligence could drop so quickly in the 20th century, and extrapolation backwards is justified, then humans just a few hundred years ago or less, perhaps just a hundred years ago depending on what data you look at, must have been extraordinary geniuses, and that is simply not factual by any historical standards. Thus, I fail to see your point: the bible does not corroborate your statement and even if it did, it would still suggest that human intelligence is declining by a nonlinear function, thus linear extrapolation, as the article implies, is not justified.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I feel it necessary to point out that if the extrapolation of human intelligence backwards in time is not a justifiable proof of young Earth, this does not mean that this is in some way a proof of old Earth theories. The concept is simply flawed and cannot delineate one theory from another, thus it should not be included on this list.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Mike, this is simple logic. Extrapolation backward more than a half-dozen or so thousands of years is simply inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, this is simple math. My point is that extrapolation backward even 6000 years would also be inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years. We would be forced to conclude that the Earth isn't even 6000 years old but far far younger if the slope of this decline is consistent. If the slope is not consistent (meaning the acceleration of the decline of in intelligence is variable), then any extrapolation is not appropriate and will lead to erroneous results, like the earth being only 1000 years old for instance. If the argument is to be kept in the article, then an accommodating graph should be presented or linked as a reference, showing key markers of intelligence in recent decades and how the proposed extrapolation would yield an age for the Earth that is 6,000 years rather than something far younger than this.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:04, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, I am a great fan of this website and your counterexamples are normally very sound, but I have to disagree with you on this one. You are assuming that the rate of decline in human intelligence is constant, whereas it changes over time, according to the interplay of many complex factors.
::Using the same type of logic, and keeping in mind that average height has increased by one inch since 1960, I could argue that the Earth could not possibly be more than 3000 years old, because before then, people would have had a negative height. And that is assuming that before the birth of Christ, they were less than 2 feet and a half tall on average. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 22:17, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Neither objection above withstands scrutiny. The counterexample does not "prove too much," because 800 SAT scores in the past would not be inconsistent with the high quality works and reading abilities of common people centuries ago. Nor are increases in height analogous, because that is obviously affected by diet, sleep, medicine and other advances in society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Andy, if neither of the above arguments are enough to convince you of the central flaw of this line of reasoning, then may I ask that you or another contributor supply this article with a graph illustrating how this backward extrapolation gives an age of 6000 years using actual quantifiable means of measuring human intelligence (i.e. IQ scores). Or, if someone has posted such a graph on the internet, please provide a link to this graph in the article as a reference. I only ask that the math actually be conducted and not assumed to fit a given theory. And I again feel like I should add that removal of this argument as proof of young Earth does not in effect support an old Earth, it supports neither.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:41, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps we've become so unintelligent as to ignore the lack of evidence for the underlying assumption that the rate of decline is constant? Andy, if it were the case that people were becoming more intelligent, would that be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The rate of decline need not be constant, and nothing in the counterexample implies that it would be. But it's continuous and differentiable -- surely not a step function.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You have provided no evidence that the rate has always been negative. Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::So, would I be right in saying that in 200 years mankind's intelligence will disintegrate into nothing more than walking apes or are we headed toward [[liberal stupidity]] against [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]. Striking. [[Paulhernandez]] 00:37, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I think the most reasonable approach here is to remove this counter example until such time that evidence can be provided that supports it. This is my concern: if a new reader, a homeschooler, or anyone interested in the subject comes to this article and comes across this flawed argument, this would tend to discredit the other arguments on the page. For example, if you were to meet someone for the first time, and you share a conversation with them, agree with everything they have to say about a subject, but then this person makes some outlandish statement about the subject, wouldn’t that make you question their other statements and even your own beliefs since you share some many beliefs with this individual? Essentially, a rotten apple spoils the bunch, and that's what this counter example is. Let's remove this counter example, and if someone can provide an analysis of declining human intelligence, if it is in fact declining, that fits the counter example, then the subject can be reopened for debate. If we are to make headway in establishing this website as a preeminent educational resource, we must make sure our statements are well thought-out, that the arguments made by this site hold water, and that those arguments that don’t hold water are not allowed to spoil the others that are most certainly valid.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 15:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::Brad's comment is like suggesting that heat may flow to hotter locations. There's something called [[entropy]] that means disorder does increase over time, also known as the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. Argue against it if you like, but I doubt you're going to persuade anyone.

