Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Kepler's laws of planetary motion

2007-12-03T04:12:39Z

BillOhannity: removing copyrighted material

Bernoulli's principle

2007-12-03T04:12:12Z

BillOhannity: removing copyrighted material

Snell's Law

2007-12-03T04:11:31Z

BillOhannity: removing copyrighted material

Lagrangian Dynamics

2007-12-03T04:11:04Z

BillOhannity: removing copyrighted material

Lagrangian Dynamics

2007-12-02T17:56:31Z

BillOhannity: creating new article: lagrangian dynamics (p.s. contributing positive content to make karajou happy :-) )

'''Lagrangian dynamics''' are an alternative to [[Newtonian mechanics]]. Lagrangian dynamics are particularly useful in solving for the equations of a motion of a system operating under constraints. Often it is possible, using Lagrangian dynamics, to solve for the equations of motion for a system without needing to solve for the constraint forces, which is why they are often preferred over Newtonian mechanics for these types of problems. It is important to note that both methods will yield the same end result, the only thing that changes is the method of arriving at the end result.

One form of the Lagrangian equation is as follows:

<math>{\partial L }/ {\partial \dot q} - {\partial L} /{\partial q} = Q </math>

Where:
L, the Lagrangian function, is defined as: L = T - V, where T is the total kinetic energy of the system and V is the total potential energy of the system
q is the generalized coordinate
Q is the generalized force

Talk:Moon

2007-12-02T17:27:40Z

BillOhannity: /* "Many" atheists edit */

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:[http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html The Pope has no problem with evolution]. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.
:[[User:PeterBird|PeterBird]] 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

:::Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::: Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::: You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::This article quotes popes [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Order, I'm not going chase any more of your [[hearsay]]. This is [[Conservapedia]], and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote '''here'''. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation. The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above. The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]]. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::Here is quote from [[Pope Benedict]]: ''This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.'' [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html]

::::::::Additional sources: [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm Truth Cannot Contradict Truth], [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp Message from the Pope, 1996], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html EVOLUTION AND THE POPE], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html The Pope and Evolution], [http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html POPE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION]

::::::::Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps these speeches have been misinterpreted, or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the [[liberal]] media? Anyway, I hope these help.[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work. I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Miller et al] found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'' which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God '''and''' an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.
:To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:: That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, [[Christians]] almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:::There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a ''correlation'' of beliefs, but a ''basis'' of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about ''history'', not ''science'', and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)
::Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.
::The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the ''evidence'' for long ages is ambiguous at best.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.
:::You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.
:::: As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that ''subsequently'' became bad when mankind rejected God.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::: We all know that '''your'' God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.
::::::So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.
::::::: For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
: By observing them as they are happening. Your point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Just like the rest of us. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::If only! Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds. The same applies to the geology. No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history. Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness". If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research is absolute nonsense. It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses. Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth. All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Yes, all we know from our "supposed eyewitnesses" is what the Bible says about them, for these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write. God said He created the earth and everything in it in six days. Your version of events went through various changes over a period of nearly two hundred years because your "emminent scientists" couldn't agree on how it was done. What's the latest excuse today? Is it life was created after lightning hit a swamp? To me, the people you worship will come up with theory after theory after theory...as long as it doesn't include God. You need to prove God doesn't exist first before you start telling the rest of mankind as to how life was created, especially when you have no absolute proof of that whatsoever. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::::Not sure where to start with that. First of all, you just hit on a key difference between science and religion. I do not worship scientists, nor do I take what they say as fact without questioning it and deciding for myself first. Second, I said nothing about the existence of non-existence of any god. Third, I'm not telling mankind anything about how life was created, I am merely pointing out that PJR's own arguments can be applied against him. Fourth, while I have no intention of trying to prove that god doesn't exist, I can assure you that any attempt to do so would fail because those who would need to be convinced would reject any evidence provided since it "goes against the bible" or whatever they like to call it. Fifth, I doubt that anyone can prove definitely the existence of a god, which is why religions rely so much on faith. In fact, now that you mentioned it...you say that "these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write." What real proof do you have for that, other than it says so in the bible?--[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 11:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::::There's plenty of evidence out there that confirms the existence of God: in nature, in the historical record, and in the archaeological record. You said plenty in your above posting that it is a personal choice by anyone whether to accept such evidence or reject it. If someone says that Napoleon was a girl, no amount of evidence to the contrary will make him change his mind. The same thing applies to you. No amount of evidence that we can muster in support of God will cause you to change your mind about it. With all due respect, that's the sign of a closed mind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::::With all due respect to you as well, I would appreciate you not making assumptions about me. I do have an open mind, and I would absolutely love to see your evidence. I would argue that those who start all of their discussions with "the bible is fact, now let's work from there" is more a sign of a closed mind. I did say that it is a choice to accept or reject evidence, but it should be accepted or rejected based on its merits, not based on whether or not it supports your pre-existing beliefs. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 12:27, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have. Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope). For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be). Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.
::::::::::: Scientists will claim/admit (depending on the circumstances) that nothing in science can be absolutely certain, but when it comes to evolution and long ages (among other things), they ''effectively'' say that it is certain. Evolution is no longer a "theory" (in the layman sense of "uncertain"), but "fact", and no alternative view (creation or intelligent design) is allowed to be considered.
::::::::::: I agree that you can't (shouldn't) apply the principles of religion to science, as "religion" claims certainty because it is the revelation of the omniscient and infallible God, which science isn't. So why does science claim that God got it wrong?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== This article is about the Moon ==

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually ''devolved'', which ''is'' possible! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Moon

2007-12-02T16:20:49Z

BillOhannity: /* "Many" atheists edit */

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:[http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html The Pope has no problem with evolution]. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.
:[[User:PeterBird|PeterBird]] 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

:::Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::: Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::: You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::This article quotes popes [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Order, I'm not going chase any more of your [[hearsay]]. This is [[Conservapedia]], and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote '''here'''. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation. The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above. The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]]. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::Here is quote from [[Pope Benedict]]: ''This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.'' [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html]

::::::::Additional sources: [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm Truth Cannot Contradict Truth], [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp Message from the Pope, 1996], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html EVOLUTION AND THE POPE], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html The Pope and Evolution], [http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html POPE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION]

::::::::Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps these speeches have been misinterpreted, or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the [[liberal]] media? Anyway, I hope these help.[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work. I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Miller et al] found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'' which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God '''and''' an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.
:To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:: That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, [[Christians]] almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:::There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a ''correlation'' of beliefs, but a ''basis'' of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about ''history'', not ''science'', and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)
::Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.
::The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the ''evidence'' for long ages is ambiguous at best.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.
:::You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.
:::: As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that ''subsequently'' became bad when mankind rejected God.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::: We all know that '''your'' God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.
::::::So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.
::::::: For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
: By observing them as they are happening. Your point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Just like the rest of us. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::If only! Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds. The same applies to the geology. No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history. Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness". If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research is absolute nonsense. It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses. Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth. All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Yes, all we know from our "supposed eyewitnesses" is what the Bible says about them, for these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write. God said He created the earth and everything in it in six days. Your version of events went through various changes over a period of nearly two hundred years because your "emminent scientists" couldn't agree on how it was done. What's the latest excuse today? Is it life was created after lightning hit a swamp? To me, the people you worship will come up with theory after theory after theory...as long as it doesn't include God. You need to prove God doesn't exist first before you start telling the rest of mankind as to how life was created, especially when you have no absolute proof of that whatsoever. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::::Not sure where to start with that. First of all, you just hit on a key difference between science and religion. I do not worship scientists, nor do I take what they say as fact without questioning it and deciding for myself first. Second, I said nothing about the existence of non-existence of any god. Third, I'm not telling mankind anything about how life was created, I am merely pointing out that PJR's own arguments can be applied against him. Fourth, while I have no intention of trying to prove that god doesn't exist, I can assure you that any attempt to do so would fail because those who would need to be convinced would reject any evidence provided since it "goes against the bible" or whatever they like to call it. Fifth, I doubt that anyone can prove definitely the existence of a god, which is why religions rely so much on faith. In fact, now that you mentioned it...you say that "these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write." What real proof do you have for that, other than it says so in the bible?--[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 11:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have. Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope). For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be). Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.
::::::::::: Scientists will claim/admit (depending on the circumstances) that nothing in science can be absolutely certain, but when it comes to evolution and long ages (among other things), they ''effectively'' say that it is certain. Evolution is no longer a "theory" (in the layman sense of "uncertain"), but "fact", and no alternative view (creation or intelligent design) is allowed to be considered.
::::::::::: I agree that you can't (shouldn't) apply the principles of religion to science, as "religion" claims certainty because it is the revelation of the omniscient and infallible God, which science isn't. So why does science claim that God got it wrong?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== This article is about the Moon ==

