Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-08-27T01:18:52Z

Jcw:

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

----


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

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

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

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

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

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

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

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

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

== Great Lakes ==

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

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

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

== Salt Water Lakes ==

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

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

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

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

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

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

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

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

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

== What's a counterexample? ==

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

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

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

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

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

So, how do the examples fit in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Lakes again ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<references/>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.. but then the article has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::You do a good job of criticizing the SAT, I'm not claiming it to be a perfect measure of aptitude. But it is an approximation and 95% of colleges agree. The most straightforward and plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is declining intelligence. No other explanation is as plausible ... at least not to an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 20 June 2011 (EDT

::::::Wait. What? An open mind is closed to '''all''' possibilities as to ''why'' SAT scores have dropped over the last few years, except for the option of people becoming less intelligent? Shouldn't we check whether the SAT's as they existed in the 1970's and as they existed in 2005 (say) to make sure the tests aren't just ''harder''? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:48, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Just a thought. Could not the drop in SAT scores be explained by the dramatic drop in the amount of time students spend studying (in the public school system). Television and video games are replacing time that students use to spend studying. I can't find the link, but there was a story that said time devoted to study fell over 50% since the 70's.

== Sources ==

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

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

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

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

== Newsweek ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Receding Moon ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pattern ==

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

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

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

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

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

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

For short: not a good example, neither.

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

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

== Speculations ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Solar Fusion ==

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

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

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

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

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

::I agree that this example should come out. The ratios of H and He in the Sun are perfectly consistent with a solar age of 4.5-5 billion years. Of course they are ALSO consistent with a solar age of 6,000 years, so it proves nothing either way, but to claim that the composition of the Sun disproves an old Earth is just wrong and exposes us to attack. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:18, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== Geothermal Activity ==

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

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

== Questionable Probabilities ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

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

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

::::That's because of evaporation. The entropy claim, however, is simply wrong. Entropy does not mean disorder and even if it did, the water cycle (as explained in THE BIBLE ITSELF) makes it clear that groundwater is constantly replenished from other sources, not least the rain that is currently pouring off my roof. I do think we're better served by sticking to a few solid counterexamples than padding the list with weak ones. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:57, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

''1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.''

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

''2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.''

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

''3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]''

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

''4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]''

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

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

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

''1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].''

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

''2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.''

See above.

''3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.''

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

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

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

''5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.''

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

''6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.''

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

''7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]''

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

''8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].''

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Here's an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

''9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.''

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

''10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.''

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

''11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.''

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

''12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago!''

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

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

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

''1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.''

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

''2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]''

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.''

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

''4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

''5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''6. The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

There are fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

''7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.''

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.''

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

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

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Inferences about a lack of equilibrium (i.e., lack of very long term stability) can be drawn from the drying of a major river like the Colorado River.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Even if it were 'unstable' in the 'long-term' (both highly ambiguous and undefined terms I might add), a lack of stability is not equal to non-existence. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 10:14, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Similar inferences are drawn in other contexts without objection. For example, if there are puddles of water on the ground in the morning, then it is reasonably inferred that it rained the night before, not every night for the last seven days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::I agree with the analogy. Saying that the earth is young because one river dries up is a lot like saying you believe that it rained because you saw one puddle. Do you also infer that new rivers imply that the earth is young? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 21:29, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
When it next rains one might reasonably expect that a puddle will form in the same place and will once again dry up afterwards. How then can we possibly draw any conclusions about the age of the earth from looking at just one wet-dry cycle? We can't. Looking at one cycle doesn't tell us how many cycles there have been. The decreasing discharge of the river has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of the age of the earth. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:16, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Fundamental misunderstanding of dog breeding ==

The article stated under the Biology section: "The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today." The statement asserts that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing, suggesting that if we extrapolate backward in time, an old-Earth would be overrun with pure breed dogs. Dogs, however, were domesticated only a few thousand years ago by man from more docile wolves, and even then only a few pure breed dogs existed for centuries. Only in the 19th century did the number of dog breads exploded in the western world as designer dogs because a status symbol amongst the newly emerging middle class and new uses for dogs were discovered. The argument directly states that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing due to crossbreeding - while the genetic purity of older dog breeds is slowly being diluted, new designer dog breeds are always being developed (as tradition stretching back over a century).unsigned by User:Mike127