:::::::::::Explain this: why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth? When you can look at your own position objectively, then you can realize great insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Andy, your analogy is fatally flawed and fails to persuade. You're essentially arguing that your mind is closed. Is your mind open to outside influence? Then the law of entropy does not apply, as it is not closed.
::::::::::::Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? Why can't you answer the question? Wouldn't the [[Flynn effect]] (a theory much more widely accepted than your assertion to the contrary) be stronger evidence for a young earth because if you extrapolated it backwards, society would have been so unintelligent as to not survive?
::::::::::::How do you reconcile your insight that society becomes less intelligent with your insight that society becomes more conservative?
::::::::::::I'm not opposed to the existence of a young earth. Is your mind open to that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 17:46, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You raise an interesting point there, Brad. Society IS inevitably becoming more and more conservative, as can be seen by the evolution of language, and as conservativism favours logical thinking, IQ should rise as an effect. What is the data showing that average IQs are decreasing, by the way? I'd love to see those studies myself, I am very interested by this subject. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:35, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Brad, perhaps some graphs will help. [http://static.inky.ws/image/400/image.jpg this graph] shows liberalism (in red) increasing linearly, conservatism (in green) increasing quadratically. The point is that when we talk about liberalism or conservatism 'increasing', it means the strength and persuasiveness of the ideas; that's how both can be increasing at once. The scope and magnitude of the policies demanded by liberals increases, as does the strength and coherence of the conservative alternative. In the marketplace of ideas, the stronger ideas win out in the long run, so on average the number of adherents of either side will be in the same proportion as the relative strengths of the ideas. I hope that's clear... [http://static.inky.ws/image/401/image.jpg This graph] shows the effect of the previous graph on numbers. Obviously these are just demonstrations of general trends, but it does show how these two effects can be reconciled. In fact, I think the graphs are rather interesting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:49, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks, Jcw, the graphs do make it a bit more easy to understand and to digest, although it's a complex matter and I am not sure I grasp it completely still. What do the numbers in the graphs stand for, exactly? Thanks for taking the time to try to explain this, I am feeling really dense now :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::No problem Leonard. Here's how I interpret it; others may well disagree. As Andy observes, the rate at which new conservative ideas are produced and refined is increasing rapidly. Andy's original observation was of an exponential increase, but I think that's an artifact of the measurement - if you look at the top right part of the green line on the first graph, it looks exponential in that region, but taken as a whole it's a quadratic curve. Likewise, Andy's observation of words since 1600 shows exponential growth, but graphing exponential growth over several thousand years shows that it can't be that fast over the whole period. It has also been observed that liberalism is on the increase. In both cases, what we're talking about is - in my opinion - the relative strength of the two world-views. As humanity develops, ideas are tested against each other, old ideas are tested against new ideas and so on, with the better ideas surviving in the long run. The previous observations about growth of conservatism and liberalism can be reconciled on that assumption; the two sides are both developing their ideas and improving them. Thus the first graph shows how conservative ideas develop faster than liberal ones - liberals merely add more ideas linearly, while conservatives can combine new with old productively, so each year the increase is greater than the year before.
::The second graph shows (again, hypothetical) numbers of conservatively or liberally inclined people, based on the previous graph - the number of adherents of each view is assumed to be proportional to the ratio of the numbers in the previous graph. Again, it's all just a demonstration rather than an assertion about the details of actual politics, but hopefully it illustrates what we're talking about here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:10, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Jcw, Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative. Andy's new insight asserts that society will also become less intelligent. I don't believe you've reconciled anything.
:::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The apparent decrease in intelligence is easily explained by the increase in liberal influence in teaching. Liberal ideas hold disproportionate sway in the education field in many Western countries: note that homeschoolers' performance isn't falling, so it's not that humans are getting inherently less intelligent, but that the influence of growing liberalism is leading to less-educated people who use their God-given intelligence far less than they used to. My hypothetical graphs suggest that liberals are getting more liberal and conservatives more conservative, which seems perfectly in line with the observations. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::The influence of liberalism on eduction is decreasing because the geometric growth in conservative insights implies that the obstacles -- liberal censorship and deceit -- lose ground at a geometric rate in a free society. True or false?
:::::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:25, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Brad, your tone makes it abundantly clear that you're not trying to engage in a reasonable discussion on this point. What's more, your point doesn't make sense. As I said above, liberal and conservative ideas aren't distributed evenly in all areas, so one area - education - can be increasingly liberal while another - the US population a whole - can be increasingly conservative. Please think your points through before posting them and try to be more civil; it will help the discussion immensely. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'm sorry you feel that way, Jcw. I am trying to engage in a reasonable discussion by positing that an increase in intelligence (as evidenced by the Flynn effect) is a stronger argument for a young earth. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:54, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I too disagree with the analogy you drew between Brad's comments and the Laws of Thermodynamics. And as far as your question goes: ''"why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth?"'' -- I don't think anyone in this conversation is suggesting that they do not support a young Eart, we just don't support this argument for young Earth. This issue is not as black and white as you seem to see it: removal of this counterpoint does not inherently advantage the arguments for an old Earth. If I said that an alien came to me and told me that the Earth is billions of years old, or that it is 6000 years old, you and no other logically minded person would agree that this was proof for one theory vs another. And you shouldn't, it's a ludicrous argument, and just because you support the theory that this so-called proof supports, it doesn't mean you have to support this "proof" as well. As an earlier contributor posted, using the same logic about declining human intelligence to extrapolate the age of the Earth, one could use increasing human height to argue that the Earth is far younger than 6000 years (the contributor suggested it would be closer to 3000 years and that means everyone during Jesus's time would be under 2 feet tall, which is not true). You have yet to provide any extrapolation based on hard numbers, only supplying us with anecdotes like civil war letters and the federalist papers as examples of declining intelligence. Even if these examples were valid (and that is doubtful), it would suggest a very steep slope for the decline of intelligence over the past 200 or so years, thus people 1000 years ago should all be genius is the slope is consistent according to your argument. And the slope does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested; this is basic mathematics and regression theory. Again, the argument is poorly thought out and does not seem to be supported by any hard evidence or even the majority of commentators here, thus it should be removed from the article until such time when an analysis is presented that supports this argument. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:Pick any measure you like, and it's clear that intelligence is declining. Read, for example, [[Civil War]] letters and compare them to what the average person produces today. How long could intelligence be declining at a significant rate? Not hundreds of thousands of years, or even tens of thousands of years.

:The logic is simple and unmistakable. I doubt you've heard it before, but that's not a reason to reject it. Honestly, after all this discussion, I still don't see a logical objection to this counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a few glaring problems with using the change in language between the Civil War and now to measure intelligence. Firstly, you're ignoring how the language has developed during the period, and has become more practical and less "flowery" - hardly a sign of less intelligence. Unless you're referring to text-speak of course, which hasn't exactly entered mainstream literature or business yet. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that for every Civil War letter that was written, there was at least an equal number of illiterate soldiers on either side. And the final point, which is baffling me, is that here you're using diminishing language skills to show that people are becoming less intelligent, and yet elsewhere on Conservapedia, you claim the language is becoming more conservative. Which is it, because you can't use language to prove two entirely contradictory points? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:14, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: There's no contradiction. Technology will improve despite people getting less intelligent. The counterexample is well-supported and can hardly be doubted. Examples are numerous for the obvious decline in intelligence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::There might not be a contradiction, but you are claiming that language is becoming more conservative, which implies society is becoming more conservative, whilst at the same time claiming people are becoming less intelligent. Likewise, you use Civil War letters as an example, compared to modern day writing, and yet you claim the Babylonians - who must have been very intelligent compared to us - had a language that could not express complex terms, such as "sin" ([http://www.jstor.org/pss/1196058 actually they could - in very definitive terms]). I have no problem with you claiming humans are becoming less intelligent, but by using language as an example, you're shooting your other theories in the foot. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, you forgot to do any math to support this counter example, and this counter example depends on a mathematical principle: regression and extrapolation. Let’s assume for the sake of any argument that human intelligence is declining, and let's also say it is declining rapidly, as you have insisted. If it is declining so rapidly in the last 200 years, then why wasn't the average person during the middle ages a genius by today's standards? If the slope is as steep as you insist, estimates the intelligence of people during Jesus's time would suggest that they were many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, and while a few might have been, the Bible is full of examples of stupid, ignorant people, so this too seems unlikely according to the Bible and historical records. And remember, Andy, the slope of the decline does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested, this cannot be argued, this is math, math is not biased. Please, provide us with the math that your argument holds water, until then, this counter example should be removed, '''let’s not let this flawed counter example spoil the bunch.''' --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 00:09, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::My revisions to the article have been once again reverted by Aschlafly. Andy, shouldn't you at least err on the side of caution, given that several members of the community have given very cogent examples as to how this line of reasoning is flawed, and allow the counter example to be removed from the article until such time that consensus amongst contributors can be reached, or at least some actual data is presented in support of this claim. And by data I mean '''the regression analysis and interpolation the counter example alludes to''' but neither you nor any other member of this community have produced yet. If the counter example must stay in the article because of one member of the community's desire to see it stay, then we should at least include that this counter example points to a VERY young Earth, far less than 6000 years.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:08, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Mike, the counterexample does not require precise mathematical analysis. Intelligence is significantly declining in a way that could not have lasted for tens of thousands of years with the level of intelligence and historical evidence seen today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy, the reason why a mathematical analysis is needed is because you've insisted that the slope of the decline in intelligence is steep enough that intelligence could not have been declining this fast for all that long (not hundreds of thousands of years, but instead only thousands). However, if the slope is as steep as you say (e.g. comparing the federalist papers to today's news) then it would seem that the decline of intelligence would have been so rapid that it couldn't have been declining for even thousands of years, but perhaps only hundreds. The examples you give of SAT scores, civil war letters, the federalist papers, etc. as you have interpreted them would all seem to suggest that if we extrapolate backwards even a thousand years the human race would have been many fold more intelligent than it is today, but that is untrue - the middle ages were a time of great trials for humans, lack of education, lack of freedoms, etc. What I have proposed to you or anyone one else in favor of this argument is that the slope of this decline be determined (meaning quantifiable scores of intelligence be used, e.g. IQ scores - SAT would be problematic due to biases in the design of this test). This is why the math is important, to discern whether the human race is 6000 years old, older or younger. All I ask for is a graph, and I believe it would help future readers of the article understand your point better. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

===I'm confused===
Maybe I'm proof of a young earth, but please can you reconcile your two theories to me, as they don't make sense:
* In one, you say that the decrease in language skills since the civil war, shows a decrease in human intelligence.
* In the other, you say that the number of conservative words has increased exponentially - even more so since the civil war.
Thus it seems as if you're implying that as people become less intelligent, and language skills decrease, the number of conservative words in use increases. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:48, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

: There's no contradiction. The dumbest people imaginable would still improve technology, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::So you're saying really dumb people would build a better Large Hadron Collider? Or the next Space Shuttle? By your argument, technological progress is inversely proportional to intelligence. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Israelites must have been more intelligent than us, yet were technologically backwards.