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually ''devolved'', which ''is'' possible! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Moon

2007-12-02T15:43:35Z

BillOhannity:

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:[http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html The Pope has no problem with evolution]. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.
:[[User:PeterBird|PeterBird]] 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

:::Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::: Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::: You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::This article quotes popes [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Order, I'm not going chase any more of your [[hearsay]]. This is [[Conservapedia]], and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote '''here'''. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation. The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above. The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]]. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::Here is quote from [[Pope Benedict]]: ''This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.'' [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html]

::::::::Additional sources: [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm Truth Cannot Contradict Truth], [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp Message from the Pope, 1996], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html EVOLUTION AND THE POPE], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html The Pope and Evolution], [http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html POPE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION]

::::::::Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps these speeches have been misinterpreted, or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the [[liberal]] media? Anyway, I hope these help.[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work. I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Miller et al] found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'' which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God '''and''' an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.
:To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:: That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, [[Christians]] almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:::There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a ''correlation'' of beliefs, but a ''basis'' of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about ''history'', not ''science'', and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)
::Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.
::The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the ''evidence'' for long ages is ambiguous at best.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.
:::You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.
:::: As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that ''subsequently'' became bad when mankind rejected God.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::: We all know that '''your'' God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.
::::::So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.
::::::: For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
: By observing them as they are happening. Your point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Just like the rest of us. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::If only! Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds. The same applies to the geology. No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history. Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness". If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research is absolute nonsense. It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses. Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth. All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have. Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope). For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be). Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.
::::::::::: Scientists will claim/admit (depending on the circumstances) that nothing in science can be absolutely certain, but when it comes to evolution and long ages (among other things), they ''effectively'' say that it is certain. Evolution is no longer a "theory" (in the layman sense of "uncertain"), but "fact", and no alternative view (creation or intelligent design) is allowed to be considered.
::::::::::: I agree that you can't (shouldn't) apply the principles of religion to science, as "religion" claims certainty because it is the revelation of the omniscient and infallible God, which science isn't. So why does science claim that God got it wrong?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== This article is about the Moon ==

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually ''devolved'', which ''is'' possible! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Moon

2007-12-02T15:42:17Z

BillOhannity: /* "Many" atheists edit */ reply to "absolute nonsense" comment

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:[http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html The Pope has no problem with evolution]. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.
:[[User:PeterBird|PeterBird]] 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

:::Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::: Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::: You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::This article quotes popes [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Order, I'm not going chase any more of your [[hearsay]]. This is [[Conservapedia]], and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote '''here'''. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation. The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above. The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]]. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::Here is quote from [[Pope Benedict]]: ''This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.'' [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html]

::::::::Additional sources: [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm Truth Cannot Contradict Truth], [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp Message from the Pope, 1996], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html EVOLUTION AND THE POPE], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html The Pope and Evolution], [http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html POPE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION]

::::::::Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps these speeches have been misinterpreted, or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the [[liberal]] media? Anyway, I hope these help.[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work. I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Miller et al] found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'' which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God '''and''' an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.
:To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:: That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, [[Christians]] almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:::There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a ''correlation'' of beliefs, but a ''basis'' of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about ''history'', not ''science'', and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)
::Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.
::The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the ''evidence'' for long ages is ambiguous at best.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.
:::You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.
:::: As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that ''subsequently'' became bad when mankind rejected God.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::: We all know that '''your'' God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.
::::::So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.
::::::: For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
: By observing them as they are happening. Your point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Just like the rest of us. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::If only! Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds. The same applies to the geology. No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history. Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness". If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research. It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses. Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth. All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have. Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope). For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be). Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.
::::::::::: Scientists will claim/admit (depending on the circumstances) that nothing in science can be absolutely certain, but when it comes to evolution and long ages (among other things), they ''effectively'' say that it is certain. Evolution is no longer a "theory" (in the layman sense of "uncertain"), but "fact", and no alternative view (creation or intelligent design) is allowed to be considered.
::::::::::: I agree that you can't (shouldn't) apply the principles of religion to science, as "religion" claims certainty because it is the revelation of the omniscient and infallible God, which science isn't. So why does science claim that God got it wrong?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== This article is about the Moon ==

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually ''devolved'', which ''is'' possible! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Moon

2007-12-01T23:19:48Z

BillOhannity: /* "Many" atheists edit */

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:[http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html The Pope has no problem with evolution]. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.
:[[User:PeterBird|PeterBird]] 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

:::Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::: Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::: You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::This article quotes popes [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Order, I'm not going chase any more of your [[hearsay]]. This is [[Conservapedia]], and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote '''here'''. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation. The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above. The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]]. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Pope Benedict: ''This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.'' [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html]

Additional sources:
[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]
[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp][http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html][http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html][http://cuttingedge.org/n1034.html][http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html]

Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps you think these speeches have been misinterpreted? Or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the [[liberal]] media? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work. I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Miller et al] found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'' which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God '''and''' an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.
:To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:: That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, [[Christians]] almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:::There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a ''correlation'' of beliefs, but a ''basis'' of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about ''history'', not ''science'', and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)
::Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.
::The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the ''evidence'' for long ages is ambiguous at best.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.
:::You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.
:::: As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that ''subsequently'' became bad when mankind rejected God.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::: We all know that '''your'' God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.
::::::So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.
::::::: For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
: By observing them as they are happening. Your point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Just like the rest of us. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::If only! Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== This article is about the Moon ==

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually ''devolved'', which ''is'' possible! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Moon

2007-12-01T22:49:03Z

BillOhannity: /* "Many" atheists edit */

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:[http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html The Pope has no problem with evolution]. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.
:[[User:PeterBird|PeterBird]] 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

:::Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::: Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::: You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::This article quotes popes [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Order, I'm not going chase any more of your [[hearsay]]. This is [[Conservapedia]], and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote '''here'''. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation. The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above. The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]]. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Pope Benedict: ''This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.'' [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html]

Additional sources:
[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]
[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp][http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html][http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html][http://cuttingedge.org/n1034.html][http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html]

Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps you think these speeches have been misinterpreted? Or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the [[liberal]] media? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work. I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Miller et al] found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'' which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God '''and''' an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.
:To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:: That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, [[Christians]] almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:::There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a ''correlation'' of beliefs, but a ''basis'' of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about ''history'', not ''science'', and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)
::Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.
::The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the ''evidence'' for long ages is ambiguous at best.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.
:::You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.
:::: As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that ''subsequently'' became bad when mankind rejected God.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::: We all know that '''your'' God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.
::::::So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.
::::::: For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
: By observing them as they are happening. Your point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Just like the rest of us. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::If only! Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== This article is about the Moon ==

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually ''devolved'', which ''is'' possible! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Moon

2007-11-30T23:56:38Z

BillOhannity: /* Reply to All */

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:[http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html The Pope has no problem with evolution]. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.
:[[User:PeterBird|PeterBird]] 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

:::Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::: Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::: You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::This article quotes popes [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Order, I'm not going chase any more of your [[hearsay]]. This is [[Conservapedia]], and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote '''here'''. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation. The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above. The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]]. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Miller et al] found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'' which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God '''and''' an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.
:To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:: That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, [[Christians]] almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:::There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a ''correlation'' of beliefs, but a ''basis'' of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about ''history'', not ''science'', and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)
::Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.
::The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the ''evidence'' for long ages is ambiguous at best.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.
:::You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.
:::: As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that ''subsequently'' became bad when mankind rejected God.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::: We all know that '''your'' God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.
::::::So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.
::::::: For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
: By observing them as they are happening. Your point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== This article is about the Moon ==

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually ''devolved'', which ''is'' possible! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Centroid

2007-11-25T17:36:45Z

BillOhannity: add qualifier for centroid also being center of mass

A '''centroid''' is the [[geometry|geometric]] center of a shape, or, in the case of uniform density and/or symmetry, the center of mass of one or more solid bodies; compare [[center of mass]].