== Diminishing intelligence, etc. ==

The first argument under Biology reads: "The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[24] music, personal letters,[25] quality of political debates,[26] the quality of news articles,[27] and many other measures." While this statement may work well for arguing that the world is nearing its end, it certainly doesn't support or refute old Earth or young Earth theories.unsigned by User:Mike127

: Sure it does. The observed slope of the intelligence curve over time is sharply negative. Extrapolate backwards and before long the IQs are astoundingly high. But there's no evidence of astoundingly high IQs for man, so the conclusion is clear: time does not extend much backwards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:52, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:: But if the slope is so steep, then Earth couldn't be even 6,000 years old. If the decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon, then extrapolation would produce erroneous results. This website [[http://tamlin.info/graphs_aclu_page.htm]] plots SAT scores starting from the 1960s, and if one were to extrapolate backwards using these scores, then we would have to assume all people from the 18th century and before, if SATs had existed then, would have gotten perfect scores. If the website is correct that the removal of prayer from schools caused this decrease in SAT scores, and before God was removed everything was fine, then that means this meter of human intelligence is flawed: it is subject to outside sources of variability. I cannot find a graph that plots IQ scores for a population over any long length of time, but the point would be the same, extrapolation of intelligence in a dubious means of gauging the age of Earth, the extrapolation is inappropriate either because human intelligence levels fluctuate over time (i.e. the user's perceived decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon) or because if extrapolation was appropriate, we would expect people just a few hundred years ago to all be geniuses, and this was not the case. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 13:32, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Adam and Eve were a lot smarter (before the fall) than IQ tests could possibly measure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:34, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::I am unaware of any part of Genesis that states that Adam and Eve were '''astronomically''' smarter than humans today. The point I was making above, to restate, is that if human intelligence could drop so quickly in the 20th century, and extrapolation backwards is justified, then humans just a few hundred years ago or less, perhaps just a hundred years ago depending on what data you look at, must have been extraordinary geniuses, and that is simply not factual by any historical standards. Thus, I fail to see your point: the bible does not corroborate your statement and even if it did, it would still suggest that human intelligence is declining by a nonlinear function, thus linear extrapolation, as the article implies, is not justified.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I feel it necessary to point out that if the extrapolation of human intelligence backwards in time is not a justifiable proof of young Earth, this does not mean that this is in some way a proof of old Earth theories. The concept is simply flawed and cannot delineate one theory from another, thus it should not be included on this list.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Mike, this is simple logic. Extrapolation backward more than a half-dozen or so thousands of years is simply inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, this is simple math. My point is that extrapolation backward even 6000 years would also be inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years. We would be forced to conclude that the Earth isn't even 6000 years old but far far younger if the slope of this decline is consistent. If the slope is not consistent (meaning the acceleration of the decline of in intelligence is variable), then any extrapolation is not appropriate and will lead to erroneous results, like the earth being only 1000 years old for instance. If the argument is to be kept in the article, then an accommodating graph should be presented or linked as a reference, showing key markers of intelligence in recent decades and how the proposed extrapolation would yield an age for the Earth that is 6,000 years rather than something far younger than this.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:04, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, I am a great fan of this website and your counterexamples are normally very sound, but I have to disagree with you on this one. You are assuming that the rate of decline in human intelligence is constant, whereas it changes over time, according to the interplay of many complex factors.
::Using the same type of logic, and keeping in mind that average height has increased by one inch since 1960, I could argue that the Earth could not possibly be more than 3000 years old, because before then, people would have had a negative height. And that is assuming that before the birth of Christ, they were less than 2 feet and a half tall on average. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 22:17, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Neither objection above withstands scrutiny. The counterexample does not "prove too much," because 800 SAT scores in the past would not be inconsistent with the high quality works and reading abilities of common people centuries ago. Nor are increases in height analogous, because that is obviously affected by diet, sleep, medicine and other advances in society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Andy, if neither of the above arguments are enough to convince you of the central flaw of this line of reasoning, then may I ask that you or another contributor supply this article with a graph illustrating how this backward extrapolation gives an age of 6000 years using actual quantifiable means of measuring human intelligence (i.e. IQ scores). Or, if someone has posted such a graph on the internet, please provide a link to this graph in the article as a reference. I only ask that the math actually be conducted and not assumed to fit a given theory. And I again feel like I should add that removal of this argument as proof of young Earth does not in effect support an old Earth, it supports neither.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:41, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps we've become so unintelligent as to ignore the lack of evidence for the underlying assumption that the rate of decline is constant? Andy, if it were the case that people were becoming more intelligent, would that be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The rate of decline need not be constant, and nothing in the counterexample implies that it would be. But it's continuous and differentiable -- surely not a step function.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You have provided no evidence that the rate has always been negative. Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::So, would I be right in saying that in 200 years mankind's intelligence will disintegrate into nothing more than walking apes or are we headed toward [[liberal stupidity]] against [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]. Striking. [[Paulhernandez]] 00:37, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I think the most reasonable approach here is to remove this counter example until such time that evidence can be provided that supports it. This is my concern: if a new reader, a homeschooler, or anyone interested in the subject comes to this article and comes across this flawed argument, this would tend to discredit the other arguments on the page. For example, if you were to meet someone for the first time, and you share a conversation with them, agree with everything they have to say about a subject, but then this person makes some outlandish statement about the subject, wouldn’t that make you question their other statements and even your own beliefs since you share some many beliefs with this individual? Essentially, a rotten apple spoils the bunch, and that's what this counter example is. Let's remove this counter example, and if someone can provide an analysis of declining human intelligence, if it is in fact declining, that fits the counter example, then the subject can be reopened for debate. If we are to make headway in establishing this website as a preeminent educational resource, we must make sure our statements are well thought-out, that the arguments made by this site hold water, and that those arguments that don’t hold water are not allowed to spoil the others that are most certainly valid.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 15:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::Brad's comment is like suggesting that heat may flow to hotter locations. There's something called [[entropy]] that means disorder does increase over time, also known as the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. Argue against it if you like, but I doubt you're going to persuade anyone.