::Plus you're also implying that dumb people are improving the language by making it conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:22, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I've also found an excellent [http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/letters.htm archive of Civil War letters]. Having read through them - especially those of the less educated rank-and-file soldiers, I can't find any basis to support your assertion that language skills have decreased since the Civil War. If anything, the introduction paragraphs for each letter are in many cases far more eloquent than the letters themselves. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Technology -- and language -- build on what exists. Yes, dumb people improve both. I don't know why that would be so difficult to understand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Bear in mind also that there are more people around than there were in the past. Yes, technology is increasing more rapidly than it used to, but that is a result of the combined efforts of billions of people - and existing technology allows more time for advancement by increasing the efficiency of menial tasks that took up a lot of time in other eras.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 17:42, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::Well put. Note also that the English language has a wiki-like quality that enables it to build on prior improvements. For example, once "free speech" becomes a term, it facilitates many more insightful terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== People are getting less intelligent over time. ==

....but they're also, given the increase in new conservative words, getting more conservative over time. Is there a correlation between these facts? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 19:56, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:The consensus seems to be that society becomes more conservative ''despite'' becoming less intelligent. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::Society builds on what is accomplished, and does not have to reinvent the wheel. So technology and conservatism grow over time, but each generation is obviously less intelligent than the one before it. [[The Federalist Papers]], for example, ran in an ordinary newspaper 224 years ago; today an average college student has trouble understanding them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::But they *can* understand Foucault and Derrida, and a much more complex level of mathematics, things that would possibly have been quite difficult 224 years ago [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 20:21, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::No, the average person cannot understand even mildly advanced mathematics. We've been discussing average intelligence, and its decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, you were the one who brought up "average college students," who need to understand ideas that are far more complex than what their counterparts did a couple of centuries, or even decades ago. And do you have any evidence that the average college student, or man in the street, does not understand the Federalist Papers? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 21:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::There is an article stating that man's brain has shrunk 10%. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] Another that says obesity shrinks the brain significantly. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] The source is less than credible with their faux conservatism and their evolutionary clap trap but I am positive it is not the only source discussing the issue described. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: In response to Jpatt, minor differences in brain size between humans are poorly correlated with intelligence. Take, for example, the average size of a woman's brain vs. a man's brain, the woman's brain is smaller (by about 2% if memory serves), but women are no less intelligent than men. Before one jumps to the conclusion that I am saying that an individual person's brain can shrink without damaging cognitive function, let me assure you that I am not. Alzheimer’s Disease patients suffer from, amongst other things, the general atrophy of their brains, loosing significant volume and mass over the progress of the disease. And at the same time, one may also assume I'm saying that animals with small brains (like rats) may be just as intelligent as humans, and let me assure you that I am not saying this - a rat's brain is several orders of magnitude smaller than a human's brain and their level of intelligence is reflected by this. What I am saying is that small percentage differences in humans' brains over time (like what is detailed in the above reference form Jpatt) of minor difference between individual people cannot relay any significant different in intelligence. Here are some interesting anatomical facts about brain sizes: [[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html]] --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::ok, my great-grandfather lived to be 106 years old without ever eating dog food or cashing a Social Security check. Several members of Congress claim their elder constituents, after a lifetime of learning and experience, must eat dog food ''if they don't'' collect and cash Social Security checks. Could this be quantifiable standard to extrapolate backwards a measurement of human intelligence? After all, it not only measures whether or not the species is less intelligent than a generation ago, it could reveal if an individual person gets more stupid with longevity, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Rob, what you presented was a ''qualitative'' (not quantitative) anecdotal (i.e. single example) piece of evidence. Also, I don't see how eating dog food is a sign of lack of intelligence if the alternative for these elders is to starve, that is a very sad state of affairs. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::It could be quantitative if the phenomenea becomes widespread, as has been alleged by several members of Congress. Getting stupider as one gets older is indeed a sad state of afffairs, especially if it becomes wiespread as is apparent. Take for example the Parable of Ten Virgins ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=KJV Mathew 25]) or wise King Solomon's admonition, "A good man leaves an in heritance to his children", ([http://bible.cc/proverbs/13-22.htm Proverbs 13:22]). How many people today choose to ignore the inherited wisedom passed down through the ages that simply says, "prepare for the future", and choose rather to squander their resources on riotous living? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Main page is now protected from editing ==

Andy, the reason you stated as to why you protected this article is because of edits to remove one counter example (the decreasing intelligence argument), and that you have refuted the criticisms to this counter example. However, you merely rested the counter example several times on this talk page and offered nothing new to support it, and it was other members of this community, myself included, that provided new information and new perspectives and new analyses that refute the inclusion of this counter example in the article. It is unfortunate that we can no longer add to this page because you are intent on keeping this one counter example, no matter how erroneous it is or how bad it makes the other more intelligent counter examples look. '''The unfortunate thing is that this isn't even a liberal vs. conservative issue, it's an issue about math.''' I suppose that I and others should stop talking about this issue on this page now, as to avoid the 90/10 rule, but when editing is reopened for this article, be sure that it will either be I, the other contributors here, or new contributors that will once again highlight the problems with this counter example and this cycle will begin again.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:38, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-06-20T22:49:01Z

AsherL: No slide rules!

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

Let's be fair on this one, you can't Carbon date water because water is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, not Carbon. You can Carbon date the contents of the water that contain Carbon-14, but there's no point to that because all you get is the date of the contents and not the date of the water. I could test the water and get a 100 year old piece of plant mater and get 100 years, or I could test the water and get 5000 year old plant matter and get a date of 5000 years. It's a poor claim to say this method has any bearing on the date of the Earth, no-one who understands the process would make that claim

Furthermore, Carbon dating could never be used to date anything older than say 25,000 years because the half life of Carbon-14 is so short. Even when you do Carbon date something you can never use it to tell the age of the Earth because you would hit a brick wall at that point due to majority of Carbon-14 having decayed into Carbon-12. Other radiometric dating methods are used for telling the age of the Earth because their "clocks" extend further back. I strongly suggest that this point should be removed because it is far too weak, people knowledgeable on this topic would just not take this page seriously.--[[User:SecularConservative|SecularConservative]]

I removed carbon dating of ground water argument for the rather straightforward fact that C14 does not have a sufficiently long enough half-life to measure its decay over billions of years, thus it cannot be used to test the old Earth hypotheses, merely confirm that Earth is '''at least''' several thousand years old, that is if the groundwater has sufficiently high enough concentration of carbon to measure radioactive decay products. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:15, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