[[category:geometry]]

Fundamental theorem of calculus

2007-11-25T03:59:56Z

BillOhannity:

'''The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus''', first proven by [[James Gregory]], is the rather remarkable result that the two fundamental operations of [[calculus]] are just inverses of each other. Those two operations are performed on [[functions]] from the [[real numbers]] to the real numbers, and are most easily visualized when the functions are expressed in terms of graphs. The operations are:
*[[Differentiation]] -- find the slope of a function's graph at a given point.
*[[integral|Integration]] -- find the area under a graph between two given limits.
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus says that the two operations are inverses -- to find the area under the graph of f(x) between a and b, find the function g(x) whose derivative is f(x) (that is, find the ''antiderivative'' of f). The area under the graph of f between x=a and x=b is just g(b)-g(a).

The antiderivative of a function is often called the ''indefinite integral''. (Indefinite because the limits a and b haven't been specified.) So, for example, the derivative of <math>\frac{x^3}{3}+7</math> is <math>x^2</math>. From this it follows that the antiderivative of
<math>x^2</math> could be <math>\frac{x^3}{3}+7</math>. But note that the "7" in that formula was a red herring. Adding any constant to a function doesn't change its derivative, so the antiderivative of <math>x^2</math> could have any constant added to it. This arbitrary constant is usually written '''C''' and is called the "constant of integration". The indefinite integral could be written:

:<math>\int x^2\ \mathrm{d}x = \frac{x^3}{3} + C\,</math>,

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus says that the area under the graph of <math>x^2</math> between a and b is the difference in the values of <math>\frac{x^3}{3}+C</math> between a and b. Note that the constant of integration cancels out.

This kind of integral is called a ''definite integral'', written with the limits:

:<math>\int_a^b x^2\ \mathrm{d}x = \frac{b^3}{3} - \frac{a^3}{3}\,</math>,

The above is a simplified "intuitive" treatment of calculus and of this theorem. The actual "rigorous" proof, "rigorous" definitions of derivative and integral, and statement of the conditions under which the theorem is true, are beyond the scope of this article.

[[Category:Calculus]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

C++

2007-11-16T19:20:35Z

BillOhannity: category: programming language

'''C++''' (pronounced as "C" with "plus plus") is a powerful but cryptic programming language. It has both high-level and nearly machine-level functionality. It was developed by Dr. Bjarne Stroustrup at [[Bell Labs]] in 1979 as an enhancement to the [[C]] programming language.
[[category:Computer Science]]
[[category:Programming_language]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-11-14T23:46:10Z

BillOhannity: a few comments

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to cite [[liberal]] awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.

:: Someone should do an article on [[Heather Wilson]], which includes her past achievements. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Teller]] did real [[physics]]. [[Oppenheimer]] was the manager at [[Los Alamos]] who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.

: Your question about whether someone can be [[liberal]] and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ''ad hominem'' attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The [[Born-Oppenheimer approximation]], the [[Oppenheimer-Phillips process]], and the [[Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit]] are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:Dear Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for the prize. I hope my [[Bible]] citation was correct. It would be a shame if I quoted something, for example [[Shakespeare]], and got it horribly wrong. I'm glad you found my contribution useful. It is a pleasure to have been of help. Oh by the way, would you be so kind as to list the intellectual achievements of your own which enable you to sit on such a high pedestal pontificating about the achievements or lack thereof by intellectual wannabees and pseudo-intellectuals. Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 09:44, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Well done, JSmith, you exhibited two examples of [[liberal style]], now ranked #7 on Google searches, in just one sentence:

::* #7) over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
::* #25) using non sequiturs in argument

:: Surely you don't think that it's unfair to question whether someone promoted as an intellectual really is one. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page [[Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism]] about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://thinkexist.com/quotes/phyllis_schlafly/], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting [[abortion]]), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).

: The 90/10 [[rule]] against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. [[User:NewFaithful|NewFaithful]] 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. [[User:Worshipper|Worshipper]] 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

*And yet his college record, and ''two degrees'', from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

== Clinton ==
''may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas''

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

==I couldn't resist==

I'm sorry, but why on earth is that considered to be a genuine work on this wiki? The whole thing is nuts. Loopdy loopder. Just because someone declares themselves a Liberal doesn't mean they claim to be an intellectual. Its flattering you would think so much of us, but thats just nuts. No, the problem here is that people assume so much. And Gandhi? Give me a break.

What about the great Liberal intellectuals - Galileo, Einstein, Mandela, Lincoln, The Dalai Lama? What are they, accidents? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

A work which cannot be defended on its merits is a work that shouldn't be defended at all. This should be deleted and the creator should apologise for marking the world with this insanity. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 06:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps some rest? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== "intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals" ==

Okay, what on Earth are Noam Chomsky (guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is quite influential in theoretical Computer Sciences) and John Maynard Keynes (quoting CP: "His ideas were highly influential leading to him generally being credited as being one of the founding fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics.") doing on a list of pseudo-intellectuals?

These are people who vastly influenced their field of study with their intellectual contributions. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any question regarding Keynes liberal intellectual credentials; libs have even co-opted him posthumously in the gay rights movement. Chomsky is more less the undisputed chief grand pubba guru of modern liberal intellectualism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your answer doesn't quite seem to fit to my question. How does their political view lessen their contributions? I'm not arguing that they're conservative, liberal or whatever, but why are they "pseudo-intellectual"? Here is something Andy said on this very page:
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
Here's a good description of liberal intellectualism that caused the [[Cold War]]:

:"There is a thing we might call the cult of intellectualism, which includes a good many people who are not intellectuals. It embraces a number of top-lofty souls who imagine they swim in some more luminous ether than the harsh air near the ground of reality. In many it is little more than a pose. There were others who saw in [[Russia]] a mixture of good and bad elements and who imagined that, by some alchemy, the bad might one day be eliminated and the good assume the mastery. At the bottom of this notion was the conviction that society had gotten out of hand, that the modern society contains so many hostile elements that there is no way to order and peace and finally to the good life for all, save under the assumption of control by the "experts" to produce a [[planned society]]. These people had managed to dress up and perfume this notion in such a way that they could support it without even being called [[socialist]]s. They saw in Russia a historic and dramatic experiment to produce the good life through a planned society. It was a first trial, full of missteps and pitfalls. They have been willing to excuse the mistakes and even the cruelties of the experimenters in Moscow, hoping that out of it might come something that the world could use.

:"They indignantly deny the imputation of [[communism]]. They do not even like to be called socialists. The term "planned society" appeals to them, expresses their philosophy without the ugly proletarian stain of the socialist or Communist labels. The remodeling of society is a job not for the ranting soapboxers of Union Square, but for the engineers, the scientists, the philosophers and the experts generally. It is in reality socialism in cap and gown or even in a high hat and frock coat. The truth is that in certain quarters it had simply become out of style to believe in the thing called capitalism. It is not the style to believe in communism. But it is a mark of the large mind not to be narrowly intolerant of communism, and among these gentry it had come to be a little vulgar to defend capitalism. When we add to this the fact that the organized Communists and near-Communists in America had something like a million votes to deliver in critical polling places in a few industrial states, we can begin to perceive how a mixture of lofty philosophy and low politics could produce their strange tolerance for [[Stalin]] and his gang.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 37 - 38] pdf.</ref> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
<references/>

==Kerry==

Kerry was a priviledged youth? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you could say the same about George W. Bush. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:oh no...a kid just got tasered over this very question....[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Both were ''privileged''. How one approaches life, and one's conclusions about most things, are shaped by that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Then why even mention it? Do you mention Bill Clinton came from a poor background? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:45, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== a few comments ==

Are there any references for your revelation that J Robert Oppenheimer "just sorted the mail" or however you put it? I have read a couple of his biographies and that detail, if present, was obscured with all of the details on his research and experiments in developing the atomic bomb. Carl Sagan, quoted from conservapedia's own article on him, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell. His theories, whether you agree with them or not, do have scientific and mathematical backing. Disagreeing with someone's theories does not make that person a "not quite intellectual" as you put it. And finally, Stephen Hawking is widely considered to be the smartest person, if not in the world, then definitely within the scientific community. And although his initial theory was incorrect, by his own admittance, he and others eventually corrected it into what I believe is currently the most accepted theory. Very rarely is a scientific theory correct on the first try, especially on something as difficult to study as a black hole. So I'm not quite sure how/why Hawking qualifies as a "not quite intellectual". --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