:::::::::::Explain this: why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth? When you can look at your own position objectively, then you can realize great insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Andy, your analogy is fatally flawed and fails to persuade. You're essentially arguing that your mind is closed. Is your mind open to outside influence? Then the law of entropy does not apply, as it is not closed.
::::::::::::Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? Why can't you answer the question? Wouldn't the [[Flynn effect]] (a theory much more widely accepted than your assertion to the contrary) be stronger evidence for a young earth because if you extrapolated it backwards, society would have been so unintelligent as to not survive?
::::::::::::How do you reconcile your insight that society becomes less intelligent with your insight that society becomes more conservative?
::::::::::::I'm not opposed to the existence of a young earth. Is your mind open to that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 17:46, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You raise an interesting point there, Brad. Society IS inevitably becoming more and more conservative, as can be seen by the evolution of language, and as conservativism favours logical thinking, IQ should rise as an effect. What is the data showing that average IQs are decreasing, by the way? I'd love to see those studies myself, I am very interested by this subject. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:35, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Brad, perhaps some graphs will help. [http://static.inky.ws/image/400/image.jpg this graph] shows liberalism (in red) increasing linearly, conservatism (in green) increasing quadratically. The point is that when we talk about liberalism or conservatism 'increasing', it means the strength and persuasiveness of the ideas; that's how both can be increasing at once. The scope and magnitude of the policies demanded by liberals increases, as does the strength and coherence of the conservative alternative. In the marketplace of ideas, the stronger ideas win out in the long run, so on average the number of adherents of either side will be in the same proportion as the relative strengths of the ideas. I hope that's clear... [http://static.inky.ws/image/401/image.jpg This graph] shows the effect of the previous graph on numbers. Obviously these are just demonstrations of general trends, but it does show how these two effects can be reconciled. In fact, I think the graphs are rather interesting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:49, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks, Jcw, the graphs do make it a bit more easy to understand and to digest, although it's a complex matter and I am not sure I grasp it completely still. What do the numbers in the graphs stand for, exactly? Thanks for taking the time to try to explain this, I am feeling really dense now :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::No problem Leonard. Here's how I interpret it; others may well disagree. As Andy observes, the rate at which new conservative ideas are produced and refined is increasing rapidly. Andy's original observation was of an exponential increase, but I think that's an artifact of the measurement - if you look at the top right part of the green line on the first graph, it looks exponential in that region, but taken as a whole it's a quadratic curve. Likewise, Andy's observation of words since 1600 shows exponential growth, but graphing exponential growth over several thousand years shows that it can't be that fast over the whole period. It has also been observed that liberalism is on the increase. In both cases, what we're talking about is - in my opinion - the relative strength of the two world-views. As humanity develops, ideas are tested against each other, old ideas are tested against new ideas and so on, with the better ideas surviving in the long run. The previous observations about growth of conservatism and liberalism can be reconciled on that assumption; the two sides are both developing their ideas and improving them. Thus the first graph shows how conservative ideas develop faster than liberal ones - liberals merely add more ideas linearly, while conservatives can combine new with old productively, so each year the increase is greater than the year before.