::::In regards to the SAT, I think a number of points warrant sharing: Firstly, the idea that the dropping of SAT scores would be indicative of dropping human intelligence is predicated on the idea that the SAT is actually an accurate measure of human intelligence. It is not. In fact, the College Board who administers the test has admitted it: Where the SAT used to stand for Scholastic Aptitude Test, that acronym was removed when the College Board was forced by numerous studies to admit that the test is not a measure of scholastic anything. The test measures precisely how good students are at taking tests, nothing more. An increasing amount of research agrees with this fact. I can provide additional citations if you wish, but this information is readily available.
::::Furthermore, if the SAT were an accurate measure of intelligence and scores were dropping, a number of baseless assumptions would still be being made: Namely, that the people taking the SAT are the same in make-up and number every year. This is not the case. Unfortunately, despite the increasing information that the SAT is a useless examination, more and more students every year are taking it. What that means, however, is that if test scores are indeed going down, we cannot assume that it is indicative of dropping intelligence because every year the makeup of the students is changing. I'll put it more simply: It used to be that only the best students took the SAT, because only the best students went to college and only the best students went to colleges that required high SAT scores for applications. As the national attitude towards secondary education becomes that EVERYBODY needs to go to college, more states have begun requiring SAT testing for students. Thus, not just the best students are taking the SAT - but everyone is, including less intelligent students that otherwise would not take the test. So of course test scores are going to drop. If you were a teacher, and could select the top three students in your class to take a test, and have those test scores reflect your entire class, wouldn't you do that? Of course. Because those students would do well (hopefully), and make your class look intelligent. If, however, your entire class - including the struggling students - had to take the test, the score would not compare well with the test score of the three students. Yes? It's the same thing here.
::::And lastly, you should be aware that the SAT is not the same test every year. It is consistently made more or less difficult in the name of 'raising standards.' That is, when scores get too high, test-makers don't assume that people are getting more intelligent, they assume that the test was too easy, and make it harder. Thus, you see a test today that is far more difficult than it was even a decade ago. Again, for all of this citations are easily found online, but I can provide if that is desired. I would suggest removing the statement about declining human intelligence, as it is not backed up by the evidence presented, and CERTAINLY not backed up by the SAT statement. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 13:39, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Point 1 (your claim that the SAT measures only test-taking skills, and nothing more) is rejected by the vast majority of colleges and scholars and even the NCAA -- as well as common sense. Scores on the test clearly have some correlation with "aptitude", which was the historical purpose of the exam. [[Political correctness]] in changing the name of the test does not change the truth. Individual SAT scores may mean less than averages over many students.

::::: Point II (bigger numbers of people are taking the SAT, which lowers its average) would only be valid if backed up by data, and I doubt there has been any increase in takers of the SAT big enough to account for the decline in scores.

::::: Point III: The writers of the SAT are not making it more difficult. If anything, they are making it easier.

::::: The most plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is the also the most straightforward: people are getting dumber.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Actually, Aschlafly, the majority of colleges and scholars (I don't know about the NCAA) are beginning to realize the inefficiency of standardized testing as a measure of scholastic achievement, and most colleges today are placing less and less emphasis on test scores in regards to admission. Many colleges - off of my head I can name Bates, Bowdoin, Connecticut, and Mount Holyoke - no longer require any standardized testing scores at all. And while those certainly aren't Ivy Leagues, they're not community colleges either.
::Furthermore, year after year the College Board's own statistics depict a virtually linear correlation between things like SAT scores and family income or race. In fact, more than half of the difference in SAT scores can be explained purely on the basis of parents' level of education.
::And consider this: Since 1984, College Board studies of the SAT have shown that only about 12 to 16 percent of the variance in freshman grades could be predicted by SAT scores, which suggests that even in regards to something as subjective as grades, the SAT is a worthless measuring tool. In the 1980s a review in the American Education Research Journal concluded that test scores from high school and college accounted for less than 3 percent of variance in job performance and income, and that such scores had absolutely no predictive power whatsoever over who eventually earned more Ph.D.s or M.D.'s.
::I cannot find the article at this moment, but in a 1996 issue of the Harvard Educational Review, it was reported that participation rates accounted for an incredible 85% of variance in test scores from state to state. Eighty-five percent. That's incredibly significant. So in regards to Point II, yes, a massive amount of score variance can be accounted for by differences in the test taking body.
::Finally, let's look at the idea of standardized testing in general. In a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, students were classified as "actively" engaged in learning if they asked questions of themselves while they read and tried to connect what they were doing to past learning; and they were classified as "superficially" engaged if they just copied down answers, guessed a lot, and skipped hard sections. It turns out that high test scores - including scores on the SAT - were more likely to be found by students who exhibited the superficial approach, rather than the engaged approach.
::Let's face the facts: Standardized testing has never been an effective measure of intelligence. One's ability to spit back facts and answer scholastically useless questions within a time limit is not a measure of intelligence. So to claim that test scores dropping (a fact which hasn't actually been backed up by citations yet) is a measure of a dropping human intelligence is just ridiculous. That would be like saying the Earth is getting warmer by measuring the temperature on the moon. (Something I swear some scientists actually try to do, but whatever). It's not an accurate measuring system. It never has been. I suggest again the removal of the SAT point. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 15:39, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Some studies to back up my earlier claims: Regarding test scores and their predictive power over grades: Ford, Susan F. & Campos, Sandy. Summary of Validity Data from the Admissions Testing Program Validity Study Service. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1977.
::::That study showed that, at best, the SAT showed an 8-15% accuracy in predicting freshman GPA. In other words, for an average 88% of applicants, random chance would do an equal or better job predicting their freshman grades than their SAT scores would.
:::•Astin, Alexander W. "Racial Considerations in Admissions." The Campus and the Racial Crisis. Eds. David C. Nichols & Olive Mills. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1970: 113-141.
•Astin, Alexander W. Predicting Academic Performance in College. New York: Free Press, 1971.
::::Those two studies found that using SAT scores to predict successful graduation resulted in a less than 5% accuracy for both men and women. The SAT cannot, therefore, determine who is going to graduate college, completing an education that would, by golly, make them generally regarded as "intelligent."
:::"Selecting College Material." New York Times 4 April 1976: E7
::::Statistics on test scores and college success, however, can never reveal what might have been. In a rare practical experiment Williams College admitted 358 students, ten percent of each year's new admissions, over a ten year period who would otherwise have been rejected by the school's normal test score and grade requirements. The identities of the "ten percenters" were kept secret from faculty and students. They were subjected to the same academic requirements as other students and received no special aid. In 1976 the results were announced — 71% of the "ten percenters" graduated, compared with the school average of 85%. In one graduating class, the class president, president of the college council, and the president of the honor society were all "ten percenters"
::::Just to back up my claims.[[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 15:52, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::You do a good job of criticizing the SAT, I'm not claiming it to be a perfect measure of aptitude. But it is an approximation and 95% of colleges agree. The most straightforward and plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is declining intelligence. No other explanation is as plausible ... at least not to an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Wait. What? An open mind is closed to '''all''' possibilities as to ''why'' SAT scores have dropped over the last few years, except for the option of people becoming less intelligent? Shouldn't we check whether the SAT's as they existed in the 1970's and as they existed in 2005 (say) to make sure the test aren't just ''harder''? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:48, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
::OK, so it seems like we could expect any matter that is billions of years old to be in a completely random, disordered state by now. Maybe this counterexample doesn't need to refer specifically to underground well water. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 16:25, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::The example of water is particularly striking. If I see a bucket full of water in a desert, then I can infer it has not been there more than a day or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.