User talk:HelpJazz

2007-11-11T03:46:34Z

BillOhannity: /* uploading an image */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign you posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

<center>''Thanks to [[user:mschel|Mark]], from whom I stole this template :)''</center>
|}

[[User Talk:HelpJazz/Sept07|>> September 2007 Archive]]

== What the... ==

You wouldn't happen to have just banned around 20 people as likely vandals? does a likely vandal mean that they actually haven't done anything to warrant a ban but you ban them just in case? im kinda intrested as my real account is amongst them. [[User:SimonAl|SimonAl]] 18:25, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Your real account? The usual thing is to email me instead of making a sock account. I'm banning people who have a very high probability of being vandals. If I banned you on accident send me an e-mail; I'm only human (which I suspect many of these likely vandals are not...) and I can make mistakes and push the wrong button. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:28, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wiki-quette==
Last time I checked its etiquette to check with the poster before reverting his edit. I am talking in relation to the [[Friends]] article. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 12:51, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
:Last time *I* checked you've been here for all of an hour and a half, whereas I have been editing for months now. I believe you are a parodist and if you don't cease your non-encyclopedic, unsourced editing you will be blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
:If I am a parodist, then how come one of the sysops thought my edit on the Medusa article was fine? I assure you I am not parodist. What exactly was wrong with the Al Gore edits? He didn't serve in the military, he travelled as a war correspondant; He claims to have founded the internet and he won a predominantly Liberal award. It is not parody to point these facts out; Believing these truths to be parody displays a complete lack of confidence in your own beliefs.
::And the reason I have edited so much is because I am excited to finally have a few hours off to help out here. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 13:00, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
::Source it then. I've seen a lot of parody and it's all the same. Obviously it has to be ultra-conservative, that's how it slips in. I'm not easily fooled, however. So sit back and find out how we do things here before you go around editing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:04, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
:I have been blocked and unblocked. I'm going to leave this for a while, and let everyone cool down. I do assure you though, that I am not a parodist. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 13:12, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you really aren't a parodist then please accept my apologies. We *do* get people who post the most outrageous things they can to see if they can get them through unnoticed. The fact that you have only been here less than two hours and are already using the same language as some of our most conservative members raised big red flags in my mind. Please continue editing, but keep in mind our commandments and rules (I placed a link on your talk page). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

::: My apologies for the late chime-in, I've been away. Since you're watching the topic, I'd like to point you towards the following, http://sethf.com/gore/, which is useful (imo, natch) when deciding how to go about the whole "Al Gore invented the internet" kerfluffle. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 01:25, 9 October 2007 (EDT) ''<-free advice, and worth twice the price!''

*Sorry, but that debunking stuff is flat out lies. I have a transcript of the speech Gore gave, taking credit for it somewhere. Stay tuned! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:08, 9 October 2007 (EDT) (Guess you'll be sorry you even brought it up pretty soon! :p)
:*Here you go. [http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/goreinternet.htm]
This comes from a television interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that was aired on March 9,1999. TruthOrFiction.com has a transcript of the entire broadcast. Vice President Gore was not yet a formal candidate for the presidency, but was clearly setting the stage for it, and Blitzer's questions focused on his potential campaign. At one point, Blitzer asked Gore why the Democrats should support him over rival Bill Bradley. Gore answered, "Well, I will -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins, and it'll be comprehensive and sweeping, and I hope that it'll be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. '''During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."'''

Some of the emails criticizing Gore for this statement point out that Gore has often shown ignorance about computers, so how could he have created the Internet? He did not claim, however, to be a computer geek who toiled in his basement and came up with the idea. '''He did claim that somehow as a member of congress he not only played in role in creating the Internet, but "took the initiative" to do it. '''

No amount of "spin" can undo his words. Please note he has never retracted his statement or actually explained it. He has however made jokes at his own expense about it. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:18, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: -shrug- I find the articles useful to the conversation. I don't claim to have resolved anything. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:34, 9 October 2007 (EDT) ''<-ah-so...''
:(edit to add) - reviewing the link I provided, the transcript you quoted is the first thing on the page, so it's not like they're hiding it or anything. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:37, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Az and TK. As I told Boru all he needs to do is find a citation, and it's obvious that citations exist. Gore's been made fun of for years over that statement, and simply saying "Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet" without any citation or explanation only makes us look like a decade-old Saturday Night Live episode (one of the good ones though, not this junk they have on now). So you are both right (all three, including Boru): he said it, and there is apparently some truth to it, though he chose his words in such a way (intentionally or not; it was a live interview) so as to exaggerate his role. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:49, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

==Paul51==
He is inserting small edits into the science articles that are incorrect. I reverted them with a short explination as to why they were wrong and he reinserted. I asked for sources but nothing has changed. Just thought you should know.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 23:26, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. I have been watching and I gave him a warning. If he persists he will be blocked to give him time to read the commandments. Thanks for the heads up. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:28, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

np--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 23:30, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

Thanks much for blocking MaxwellShipley, the vandal. His edits have now been cleaned, thanks to your help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:34, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
:I only wish I had caught him sooner! Would have been less work to undo. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:35, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== Baseball ==

Now, everything is perfect. Thank you so much for let me know. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:07, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks so much! Liza.

==Statistics==

All kidding aside, Darrel Huff's little book ''[[How to Lie with Statistics]]'' is THE classic book on the topic of statistics and their misuse. Anyone in media (or encyclopedia writing) should be required to read it 2 or 3 times per decade. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:12, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

:Ha ha ha well I guess I'm a little behind in my reading then :) That book opened my eyes, and really I think it's good for anyone to read. I've never been able to watch a drug commercial (or listen to a political speech) the same way! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:18, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

::Good. Can you help me determine the number of [[homeless people]] in the USA? Is it 300 thousand or 3 million, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:43, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

== Message for Bohdan (because his talk page is protected) ==

I missed you. Noone can vandalize my user page like you do :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]]
:Its a gift. {{unsigned|Bohdan}}

::You know Bohdan, it's not safe to drink and drive on the information superhighway. The truck carrying your information might crash and then the tubes will get all clogged. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::What on earth does that mean? {{unsigned|Bohdan}}

::::Didn't you hear about the "series of tubes" thing? It was all over the internet a while ago. See [http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/02/sen-stevens-hilariou.html here]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:21, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Putin.jpg]]

ACK PUTIN! I forgot all about all the Putin occurences when Bohdan's around!! (Hrm it's like Clark Kent and Superman, except that you ''only'' see one when the other's around). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
== Thanks for the welcome ==
I didn't realize I called anyone names, I'm sorry if I did. Liberals just tick me off sometimes. sorry --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:12, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:I may have misread your post, so don't worry about it. I understand being ticked off by certain kinds of people, but in order to run a civil blog sometimes it is best to hold one's tongue :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:46, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

===Liberal Hate===
The liberal hate was criticizing of our ally Saudi Arabia. I know their human rights record isn't perfect but liberals love to go on about how bad our allies are and forget to criticize the even worse regimes we oppose such as the brutal Castro and Chavez governments. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure I would call the content "hate". If you have another reference which shows that the statements are false, then feel free to remove them (though from my very limited knowledge I do not think they are blatantly false). However, if the statement is true, we shouldn't remove it just because we don't want it to be true. I will look over it again; I think some of the sentiment in the article is not reflected in the reference, and maybe you will agree with it better after then. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:46, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

== Great Minds ==
Thanks! [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 20:38, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:That was definitely most excellent timing! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:02, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
We're like some kind of super vandal-fighting team---like something out of legend! :P [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 21:05, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

== Thank for the welcome ==

Thanks, and it's always nice to run into a fellow libertarian :). I do have some questions about this place, as I'm coming here from Wikipedia. What POV is this place run from exactly? Is the idea for articles to be written from a blatantly conservative point of view? I came here because I agree that there is a liberal bias on Wikipedia, which is why I will never identify what my user name there is, but I'm pretty sure that I will have a harder time standing a conservative bias, seeing as I am socially liberal, and social issues are more prominent than economic issues. If you could help me to understand what exactly this place is about, then I would be ever so grateful :). Cheers, [[User:LibDeist|LibDeist]] 21:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:Conservapedia is a Christian friendly and conservative friendly encyclopedia. We have a conservative point of view, but per our [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] and [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|guidelines]], opinion must be cited, verifiable, and attributed. So for social issues, you are generally ok saying "X said Y [insert reference here]," but not "Y is the truth." The important thing to remember is to be cooperative, not argumentative, and to follow the commandments. If you do that you shouldn't have any problems. Feel free to contact me (on here or by [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email]] if you have any problems or questions). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