::The second graph shows (again, hypothetical) numbers of conservatively or liberally inclined people, based on the previous graph - the number of adherents of each view is assumed to be proportional to the ratio of the numbers in the previous graph. Again, it's all just a demonstration rather than an assertion about the details of actual politics, but hopefully it illustrates what we're talking about here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:10, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Jcw, Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative. Andy's new insight asserts that society will also become less intelligent. I don't believe you've reconciled anything.
:::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The apparent decrease in intelligence is easily explained by the increase in liberal influence in teaching. Liberal ideas hold disproportionate sway in the education field in many Western countries: note that homeschoolers' performance isn't falling, so it's not that humans are getting inherently less intelligent, but that the influence of growing liberalism is leading to less-educated people who use their God-given intelligence far less than they used to. My hypothetical graphs suggest that liberals are getting more liberal and conservatives more conservative, which seems perfectly in line with the observations. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::The influence of liberalism on eduction is decreasing because the geometric growth in conservative insights implies that the obstacles -- liberal censorship and deceit -- lose ground at a geometric rate in a free society. True or false?
:::::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:25, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Brad, your tone makes it abundantly clear that you're not trying to engage in a reasonable discussion on this point. What's more, your point doesn't make sense. As I said above, liberal and conservative ideas aren't distributed evenly in all areas, so one area - education - can be increasingly liberal while another - the US population a whole - can be increasingly conservative. Please think your points through before posting them and try to be more civil; it will help the discussion immensely. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'm sorry you feel that way, Jcw. I am trying to engage in a reasonable discussion by positing that an increase in intelligence (as evidenced by the Flynn effect) is a stronger argument for a young earth. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:54, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I too disagree with the analogy you drew between Brad's comments and the Laws of Thermodynamics. And as far as your question goes: ''"why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth?"'' -- I don't think anyone in this conversation is suggesting that they do not support a young Eart, we just don't support this argument for young Earth. This issue is not as black and white as you seem to see it: removal of this counterpoint does not inherently advantage the arguments for an old Earth. If I said that an alien came to me and told me that the Earth is billions of years old, or that it is 6000 years old, you and no other logically minded person would agree that this was proof for one theory vs another. And you shouldn't, it's a ludicrous argument, and just because you support the theory that this so-called proof supports, it doesn't mean you have to support this "proof" as well. As an earlier contributor posted, using the same logic about declining human intelligence to extrapolate the age of the Earth, one could use increasing human height to argue that the Earth is far younger than 6000 years (the contributor suggested it would be closer to 3000 years and that means everyone during Jesus's time would be under 2 feet tall, which is not true). You have yet to provide any extrapolation based on hard numbers, only supplying us with anecdotes like civil war letters and the federalist papers as examples of declining intelligence. Even if these examples were valid (and that is doubtful), it would suggest a very steep slope for the decline of intelligence over the past 200 or so years, thus people 1000 years ago should all be genius is the slope is consistent according to your argument. And the slope does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested; this is basic mathematics and regression theory. Again, the argument is poorly thought out and does not seem to be supported by any hard evidence or even the majority of commentators here, thus it should be removed from the article until such time when an analysis is presented that supports this argument. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:Pick any measure you like, and it's clear that intelligence is declining. Read, for example, [[Civil War]] letters and compare them to what the average person produces today. How long could intelligence be declining at a significant rate? Not hundreds of thousands of years, or even tens of thousands of years.