See above.

3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Heres an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[11] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago![Citation Needed]

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.[Citation Needed]

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

6. The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.

There are fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Inferences about a lack of equilibrium (i.e., lack of very long term stability) can be drawn from the drying of a major river like the Colorado River.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Even if it were 'unstable' in the 'long-term' (both highly ambiguous and undefined terms I might add), a lack of stability is not equal to non-existence. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 10:14, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Similar inferences are drawn in other contexts without objection. For example, if there are puddles of water on the ground in the morning, then it is reasonably inferred that it rained the night before, not every night for the last seven days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::I agree with the analogy. Saying that the earth is young because one river dries up is a lot like saying you believe that it rained because you saw one puddle. Do you also infer that new rivers imply that the earth is young? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 21:29, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
When it next rains one might reasonably expect that a puddle will form in the same place and will once again dry up afterwards. How then can we possibly draw any conclusions about the age of the earth from looking at just one wet-dry cycle? We can't. Looking at one cycle doesn't tell us how many cycles there have been. The decreasing discharge of the river has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of the age of the earth. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:16, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Fundamental misunderstanding of dog breeding ==

The article stated under the Biology section: "The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today." The statement asserts that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing, suggesting that if we extrapolate backward in time, an old-Earth would be overrun with pure breed dogs. Dogs, however, were domesticated only a few thousand years ago by man from more docile wolves, and even then only a few pure breed dogs existed for centuries. Only in the 19th century did the number of dog breads exploded in the western world as designer dogs because a status symbol amongst the newly emerging middle class and new uses for dogs were discovered. The argument directly states that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing due to crossbreeding - while the genetic purity of older dog breeds is slowly being diluted, new designer dog breeds are always being developed (as tradition stretching back over a century).unsigned by User:Mike127

== Diminishing intelligence, etc. ==

The first argument under Biology reads: "The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[24] music, personal letters,[25] quality of political debates,[26] the quality of news articles,[27] and many other measures." While this statement may work well for arguing that the world is nearing its end, it certainly doesn't support or refute old Earth or young Earth theories.unsigned by User:Mike127

: Sure it does. The observed slope of the intelligence curve over time is sharply negative. Extrapolate backwards and before long the IQs are astoundingly high. But there's no evidence of astoundingly high IQs for man, so the conclusion is clear: time does not extend much backwards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:52, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:: But if the slope is so steep, then Earth couldn't be even 6,000 years old. If the decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon, then extrapolation would produce erroneous results. This website [[http://tamlin.info/graphs_aclu_page.htm]] plots SAT scores starting from the 1960s, and if one were to extrapolate backwards using these scores, then we would have to assume all people from the 18th century and before, if SATs had existed then, would have gotten perfect scores. If the website is correct that the removal of prayer from schools caused this decrease in SAT scores, and before God was removed everything was fine, then that means this meter of human intelligence is flawed: it is subject to outside sources of variability. I cannot find a graph that plots IQ scores for a population over any long length of time, but the point would be the same, extrapolation of intelligence in a dubious means of gauging the age of Earth, the extrapolation is inappropriate either because human intelligence levels fluctuate over time (i.e. the user's perceived decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon) or because if extrapolation was appropriate, we would expect people just a few hundred years ago to all be geniuses, and this was not the case. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 13:32, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Adam and Eve were a lot smarter (before the fall) than IQ tests could possibly measure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:34, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::I am unaware of any part of Genesis that states that Adam and Eve were '''astronomically''' smarter than humans today. The point I was making above, to restate, is that if human intelligence could drop so quickly in the 20th century, and extrapolation backwards is justified, then humans just a few hundred years ago or less, perhaps just a hundred years ago depending on what data you look at, must have been extraordinary geniuses, and that is simply not factual by any historical standards. Thus, I fail to see your point: the bible does not corroborate your statement and even if it did, it would still suggest that human intelligence is declining by a nonlinear function, thus linear extrapolation, as the article implies, is not justified.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I feel it necessary to point out that if the extrapolation of human intelligence backwards in time is not a justifiable proof of young Earth, this does not mean that this is in some way a proof of old Earth theories. The concept is simply flawed and cannot delineate one theory from another, thus it should not be included on this list.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Mike, this is simple logic. Extrapolation backward more than a half-dozen or so thousands of years is simply inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, this is simple math. My point is that extrapolation backward even 6000 years would also be inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years. We would be forced to conclude that the Earth isn't even 6000 years old but far far younger if the slope of this decline is consistent. If the slope is not consistent (meaning the acceleration of the decline of in intelligence is variable), then any extrapolation is not appropriate and will lead to erroneous results, like the earth being only 1000 years old for instance. If the argument is to be kept in the article, then an accommodating graph should be presented or linked as a reference, showing key markers of intelligence in recent decades and how the proposed extrapolation would yield an age for the Earth that is 6,000 years rather than something far younger than this.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:04, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, I am a great fan of this website and your counterexamples are normally very sound, but I have to disagree with you on this one. You are assuming that the rate of decline in human intelligence is constant, whereas it changes over time, according to the interplay of many complex factors.
::Using the same type of logic, and keeping in mind that average height has increased by one inch since 1960, I could argue that the Earth could not possibly be more than 3000 years old, because before then, people would have had a negative height. And that is assuming that before the birth of Christ, they were less than 2 feet and a half tall on average. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 22:17, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Neither objection above withstands scrutiny. The counterexample does not "prove too much," because 800 SAT scores in the past would not be inconsistent with the high quality works and reading abilities of common people centuries ago. Nor are increases in height analogous, because that is obviously affected by diet, sleep, medicine and other advances in society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Andy, if neither of the above arguments are enough to convince you of the central flaw of this line of reasoning, then may I ask that you or another contributor supply this article with a graph illustrating how this backward extrapolation gives an age of 6000 years using actual quantifiable means of measuring human intelligence (i.e. IQ scores). Or, if someone has posted such a graph on the internet, please provide a link to this graph in the article as a reference. I only ask that the math actually be conducted and not assumed to fit a given theory. And I again feel like I should add that removal of this argument as proof of young Earth does not in effect support an old Earth, it supports neither.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:41, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps we've become so unintelligent as to ignore the lack of evidence for the underlying assumption that the rate of decline is constant? Andy, if it were the case that people were becoming more intelligent, would that be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The rate of decline need not be constant, and nothing in the counterexample implies that it would be. But it's continuous and differentiable -- surely not a step function.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You have provided no evidence that the rate has always been negative. Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::So, would I be right in saying that in 200 years mankind's intelligence will disintegrate into nothing more than walking apes or are we headed toward [[liberal stupidity]] against [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]. Striking. [[Paulhernandez]] 00:37, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I think the most reasonable approach here is to remove this counter example until such time that evidence can be provided that supports it. This is my concern: if a new reader, a homeschooler, or anyone interested in the subject comes to this article and comes across this flawed argument, this would tend to discredit the other arguments on the page. For example, if you were to meet someone for the first time, and you share a conversation with them, agree with everything they have to say about a subject, but then this person makes some outlandish statement about the subject, wouldn’t that make you question their other statements and even your own beliefs since you share some many beliefs with this individual? Essentially, a rotten apple spoils the bunch, and that's what this counter example is. Let's remove this counter example, and if someone can provide an analysis of declining human intelligence, if it is in fact declining, that fits the counter example, then the subject can be reopened for debate. If we are to make headway in establishing this website as a preeminent educational resource, we must make sure our statements are well thought-out, that the arguments made by this site hold water, and that those arguments that don’t hold water are not allowed to spoil the others that are most certainly valid.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 15:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::Brad's comment is like suggesting that heat may flow to hotter locations. There's something called [[entropy]] that means disorder does increase over time, also known as the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. Argue against it if you like, but I doubt you're going to persuade anyone.