== Cambrian version ==

Yep, you were correct. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

:No problem. I figured that's what you meant :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== euro ==

Meh, these things happen - a lot of people miss that one because they think "Europe," I guess...[[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 20:53, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== uploading an image ==

Quick (and hopefully simple) question for you: how can (or can I?) I upload an image to put the [[Snell%27s_Law]] article I just made? Its not a picture of Putin (unfortunately), but its almost as awesome. It's a little diagram to illustrate the description I give in the article. Thanks for the help. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:33, 10 November 2007 (EST)

:Sorry about the delay I've been out all day long with pep band... To upload you need to be given uploading rights. For now, I would politely ask a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers?group=sysop sysop] to upload it for you. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:20, 10 November 2007 (EST)

*I'd do it for him, if he joins the contest to help us kick Andy's....err, I mean wants to join the contest for the betterment of CP! Yeah. That's what I meant. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:26, 10 November 2007 (EST)

:I'm afraid I can't, this coming week is going to be lousy for me in terms of exams and, well...me having too many of them. I do have a few articles that I plan on creating, but I doubt that I'll be able to get to them until after the contest ends. Sorry, but you'll have to kick Andy's "err" without me. Good luck! --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 21:52, 10 November 2007 (EST)

::*You get your image uploaded? --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:13, 10 November 2007 (EST)

:::Nope. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 22:46, 10 November 2007 (EST)

User talk:HelpJazz

2007-11-11T02:52:40Z

BillOhannity: /* uploading an image */

User talk:HelpJazz

2007-11-10T22:33:14Z

BillOhannity: uploading an image

Refraction

2007-11-10T21:29:41Z

BillOhannity: add link to Snell's Law

'''Refraction''' is the change in direction of [[light]] when moving from one medium to another. The amount that the direction changes when moving between the two media is determined by [[Snell's Law]]
[[category:physics]]

Snell's Law

2007-11-10T21:29:14Z

BillOhannity: create new article: Snell's Law

'''Snell's Law''' describes how the direction of light changes when it moves from one medium to another. The two forms of the law are: 

<math> n_1 sin(\theta _1) = n_2 sin(\theta _2) </math> 
<math> v_2 sin(\theta _1) = v_1 sin(\theta _2) </math> 

where n1 and n2 are the indices of refraction in medias 1 and 2, respectively, and <math> \theta _1 </math> and <math> \theta _2 </math> is the angle from the normal of the plane dividing the 2 media and the ray.

The index of refraction of a material is inversely proportional to the speed of light in that material, i.e. light will move slower in a material with a high index of refraction than it will in a material with a low index of refraction.

What Snell's Law says is that when light moves from a medium with a high index of refraction to a medium with a low index of refraction it will bend away the normal of the plane dividing the two media. Conversely, when light moves from a medium with a low index of refraction to a medium with a high index of refraction it will bend towards from the normal dividing the two media.

[[category: physics]]

Speed of light

2007-11-10T04:38:29Z

BillOhannity: category: physics

The '''speed of light''' in a vacuum (postulated to be constant for all inertial observers by the [[Theory of Relativity|special theory of relativity]]) is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second (approximately 186,282.3 miles per second). As the speed of light is now used to define the [[SI]] meter, this is now the value ''by definition''.

In physics, it is often represented in equations by the letter '''c,''' as in
:λ = c / f
(wavelength of an electromagnetic wave in vacuum = the speed of light divided by the wave's frequency).

The speed of light is about one foot per nanosecond. The late computer pioneer Admiral Grace Hopper was fond of keeping foot-long lengths of wire in her purse; she used them as props for her talks, referring to them as "nanoseconds," and using them to explain how the speed of light set limitations on computing systems (Although the rate of energy propagation in copper wire is significantly lower than the speed of light).<ref>Chiarella, Donald Joseph Gray (2002), ''Life in God's Management Corps,'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0595256430&id=VhM9jDwbywUC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&ots=ZXHirs9jQI&dq=grace+hopper+nanosecond&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=XmbYtV2laxCMIKMLzR1eXHP1Eok p. 14]</ref>

The speed of light is slower in any medium which is not a vacuum, and varies from medium to medium. This variation gives rise to (as a result of [[quantum mechanics]], particularly the concept of a path of least action) the phenomenon of [[refraction]]. When a charged particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium in which it is travelling, it emits [[Cherenkov Radiation]].

Since the speed of light in a vacuum is observed to be constant, it can be used to define distances as well. The distance that light travels in one year is known as a [[light-year]], which is about 6 million million (6x1012) miles.

The speed of light raises questions regarding the age of the universe. These are usually summed up under the term "[[starlight problem]]".

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[category: astronomy]]
[[category: physics]]

Cruise missile

2007-11-08T19:20:07Z

BillOhannity:

The '''cruise missile''' is a guided missile designed to fly under enemy [[radar]]. It can carry conventional or nuclear payloads.

Guided missile, the major portion of whose flight path to its target is conducted
at approximately constant velocity; depends on the dynamic reaction of air for lift and upon
propulsion forces to balance drag. [http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf]

==Links==
*[http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms]

[[Category: Military]]

Kinetic Energy

2007-11-08T04:18:48Z

BillOhannity: add kinetic energy for a body

'''Kinetic energy''' represents the [[energy]] asociated with the [[motion]] of an object.<ref>Serway and Beichner, ''Physics for Scientists and Engineers'', Fifth Edition</ref> It is defined as:

K ≡ [[mass|m]][[velocity|v]]2 / 2 for a point mass and <math> K = {1 \over 2}mV^2 + {1 \over 2} I \omega ^2 </math> for a body, where I is the body's moment of inertia and omega is the body's angular velocity.

The change of kinetic energy in an object is equal to the total [[work]] done on it by a [[force]]. In the case of constant force, this can be expressed as:

Σ''W'' = ΔK = mvf2 / 2 - mvi2 / 2

Where vi is [[speed]] at t = 0 and vf is speed at [[time]] = t.

Kinetic energy is a scalar and has the same units as work (i.e. [[Joule]]).

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]
[[Category:mechanics]]

Bernoulli's principle

2007-11-08T04:09:22Z

BillOhannity: category

'''Bernoulli's Principle''' relates the pressure, velocity, and relative height of a point in the flow of a fluid. It is one of the most used relationships in aerodynamics.

The general form of Bernoulli's equation is <math> P + {1 \over 2} \rho V^2 + \rho g h = constant </math> where P is [[pressure]], rho is [[fluid]] [[density]], V is the [[speed]] of the flow, g is the [[acceleration]] due to [[gravity]], and h is the height of the flow above the reference, or datum, point. This equation applies to all points along a streamline of a flow, unless the flow is irrotational in which case it applies everywhere in the flow.

In aerodynamics, flows are often fast enough where gravity can be neglected, allowing the <math> \rho g h</math> term (the gravitation potential term) to cancel out. In this case, Bernoulli's equation says that points of higher speed in the flow have lower pressure. This conclusion is fundamental to the principles of flight. When air flows over an airfoil it travels faster over the top of the wing because of its shape. From Bernoulli's equation, the pressure on the top of the wing is lower than the pressure on the bottom because of this difference in speed. This pressure difference is where lift comes from, which is essential for flight.

[[Category:physics]]

Bernoulli's principle

2007-11-08T04:04:48Z

BillOhannity:

Bernoulli's principle

2007-11-08T03:59:48Z

BillOhannity: new article: Bernoulli's principle

"Bernoulli's Principle" relates the pressure, velocity, and relative height of a point in the flow of a fluid. It is one of the most used relationships in aerodynamics.

The general form of Bernoulli's equation is <math> P + {1 \over 2} \rho V^2 + \rho g h = constant </math> where P is [[pressure]], rho is [[fluid]] [[density]], V is the [[speed]] of the flow, g is the [[acceleration]] due to [[gravity]], and h is the height of the flow above the reference, or datum, point. This equation applies to all points along a streamline of a flow, unless the flow is irrotational in which case it applies everywhere in the flow.