:::::::::::Explain this: why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth? When you can look at your own position objectively, then you can realize great insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Andy, your analogy is fatally flawed and fails to persuade. You're essentially arguing that your mind is closed. Is your mind open to outside influence? Then the law of entropy does not apply, as it is not closed.
::::::::::::Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? Why can't you answer the question? Wouldn't the [[Flynn effect]] (a theory much more widely accepted than your assertion to the contrary) be stronger evidence for a young earth because if you extrapolated it backwards, society would have been so unintelligent as to not survive?
::::::::::::How do you reconcile your insight that society becomes less intelligent with your insight that society becomes more conservative?
::::::::::::I'm not opposed to the existence of a young earth. Is your mind open to that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 17:46, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You raise an interesting point there, Brad. Society IS inevitably becoming more and more conservative, as can be seen by the evolution of language, and as conservativism favours logical thinking, IQ should rise as an effect. What is the data showing that average IQs are decreasing, by the way? I'd love to see those studies myself, I am very interested by this subject. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:35, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Brad, perhaps some graphs will help. [http://static.inky.ws/image/400/image.jpg this graph] shows liberalism (in red) increasing linearly, conservatism (in green) increasing quadratically. The point is that when we talk about liberalism or conservatism 'increasing', it means the strength and persuasiveness of the ideas; that's how both can be increasing at once. The scope and magnitude of the policies demanded by liberals increases, as does the strength and coherence of the conservative alternative. In the marketplace of ideas, the stronger ideas win out in the long run, so on average the number of adherents of either side will be in the same proportion as the relative strengths of the ideas. I hope that's clear... [http://static.inky.ws/image/401/image.jpg This graph] shows the effect of the previous graph on numbers. Obviously these are just demonstrations of general trends, but it does show how these two effects can be reconciled. In fact, I think the graphs are rather interesting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:49, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks, Jcw, the graphs do make it a bit more easy to understand and to digest, although it's a complex matter and I am not sure I grasp it completely still. What do the numbers in the graphs stand for, exactly? Thanks for taking the time to try to explain this, I am feeling really dense now :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::No problem Leonard. Here's how I interpret it; others may well disagree. As Andy observes, the rate at which new conservative ideas are produced and refined is increasing rapidly. Andy's original observation was of an exponential increase, but I think that's an artifact of the measurement - if you look at the top right part of the green line on the first graph, it looks exponential in that region, but taken as a whole it's a quadratic curve. Likewise, Andy's observation of words since 1600 shows exponential growth, but graphing exponential growth over several thousand years shows that it can't be that fast over the whole period. It has also been observed that liberalism is on the increase. In both cases, what we're talking about is - in my opinion - the relative strength of the two world-views. As humanity develops, ideas are tested against each other, old ideas are tested against new ideas and so on, with the better ideas surviving in the long run. The previous observations about growth of conservatism and liberalism can be reconciled on that assumption; the two sides are both developing their ideas and improving them. Thus the first graph shows how conservative ideas develop faster than liberal ones - liberals merely add more ideas linearly, while conservatives can combine new with old productively, so each year the increase is greater than the year before.
::The second graph shows (again, hypothetical) numbers of conservatively or liberally inclined people, based on the previous graph - the number of adherents of each view is assumed to be proportional to the ratio of the numbers in the previous graph. Again, it's all just a demonstration rather than an assertion about the details of actual politics, but hopefully it illustrates what we're talking about here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:10, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Jcw, Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative. Andy's new insight asserts that society will also become less intelligent. I don't believe you've reconciled anything.
:::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The apparent decrease in intelligence is easily explained by the increase in liberal influence in teaching. Liberal ideas hold disproportionate sway in the education field in many Western countries: note that homeschoolers' performance isn't falling, so it's not that humans are getting inherently less intelligent, but that the influence of growing liberalism is leading to less-educated people who use their God-given intelligence far less than they used to. My hypothetical graphs suggest that liberals are getting more liberal and conservatives more conservative, which seems perfectly in line with the observations. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::The influence of liberalism on eduction is decreasing because the geometric growth in conservative insights implies that the obstacles -- liberal censorship and deceit -- lose ground at a geometric rate in a free society. True or false?
:::::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:25, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Brad, your tone makes it abundantly clear that you're not trying to engage in a reasonable discussion on this point. What's more, your point doesn't make sense. As I said above, liberal and conservative ideas aren't distributed evenly in all areas, so one area - education - can be increasingly liberal while another - the US population a whole - can be increasingly conservative. Please think your points through before posting them and try to be more civil; it will help the discussion immensely. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'm sorry you feel that way, Jcw. I am trying to engage in a reasonable discussion by positing that an increase in intelligence (as evidenced by the Flynn effect) is a stronger argument for a young earth. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:54, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I too disagree with the analogy you drew between Brad's comments and the Laws of Thermodynamics. And as far as your question goes: ''"why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth?"'' -- I don't think anyone in this conversation is suggesting that they do not support a young Eart, we just don't support this argument for young Earth. This issue is not as black and white as you seem to see it: removal of this counterpoint does not inherently advantage the arguments for an old Earth. If I said that an alien came to me and told me that the Earth is billions of years old, or that it is 6000 years old, you and no other logically minded person would agree that this was proof for one theory vs another. And you shouldn't, it's a ludicrous argument, and just because you support the theory that this so-called proof supports, it doesn't mean you have to support this "proof" as well. As an earlier contributor posted, using the same logic about declining human intelligence to extrapolate the age of the Earth, one could use increasing human height to argue that the Earth is far younger than 6000 years (the contributor suggested it would be closer to 3000 years and that means everyone during Jesus's time would be under 2 feet tall, which is not true). You have yet to provide any extrapolation based on hard numbers, only supplying us with anecdotes like civil war letters and the federalist papers as examples of declining intelligence. Even if these examples were valid (and that is doubtful), it would suggest a very steep slope for the decline of intelligence over the past 200 or so years, thus people 1000 years ago should all be genius is the slope is consistent according to your argument. And the slope does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested; this is basic mathematics and regression theory. Again, the argument is poorly thought out and does not seem to be supported by any hard evidence or even the majority of commentators here, thus it should be removed from the article until such time when an analysis is presented that supports this argument. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:Pick any measure you like, and it's clear that intelligence is declining. Read, for example, [[Civil War]] letters and compare them to what the average person produces today. How long could intelligence be declining at a significant rate? Not hundreds of thousands of years, or even tens of thousands of years.