In aerodynamics, flows are often fast enough where gravity can be neglected, allowing the <math> \rho g h</math> term (the gravitation potential term) to cancel out. In this case, Bernoulli's equation says that points of higher speed in the flow have lower pressure. This conclusion is fundamental to the principles of flight. When air flows over an airfoil it travels faster over the top of the wing because of its shape. From Bernoulli's equation, the pressure on the top of the wing is lower than the pressure on the bottom because of this difference in speed. This pressure difference is where lift comes from, which is essential for flight.

Talk:Fundamental theorem of calculus

2007-11-05T21:39:38Z

BillOhannity: New page: I'm not sure whose decision this would be, but there is a duplicate of this article here, and since the other one is more detailed I would suggest that ...

I'm not sure whose decision this would be, but there is a duplicate of this article [[Fundamental_Theorem_of_Calculus|here]], and since the other one is more detailed I would suggest that this one be removed. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 16:39, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Newton's Laws of Motion

2007-11-03T02:56:12Z

BillOhannity: vector notation

[[Isaac Newton]]'s 3 laws of motion form the basis for [[classical mechanics]]. They are:

1) An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force.

2) The rate of change of an object's [[momentum]] is equal to the net force acting on it (<math> \vec F = d{\vec p}/dt </math>, sometimes written as <math> \vec F = m \times \vec a</math> when mass can be assumed to be constant).

3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; or, more precisely, the total momentum of any isolated system is always constant.

==Explanation==

The first law defines an [[inertia|inertial]] [[frame of reference]] as one which is acted upon by no outside forces. In general, inertial frames are far easier to understand conceptually and deal with mathematically than accelerated frames.

The second law relates force and [[momentum]]. Mathematically, <math> \vec F = d{\vec p}/dt = d(m \times \vec v)/dt = m \times d{\vec v}/dt + \vec v \times dm/dt</math>. Usually <math>dm/dt=0</math>, so the law is simplified to <math> \vec F = m \times d{\vec v}/dt = m \times \vec a</math>, or mass times acceleration. A notable exception is [[rocket]] motion, where <math>dm/dt</math> is not 0, and so <math> \vec F = m \times \vec a</math> does not apply. Note that the quantities '''F''', '''p''', '''v''', and '''a''' are all [[vector]] quantities--that is, they have an associated direction as well as a magnitude. In general, the second law gives a way to predict the motion of an object by summing all the forces acting on that object.

The third law states that momentum is always conserved. If one object imparts a momentum p0 on another, the first object's momentum will change by -p0. This can be viewed as a consequence of [[Noether's Theorem]]; the associated [[symmetry]] is that the laws of physics do not change under spatial translations (that is, the laws of physics are the same everywhere).

[[category:physics]]

Talk:Stephen Colbert

2007-10-31T23:20:27Z

BillOhannity: typo

Stephen Colbert's name has a French pronunciation -- that's not very American. I say this article should be removed.--[[User:Jesus_H_Christ|Jesus_H_Christ]] 23:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jesus H. Christ, Les Francais sont tres bon![[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Any reason why the part about the Correspondents' Dinner was removed? Also the statement about Colbert's intention with the Wikipedia vandalizing is speculative at best and should probably be removed.--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a link to the Correspondents' Dinner speech on Google Video: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879&q=colbert+white+house Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner]

The Sunday school teacher remark needs a cite--I know it's true, but it really should be cited. Here's a good website, I'd edit if I could. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/) Also, the Correspondent's dinner should be added. As much as I hate what he did, it is our duty to tell the truth on this site. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why would you hate what he did? He's the greatest American ever! Stephen Colbert is a champion of truth and justice. Come on, he got Captain America's shield!!--[[User:Dialecticftw|Dialecticftw]] 06:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Truthiness ==

Instead of "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," shouldn't Conservapedia's slogan be "The Encyclopedia of Trustiness"? It just feels right.

:hmm, Or maybe, ''Conservapedia: your daily recommended allowance of '''truthiness'''''?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

::'''''Conservapedia: The Truthy Encyclopedia''''' Notice that to make this, we remove the letters STWOR - an acronym for WORST [[User:Human|Human]] 02:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== "right wing" removed? ==

Without explanation, his act was reduced to "extreme commentator". He plays an extreme ''right wing'' commentator, specifically. That's the whole point of the show. Can anyone explain, please? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:He plays what in his view and others is a "right-wing" commentator; but that does not mean the so-called right-wing fits those stereotypes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll buy that. Can the article say that? It would sort of be a double-parody - explaining that he does not, in the view of those he think she is parodying, accurately portray their positions? How about "[he plays] an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator"? Pretty fair and balanced, and accurate in that it mentions that his "extreme" parody or attempt at it is politically charged. It's up to you, I have no axe to grind here. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Give it a try. Sounds like it couild be humourous. Nothing wrong with that to make the point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a fair compromise, given that Colbert specifically refuses to share his personal political beliefs. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:Personally, Colbert is a democrat; he's said it several times, at speeches at colleges and what not. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't care what he is, it just has to be disclaimed properly. We can't have any bigotry here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey RobS, I just realized I can't "give it a try" - the page is locked. Can we try this sentence:

"He plays the role of an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator." I forget if you're a sysop, but obviously Hoji is. By the way Hoji, nice addition with the ursaphobia. I do think that articles on lighter subjects can have a lighter tone, even using the tone of their subjects, carefully (cf some [[Monty Python]] pages).

By the way, yes, he's a Democrat, Catholic, and Sunday School teacher. I don't know if you guys have ever seen him rip scripture (you gotta call it that if you've seen it) on people, but it's amazing. He's got that "Catholic School" recitation at full speed with full articulation thing deep in him.

And, to his minor credit (on this site), if a liberal screws up in an interview, he <s>rips them a new one</s> tears them apart like a hungry eagle, and leaves them gasping for air. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I added that sentence above, and that he is a Catholic. If it stays unlocked I'll be on the eye for vandalism, but I don't check in until after noon most days. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==

Maybe I have a bit of a dirty mind, but I really don't think this is the best picture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:23, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::There probably are better pictures. I know he has a lot of good ones with his arms folded across his chest giving a serious look. Perhaps one of those.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

*Hey! I liked it! Back off! :p (most were copyrighted) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== Misspelling ==

In the last sentence ("Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to pervent further editing"), the word ''prevent'' is spelled ''pervent'' and I cannot correct it.

Who wrote this?!

[[User:Fairn|Fairn]]
:See the page's history to see who wrote it, but I've fixed the spelling error, thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit? ==

So how exactly is Wikipedia locking articles to prevent vandalism an example of their deceit? Isn't that what you do here, including this article? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::Fair enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:35, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Stephen Colbert the character versus Stephen Colbert the person==

This article presents everything Colbert has said on his show, [[The Colbert Report]], as his actual views.

I know you folks aren't big on seperating fact from fiction, but he's a left-leaning guy off the set. Maybe the article should be changed to reflect that. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:44, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't that clear that he's a liberal playing a liberal stereotype of a conservative? If you feel you want to make that clearer, then please suggest something with a citation to his real views. Thanks. In Christ--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Factual error ==

The "Wikiality" incident occurred in July 2006, not August 2006. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 19:50, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Citation, please? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:59, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, forget it. The word "wikiality" was introduced on July 31, and the corresponding wave of vandalism occurred in August. My mistake. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:14, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
::*It is important to keep a record of when you do those things! :P --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:46, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== typo ==

There's a typo at the end of the first paragraph. It should say "and 'he is' a self-proclaimed democrat." or something along those lines. Small, but it probably should be fixed anyway. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 19:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Momentum (physics)

2007-10-31T12:49:57Z

BillOhannity:

Momentum and inertia are related. Inertia is the tendency for a body to remain at rest, until and unless a force makes it begin moving. That same tendency works when it is in motion.

The motion of an object will continue until something makes it change its motion. A railroad car, once it gets going, will continue its motion for a long time, until the tiny forces of friction cause it to slow down and stop. This can take miles. Even putting on the brakes can take up to mile, because there is so much momentum.

Momentum is defined in [[Physics]] as the product (p) of a body's [[mass]] and [[velocity]].

:<math> p = m * v </math>

The faster it goes, the more momentum it has. The more it weighs, the more momentum it has.

A force in the same direction as the body is moving, will increase its speed. A force in the opposite direction will slow it down.