:The logic is simple and unmistakable. I doubt you've heard it before, but that's not a reason to reject it. Honestly, after all this discussion, I still don't see a logical objection to this counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a few glaring problems with using the change in language between the Civil War and now to measure intelligence. Firstly, you're ignoring how the language has developed during the period, and has become more practical and less "flowery" - hardly a sign of less intelligence. Unless you're referring to text-speak of course, which hasn't exactly entered mainstream literature or business yet. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that for every Civil War letter that was written, there was at least an equal number of illiterate soldiers on either side. And the final point, which is baffling me, is that here you're using diminishing language skills to show that people are becoming less intelligent, and yet elsewhere on Conservapedia, you claim the language is becoming more conservative. Which is it, because you can't use language to prove two entirely contradictory points? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:14, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: There's no contradiction. Technology will improve despite people getting less intelligent. The counterexample is well-supported and can hardly be doubted. Examples are numerous for the obvious decline in intelligence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::There might not be a contradiction, but you are claiming that language is becoming more conservative, which implies society is becoming more conservative, whilst at the same time claiming people are becoming less intelligent. Likewise, you use Civil War letters as an example, compared to modern day writing, and yet you claim the Babylonians - who must have been very intelligent compared to us - had a language that could not express complex terms, such as "sin" ([http://www.jstor.org/pss/1196058 actually they could - in very definitive terms]). I have no problem with you claiming humans are becoming less intelligent, but by using language as an example, you're shooting your other theories in the foot. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, you forgot to do any math to support this counter example, and this counter example depends on a mathematical principle: regression and extrapolation. Let’s assume for the sake of any argument that human intelligence is declining, and let's also say it is declining rapidly, as you have insisted. If it is declining so rapidly in the last 200 years, then why wasn't the average person during the middle ages a genius by today's standards? If the slope is as steep as you insist, estimates the intelligence of people during Jesus's time would suggest that they were many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, and while a few might have been, the Bible is full of examples of stupid, ignorant people, so this too seems unlikely according to the Bible and historical records. And remember, Andy, the slope of the decline does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested, this cannot be argued, this is math, math is not biased. Please, provide us with the math that your argument holds water, until then, this counter example should be removed, '''let’s not let this flawed counter example spoil the bunch.''' --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 00:09, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::My revisions to the article have been once again reverted by Aschlafly. Andy, shouldn't you at least err on the side of caution, given that several members of the community have given very cogent examples as to how this line of reasoning is flawed, and allow the counter example to be removed from the article until such time that consensus amongst contributors can be reached, or at least some actual data is presented in support of this claim. And by data I mean '''the regression analysis and interpolation the counter example alludes to''' but neither you nor any other member of this community have produced yet. If the counter example must stay in the article because of one member of the community's desire to see it stay, then we should at least include that this counter example points to a VERY young Earth, far less than 6000 years.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:08, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Mike, the counterexample does not require precise mathematical analysis. Intelligence is significantly declining in a way that could not have lasted for tens of thousands of years with the level of intelligence and historical evidence seen today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy, the reason why a mathematical analysis is needed is because you've insisted that the slope of the decline in intelligence is steep enough that intelligence could not have been declining this fast for all that long (not hundreds of thousands of years, but instead only thousands). However, if the slope is as steep as you say (e.g. comparing the federalist papers to today's news) then it would seem that the decline of intelligence would have been so rapid that it couldn't have been declining for even thousands of years, but perhaps only hundreds. The examples you give of SAT scores, civil war letters, the federalist papers, etc. as you have interpreted them would all seem to suggest that if we extrapolate backwards even a thousand years the human race would have been many fold more intelligent than it is today, but that is untrue - the middle ages were a time of great trials for humans, lack of education, lack of freedoms, etc. What I have proposed to you or anyone one else in favor of this argument is that the slope of this decline be determined (meaning quantifiable scores of intelligence be used, e.g. IQ scores - SAT would be problematic due to biases in the design of this test). This is why the math is important, to discern whether the human race is 6000 years old, older or younger. All I ask for is a graph, and I believe it would help future readers of the article understand your point better. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

===I'm confused===
Maybe I'm proof of a young earth, but please can you reconcile your two theories to me, as they don't make sense:
* In one, you say that the decrease in language skills since the civil war, shows a decrease in human intelligence.
* In the other, you say that the number of conservative words has increased exponentially - even more so since the civil war.
Thus it seems as if you're implying that as people become less intelligent, and language skills decrease, the number of conservative words in use increases. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:48, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

: There's no contradiction. The dumbest people imaginable would still improve technology, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::So you're saying really dumb people would build a better Large Hadron Collider? Or the next Space Shuttle? By your argument, technological progress is inversely proportional to intelligence. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Israelites must have been more intelligent than us, yet were technologically backwards.

::Plus you're also implying that dumb people are improving the language by making it conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:22, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I've also found an excellent [http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/letters.htm archive of Civil War letters]. Having read through them - especially those of the less educated rank-and-file soldiers, I can't find any basis to support your assertion that language skills have decreased since the Civil War. If anything, the introduction paragraphs for each letter are in many cases far more eloquent than the letters themselves. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Technology -- and language -- build on what exists. Yes, dumb people improve both. I don't know why that would be so difficult to understand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Bear in mind also that there are more people around than there were in the past. Yes, technology is increasing more rapidly than it used to, but that is a result of the combined efforts of billions of people - and existing technology allows more time for advancement by increasing the efficiency of menial tasks that took up a lot of time in other eras.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 17:42, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::Well put. Note also that the English language has a wiki-like quality that enables it to build on prior improvements. For example, once "free speech" becomes a term, it facilitates many more insightful terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== People are getting less intelligent over time. ==

....but they're also, given the increase in new conservative words, getting more conservative over time. Is there a correlation between these facts? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 19:56, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:The consensus seems to be that society becomes more conservative ''despite'' becoming less intelligent. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::Society builds on what is accomplished, and does not have to reinvent the wheel. So technology and conservatism grow over time, but each generation is obviously less intelligent than the one before it. [[The Federalist Papers]], for example, ran in an ordinary newspaper 224 years ago; today an average college student has trouble understanding them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::But they *can* understand Foucault and Derrida, and a much more complex level of mathematics, things that would possibly have been quite difficult 224 years ago [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 20:21, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::No, the average person cannot understand even mildly advanced mathematics. We've been discussing average intelligence, and its decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, you were the one who brought up "average college students," who need to understand ideas that are far more complex than what their counterparts did a couple of centuries, or even decades ago. And do you have any evidence that the average college student, or man in the street, does not understand the Federalist Papers? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 21:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::There is an article stating that man's brain has shrunk 10%. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] Another that says obesity shrinks the brain significantly. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] The source is less than credible with their faux conservatism and their evolutionary clap trap but I am positive it is not the only source discussing the issue described. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: In response to Jpatt, minor differences in brain size between humans are poorly correlated with intelligence. Take, for example, the average size of a woman's brain vs. a man's brain, the woman's brain is smaller (by about 2% if memory serves), but women are no less intelligent than men. Before one jumps to the conclusion that I am saying that an individual person's brain can shrink without damaging cognitive function, let me assure you that I am not. Alzheimer’s Disease patients suffer from, amongst other things, the general atrophy of their brains, loosing significant volume and mass over the progress of the disease. And at the same time, one may also assume I'm saying that animals with small brains (like rats) may be just as intelligent as humans, and let me assure you that I am not saying this - a rat's brain is several orders of magnitude smaller than a human's brain and their level of intelligence is reflected by this. What I am saying is that small percentage differences in humans' brains over time (like what is detailed in the above reference form Jpatt) of minor difference between individual people cannot relay any significant different in intelligence. Here are some interesting anatomical facts about brain sizes: [[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html]] --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::ok, my great-grandfather lived to be 106 years old without ever eating dog food or cashing a Social Security check. Several members of Congress claim their elder constituents, after a lifetime of learning and experience, must eat dog food ''if they don't'' collect and cash Social Security checks. Could this be quantifiable standard to extrapolate backwards a measurement of human intelligence? After all, it not only measures whether or not the species is less intelligent than a generation ago, it could reveal if an individual person gets more stupid with longevity, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Rob, what you presented was a ''qualitative'' (not quantitative) anecdotal (i.e. single example) piece of evidence. Also, I don't see how eating dog food is a sign of lack of intelligence if the alternative for these elders is to starve, that is a very sad state of affairs. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::It could be quantitative if the phenomenea becomes widespread, as has been alleged by several members of Congress. Getting stupider as one gets older is indeed a sad state of afffairs, especially if it becomes wiespread as is apparent. Take for example the Parable of Ten Virgins ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=KJV Mathew 25]) or wise King Solomon's admonition, "A good man leaves an in heritance to his children", ([http://bible.cc/proverbs/13-22.htm Proverbs 13:22]). How many people today choose to ignore the inherited wisedom passed down through the ages that simply says, "prepare for the future", and choose rather to squander their resources on riotous living? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Main page is now protected from editing ==

Andy, the reason you stated as to why you protected this article is because of edits to remove one counter example (the decreasing intelligence argument), and that you have refuted the criticisms to this counter example. However, you merely rested the counter example several times on this talk page and offered nothing new to support it, and it was other members of this community, myself included, that provided new information and new perspectives and new analyses that refute the inclusion of this counter example in the article. It is unfortunate that we can no longer add to this page because you are intent on keeping this one counter example, no matter how erroneous it is or how bad it makes the other more intelligent counter examples look. '''The unfortunate thing is that this isn't even a liberal vs. conservative issue, it's an issue about math.''' I suppose that I and others should stop talking about this issue on this page now, as to avoid the 90/10 rule, but when editing is reopened for this article, be sure that it will either be I, the other contributors here, or new contributors that will once again highlight the problems with this counter example and this cycle will begin again.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:38, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Democrat Race Card: June 2011

2011-06-20T04:55:09Z

AsherL: /* Do Dems control the GOP? */ still not clear

==Do Dems control the GOP?==

The item:
*[[Washington Post]]: GOP pulls Obama impersonator off stage at the Republican Leadership Conference after 15 minutes of racial/gay jokes. [ref snipped]

would suggest Democrats are using the GOP leadership to further their race-baiting agenda.

How is this a ploy of the Democrat Race Card? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 23:31, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:washington post pulled a stunt, made into a racial issue. Impersonator pulled because of jokes mocking the gop. You'll notice that the impersonator was black.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:00, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::Lemme get this straight: at a GOP run event, the Washington Post sends in an Obama impersonator to poke fun at the GOP and the leaders of the event got wise and pulled the impersonator?
::I do not know the ethnicity of Reggie Brown, he could be Polynesian, for all I know. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 00:55, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Democrat Race Card: June 2011

2011-06-20T03:31:30Z

AsherL: Confusing

The Human Genome Project

2011-06-06T03:57:45Z

AsherL: /* Project goals */

The '''Human Genome Project''' was originally planned to last 15 years, but rapid technological advances accelerated the completion date to 2003.

== Project goals==
To further science's understanding of genetic sequencing and to help trace differences between various [[baramin]], researchers developed several goals which they wished to achieve. Among these are:
*identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
*determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
*store this information in databases,
*improve tools for data analysis,
*transfer related technologies to the private sector.
Researchers also studied the genetic makeup of several nonhuman organisms. These include the common human gut bacterium ''Escherichia coli, (E. coli''); ''Drosophila melanogaster'' the fruit fly; and ''Mus musculus,'' the mouse, (since it has nearly the same number of genes as do ''H. sapiens sapiens'').

A unique aspect of the U.S. Human Genome Project is that it was the first large scientific undertaking to address potential ethical concerns, (which science isn't very good at).
Another important aspect of the project was the federal government's long-standing dedication to the transfer of technology to the private sector. As of this writing  no real-world, for-profit endeavors have been realized from this boondoggle.

In spite of "landmark" papers detailing sequence and analysis of the human genome being published in February 2001 and April 2003 the $15 billion dollar project cost merely lined the pockets of [[professor values|"researchers"]] with little benefit to the public at-large.

The project was led by geneticist [[Francis Collins]].

[[Category:Genetics]]

The Human Genome Project

2011-06-06T03:56:58Z

AsherL: Common names

The '''Human Genome Project''' was originally planned to last 15 years, but rapid technological advances accelerated the completion date to 2003.

== Project goals==
To further science's understanding of genetic sequencing and to help trace differences between various [[baramin]], researchers developed several goals which they wished to achieve. Among these are:
*identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
*determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
*store this information in databases,
*improve tools for data analysis,
*transfer related technologies to the private sector.
Researchers also studied the genetic makeup of several nonhuman organisms. These include the common human gut bacterium ''Escherichia coli, (E. coli''); ''Drosophila melanogaster''the fruit fly; and ''Mus musculus,'' the mouse, since it has nearly the same number of genes as do ''H. sapiens sapiens''.

A unique aspect of the U.S. Human Genome Project is that it was the first large scientific undertaking to address potential ethical concerns, (which science isn't very good at).
Another important aspect of the project was the federal government's long-standing dedication to the transfer of technology to the private sector. As of this writing  no real-world, for-profit endeavors have been realized from this boondoggle.

In spite of "landmark" papers detailing sequence and analysis of the human genome being published in February 2001 and April 2003 the $15 billion dollar project cost merely lined the pockets of [[professor values|"researchers"]] with little benefit to the public at-large.

The project was led by geneticist [[Francis Collins]].

[[Category:Genetics]]

The Human Genome Project

2011-06-06T03:44:25Z

AsherL: More

The '''Human Genome Project''' was originally planned to last 15 years, but rapid technological advances accelerated the completion date to 2003.

== Project goals==
To further science's understanding of genetic sequencing and to help trace differences between various [[baramin]], researchers developed several goals which they wished to achieve. Among these are:
*identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
*determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
*store this information in databases,
*improve tools for data analysis,
*transfer related technologies to the private sector.
Researchers also studied the genetic makeup of several nonhuman organisms. These include the common human gut bacterium ''Escherichia coli, (E. coli''); ''Drosophila melanogaster''; and ''Mus musculus.''

A unique aspect of the U.S. Human Genome Project is that it was the first large scientific undertaking to address potential ethical concerns, (which science isn't very good at).
Another important aspect of the project was the federal government's long-standing dedication to the transfer of technology to the private sector. As of this writing  no real-world, for-profit endeavors have been realized from this boondoggle.

In spite of "landmark" papers detailing sequence and analysis of the human genome being published in February 2001 and April 2003 the $15 billion dollar project cost merely lined the pockets of [[professor values|"researchers"]] with little benefit to the public at-large.

The project was led by geneticist [[Francis Collins]].

[[Category:Genetics]]