A force coming from the side will turn it.

An interesting case of a sideways force is a weight on the end of a string (like the Biblical slingshot used by [[David]] against [[Goliath]]). While the weight is revolving around you, the string is pulling the weight toward you - but it never gets any closer! This is called a [[centripetal force|centripetal]], or center seeking, force.

[[Category:Physics]]

Pressure

2007-10-31T04:02:21Z

BillOhannity: add SI units

'''Pressure''' is defined as the [[force]] per unit [[area]] exerted on a surface.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

English units used for air pressure include:
*[[atmosphere]]s
*pounds per square inch (PSI)
*inches of mercury, which is the number of inches the given pressure will raise a column of [[mercury]]

SI units for pressure are Pascals, where <math> 1 Pa = 1 {N \over m^2} </math>

==See also==
*[[blood pressure]] - typically measured in millimeters of mercury

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Lewis structure

2007-10-31T03:50:55Z

BillOhannity: category: chemistry

Lewis structures are diagrams to illustrate the atomic bonding and electron-pairs in a molecule. Lewis structures are also known as electron-dot structures or diagrams. [[Gilbert N. Lewis]] first introduced these diagrams in his article entitled ''The Molecule and the Atom'' (1916).

In a Lewis structure, each atom is illustrated by its chemical symbol, excess electrons are shown as dots (in pairs next to the atoms) and bonds between the atoms are displayed as lines.
[[category:physics]]
[[category:chemistry]]

Centripetal force

2007-10-31T03:45:33Z

BillOhannity:

'''Centripetal force''' is a [[force]] that is directed perpendicular to the [[velocity]] of an object traveling in a circular path towards the center of the circle.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

The centripetal force is a required force to maintain a velocity in constant speed as it travels in a circular path. The direction of the force is inward, toward the center of the circular path.

The requirement of a centripetal force for such an object can be satisfied by a gravitational, electromagnetic, or any other type of force.

"Centripetal" is a term derived from the Latin words centrum (meaning "center") and petere (meaning "tend towards").

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mechanics]]
[[Category:physics]]

Acceleration

2007-10-31T03:42:36Z

BillOhannity:

The rate of change of an object's [[velocity]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. For an object to undergo an acceleration, a [[force]] needs to be exerted on the object. An example is a falling object on [[Earth]], which is subject to a [[gravity|gravitational force]]. The resulting acceleration ''g'' is independent of the mass of the object, and is approximately 9.81 [[meters]] per [[second]] per [[second]] near the Earth's surface<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>.

Calculation of acceleration is done with the formula <math>\vec F=m \vec a</math>, where F=force and is measured in Newtons, m=mass and is measured in kilograms, and a=acceleration and is measured in meters per second squared. Using the formula we can find that <math> \vec a=\frac{\vec F}{m}</math>.

If an object's acceleration and [[velocity]] have the same sign, the object is gaining [[speed]]. If acceleration and velocity have different signs, the object is losing speed.

If [[velocity]] is [[zero]], acceleration is not necessarily zero. If acceleration is zero, velocity is not necessarily zero.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics ]]

Hooke's Law

2007-10-31T03:37:28Z

BillOhannity: create new article: hooke's law

Hooke's law states that the force exerted by a stretched or compressed spring is a restoring force and is linearly proportional to the distance that the spring is stretched or compressed beyond it's relaxed length. The formula for Hooke's law is <math> \vec F = -k \vec x </math> where k is the spring stiffness constant which has units of newtons per meter and <math> \vec x </math> is the displacement from the equilibrium position.

[[Category:Physics]]

Conservative force

2007-10-31T03:28:09Z

BillOhannity:

Conservative [[force|forces]] are those that possess certain properties<ref>Serway and Beichner, ''Physics for Scientists and Engineers'', Fifth Edition</ref>:

1. The [[work]] it does on a particle is independent of its [[trajectory]].

2. The work done on a particle that moves along a closed trajectory (where the initial and final positions are the same, or di = df) = 0) is zero.

3. The force can be written as the negative of the gradient of a potential energy function, i.e. <math>\vec F = - \nabla U </math>.

When the only forces present in a system are conservative, [[mechanical energy]] is conserved.

Examples of Conservative Forces:

[[Gravitation|Gravitational Force]].

[[Hooke's Law|Force performed by a spring]].

== References ==
<References/>

[[Category: Physics]]
[[Category: Mechanics]]

Conservative force

2007-10-31T03:26:17Z

BillOhannity: add another property of a conservative force

Conservative [[force|forces]] are those that possess certain properties<ref>Serway and Beichner, ''Physics for Scientists and Engineers'', Fifth Edition</ref>:

1. The [[work]] it does on a particle is independent of its [[trajectory]].

2. The work done on a particle that moves along a closed trajectory (where the initial and final positions are the same, or di = df) = 0) is zero.

3. The force can be written as the negative of the gradient of a potential energy function, i.e. <math>\vec F = - grad U </math>.

When the only forces present in a system are conservative, [[mechanical energy]] is conserved.

Examples of Conservative Forces:

[[Gravitation|Gravitational Force]].

[[Hooke's Law|Force performed by a spring]].

== References ==
<References/>

[[Category: Physics]]
[[Category: Mechanics]]

Force

2007-10-31T03:13:33Z

BillOhannity: add LaTeX formulas

'''Force''' is defined as rate of change of [[momentum]] of a body <math>\vec F = {d \vec p \over dt} </math>. The [[International System of Units|SI]] unit of force is the [[newton]] and the [[US customary system]] unit is the pound.

The momentum of an object is given by <math> \vec p = m \vec v</math>. For non-[[Theory of Relativity|relativistic]] speeds, <math> \vec F = m \vec a </math> when mass can be assumed to be constant.<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref> In these expressions, ''F'' stands for the total vector sum of all forces, ''m'' for the mass of the object, ''a'' for its [[acceleration]] expressed as a vector, ''p'' stands for momentum vector and ''v'' for velocity vector.

There are four known fundamental types of forces occurring in nature<ref>Lewis H. Ryder, ''Quantum Field Theory'', 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), 1996</ref>:

;[[Electromagnetism|Electromagnetic]] force
:The force that acts on objects with [[electric charge]].
;[[Gravitation]]al force
:The force that attracts any two objects with [[mass]].
;Strong force
:The force that keeps [[atom]]ic [[nucleus|nuclei]] together.
;Weak force
:This force is involved in ''beta decay'', in which a [[neutron]] in an atomic nucleus is changed to a [[proton]], emitting an [[electron]] and a [[neutrino]].

It should be noted that the latter two forces have an extremely short range (on the order of femtometers), and that a classical (Newtonian or relativistic) description of these forces is not possible. They can only be described using [[quantum field theory]], a relativistic version of [[quantum mechanics]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics]]

Force

2007-10-31T03:05:08Z

BillOhannity:

'''Force''' is defined as rate of change of [[momentum]] of a body ('''F''' = dp/dt). The [[International System of Units|SI]] unit of force is the [[newton]] and the [[US customary system]] unit is the pound.

The momentum of an object is given by ''p = m v''. For non-[[Theory of Relativity|relativistic]] speeds, ''F = m a'' when mass can be assumed to be constant.<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref> In these expressions, ''F'' stands for the total vector sum of all forces, ''m'' for the mass of the object, ''a'' for its [[acceleration]] expressed as a vector, ''p'' stands for momentum vector and ''v'' for velocity vector.

There are four known fundamental types of forces occurring in nature<ref>Lewis H. Ryder, ''Quantum Field Theory'', 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), 1996</ref>:

;[[Electromagnetism|Electromagnetic]] force
:The force that acts on objects with [[electric charge]].
;[[Gravitation]]al force
:The force that attracts any two objects with [[mass]].
;Strong force
:The force that keeps [[atom]]ic [[nucleus|nuclei]] together.
;Weak force
:This force is involved in ''beta decay'', in which a [[neutron]] in an atomic nucleus is changed to a [[proton]], emitting an [[electron]] and a [[neutrino]].

It should be noted that the latter two forces have an extremely short range (on the order of femtometers), and that a classical (Newtonian or relativistic) description of these forces is not possible. They can only be described using [[quantum field theory]], a relativistic version of [[quantum mechanics]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics]]

Acceleration

2007-10-31T03:00:45Z

BillOhannity: add units for acceleration

The rate of change of an object's [[velocity]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. For an object to undergo an acceleration, a [[force]] needs to be exerted on the object. An example is a falling object on [[Earth]], which is subject to a [[gravity|gravitational force]]. The resulting acceleration ''g'' is independent of the mass of the object, and is approximately 9.81 [[meters]] per [[second]] per [[second]] near the Earth's surface<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>.

Calculation of acceleration is done with the formula <math>F=MA</math>, where F=force and is measured in Newtons, M=mass and is measured in kilograms, and A=acceleration and is measured in meters per second squared. Using the formula we can find that <math>A=\frac{F}{M}</math>.

If an object's acceleration and [[velocity]] have the same sign, the object is gaining [[speed]]. If acceleration and velocity have different signs, the object is losing speed.

If [[velocity]] is [[zero]], acceleration is not necessarily zero. If acceleration is zero, velocity is not necessarily zero.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics ]]

Johannes Kepler

2007-10-29T03:36:10Z

BillOhannity: category: mathematician...he was more of a mathematician than an astronomer, he just worked for an astronomer

[[Image:Gfdse5y465.jpg|right|thumb|Johannes Kepler]]
'''Johannes Kepler''' (1571-1630), a [[Protestant]] in [[Germany]], was a brilliant mathematician, astronomer and devout [[Christian]] who cited God many times in all of his writings. He felt it was his Christian duty to understand the creation of God, the universe. He also felt that man, being in the image of God, was fully capable of understanding the universe. Like [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]], Kepler felt that God must have created the universe according to a mathematical plan.

Originally an assistant to [[Tycho Brahe]], Kepler was a contemporary of [[Galileo]]. All of Tycho's observations were made with the naked eye, but after Galileo pioneered the use of the newly invented [[telescope]] to scan the heavens, Kepler was able to make observations to an accuracy of less than one tenth of a degree.

Kepler built on [[Copernicus]]'s work and discovered that planets orbited the sun in elliptical rather than perfectly circular orbits. This discovery accounted for the apparent [[retrograde motion]] of the planet [[Mars]].

Kepler overcame an enormous obstacle to become a great scientist, as he suffered from an attack of [[smallpox]] when he was only four years old. The disease left him with poor eyesight and crippled hands for the rest of his life. However, Kepler went on to propose three laws of planetary motion, known as [[Kepler's laws of planetary motion|Kepler's Laws]], which later helped Newton formulate the theory of [[gravity]]. One of these laws described how the planets have elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus of each [[ellipse]].

Kepler wrote in book five of his work, "The Harmonies of the World,":

"O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee! ... The book is written, to be read either now or by posterity, I care not which. It may be well to wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an observer."

Kepler compared the celestial orbits of the planets with polyphonic
harmonies in music. He wrote:

"Holy Father, keep us safe in the concord of our love for one another, that we may be one just as Thou art with Thy Son, Our Lord, and with the Holy Ghost, and just as through the sweetest bonds of harmonies Thou hast made all Thy works one; and that from the bringing of Thy people into concord, the body of Thy Church may be built up in the Earth, as Thou didst erect the heavens themselves out of harmonies."

[[Category:Astronomers|Kepler, Johannes]]
[[Category:mathematicians|Kepler, Johannes]]

Conservation of Angular Momentum

2007-10-14T17:08:24Z

BillOhannity:

The angular momentum of a point mass about a point is defined as <math>\vec H = \vec r \times \vec p</math> where '''r''' is the position [[vector quantity|vector]] of the point mass with respect to the point of reference and '''p''' is the [[momentum|linear momentum]] vector of the point mass.

The principle of angular momentum can be applied to a system of particles by summing the angular momentum of each particle about the same point.

The [[derivative]] of angular momentum with respect to time is equal to the sum of the external moments applied to the system. This relation is shown by the equation <math>\vec {\dot H} = \vec r \times \vec F</math> From this, it can be concluded that in the absence of an external moment, angular momentum must be conserved.

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Conservation of Angular Momentum

2007-10-14T17:04:33Z

BillOhannity: /* formulas */

== formulas ==

If anyone knows how to add a math formula please do so. Ask me if you want me to make sure it's right. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 12:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:You mean something like this? It's just TeX syntax between MATH tags, basically:
:<math>r \times p</math>
:Maybe it helps? Not sure if that's what you wanted... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
::I'm just gonna throw this out there and you can ignore it if you want: sometimes simple formlas look better in plain text, rathere than LaTeX. The graphics are larger and throw off the formatting, unless you are doing something that takes up multiple lines anyway I prefer to go without it. But, I don't really know which formulas you are talking about, so just ignore me if you are doing something complicated.
::For how to do formulas, typing "latex" or "latex math" into your favorite search engine brings up resources which can help. I'd offer a link, but I've never found 1 good comprehensive source. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the help guys. HelpJazz, take a look at it and if you think it looks better the other way feel free to set it back the way I had it before. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 13:04, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservation of Angular Momentum

2007-10-14T17:02:29Z

BillOhannity: added formulas in math type

The angular momentum of a point mass about a point is defined as <math>\vec r \times \vec p</math> where '''r''' is the position [[vector quantity|vector]] of the point mass with respect to the point of reference and '''p''' is the [[momentum|linear momentum]] vector of the point mass.

The principle of angular momentum can be applied to a system of particles by summing the angular momentum of each particle about the same point.

The [[derivative]] of angular momentum with respect to time is equal to the sum of the external moments (<math>\vec r \times \vec F</math>) applied to the system. From this, it can be concluded that in the absence of an external moment, angular momentum must be conserved.

[[Category:Physics]]

Conservation of Angular Momentum

2007-10-14T16:32:24Z

BillOhannity: category-physics

The angular momentum of a point mass about a point is defined as '''r''' x '''p''' where '''r''' is the position [[vector quantity|vector]] of the point mass with respect to the point of reference and '''p''' is the [[momentum|linear momentum]] vector of the point mass.

The principle of angular momentum can be applied to a system of particles by summing the angular momentum of each particle about the same point.

The [[derivative]] of angular momentum with respect to time is equal to the sum of the external moments ('''r''' x '''F''') applied to the system. From this, it can be concluded that in the absence of an external moment, angular momentum must be conserved.

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Conservation of Angular Momentum

2007-10-14T16:29:26Z

BillOhannity: formulas

== formulas ==

If anyone knows how to add a math formula please do so. Ask me if you want me to make sure it's right. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 12:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservation of Angular Momentum

2007-10-14T16:28:04Z

BillOhannity: created new article: angular momentum

Kepler's laws of planetary motion

2007-10-14T03:28:37Z

BillOhannity:

Kepler's three laws of planetary motion were developed in the early 17th century by [[Johannes Kepler]]. Kepler developed the laws after studying the astronomical observations of [[Tycho Brahe]] for several years. Kepler realized that the movement of the celestial bodies whose data Brahe had recorded did not fit a circular orbit, as was believed at the time.

Kepler's three laws of planetary motion are: 
1. Planets orbit the sun on [[ellipse|elliptical]] orbits with the sun occupying one of the foci of the ellipse.

2. A line connecting the sun to the orbiting body sweeps out an equal area in an equal amount of time regardless of position in the orbit. In other words, the body moves faster when it is closer to the sun and moves slower when it is further away. This law was much later shown to be true because of conservation of [[angular momentum]].

3. The square of the period of the orbit of a body is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of that orbit.

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Kepler's laws of planetary motion

2007-10-14T03:28:21Z

BillOhannity: create new article Kepler's laws of planetary motion

Kepler's three laws of planetary motion were developed in the early 17th century by [[Johannes Kepler]]. Kepler developed the laws after studying the astronomical observations of [[Tycho Brahe]] for several years. Kepler realized that the movement of the celestial bodies whose data Brahe had recorded did not fit a circular orbit, as was believed at the time.

Kepler's three laws of planetary motion are:
1. Planets orbit the sun on [[ellipse|elliptical]] orbits with the sun occupying one of the foci of the ellipse.

2. A line connecting the sun to the orbiting body sweeps out an equal area in an equal amount of time regardless of position in the orbit. In other words, the body moves faster when it is closer to the sun and moves slower when it is further away. This law was much later shown to be true because of conservation of [[angular momentum]].

3. The square of the period of the orbit of a body is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of that orbit.

[[Category:Astronomy]]