:The logic is simple and unmistakable. I doubt you've heard it before, but that's not a reason to reject it. Honestly, after all this discussion, I still don't see a logical objection to this counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a few glaring problems with using the change in language between the Civil War and now to measure intelligence. Firstly, you're ignoring how the language has developed during the period, and has become more practical and less "flowery" - hardly a sign of less intelligence. Unless you're referring to text-speak of course, which hasn't exactly entered mainstream literature or business yet. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that for every Civil War letter that was written, there was at least an equal number of illiterate soldiers on either side. And the final point, which is baffling me, is that here you're using diminishing language skills to show that people are becoming less intelligent, and yet elsewhere on Conservapedia, you claim the language is becoming more conservative. Which is it, because you can't use language to prove two entirely contradictory points? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:14, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: There's no contradiction. Technology will improve despite people getting less intelligent. The counterexample is well-supported and can hardly be doubted. Examples are numerous for the obvious decline in intelligence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::There might not be a contradiction, but you are claiming that language is becoming more conservative, which implies society is becoming more conservative, whilst at the same time claiming people are becoming less intelligent. Likewise, you use Civil War letters as an example, compared to modern day writing, and yet you claim the Babylonians - who must have been very intelligent compared to us - had a language that could not express complex terms, such as "sin" ([http://www.jstor.org/pss/1196058 actually they could - in very definitive terms]). I have no problem with you claiming humans are becoming less intelligent, but by using language as an example, you're shooting your other theories in the foot. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, you forgot to do any math to support this counter example, and this counter example depends on a mathematical principle: regression and extrapolation. Let’s assume for the sake of any argument that human intelligence is declining, and let's also say it is declining rapidly, as you have insisted. If it is declining so rapidly in the last 200 years, then why wasn't the average person during the middle ages a genius by today's standards? If the slope is as steep as you insist, estimates the intelligence of people during Jesus's time would suggest that they were many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, and while a few might have been, the Bible is full of examples of stupid, ignorant people, so this too seems unlikely according to the Bible and historical records. And remember, Andy, the slope of the decline does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested, this cannot be argued, this is math, math is not biased. Please, provide us with the math that your argument holds water, until then, this counter example should be removed, '''let’s not let this flawed counter example spoil the bunch.''' --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 00:09, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::My revisions to the article have been once again reverted by Aschlafly. Andy, shouldn't you at least err on the side of caution, given that several members of the community have given very cogent examples as to how this line of reasoning is flawed, and allow the counter example to be removed from the article until such time that consensus amongst contributors can be reached, or at least some actual data is presented in support of this claim. And by data I mean '''the regression analysis and interpolation the counter example alludes to''' but neither you nor any other member of this community have produced yet. If the counter example must stay in the article because of one member of the community's desire to see it stay, then we should at least include that this counter example points to a VERY young Earth, far less than 6000 years.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:08, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Mike, the counterexample does not require precise mathematical analysis. Intelligence is significantly declining in a way that could not have lasted for tens of thousands of years with the level of intelligence and historical evidence seen today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy, the reason why a mathematical analysis is needed is because you've insisted that the slope of the decline in intelligence is steep enough that intelligence could not have been declining this fast for all that long (not hundreds of thousands of years, but instead only thousands). However, if the slope is as steep as you say (e.g. comparing the federalist papers to today's news) then it would seem that the decline of intelligence would have been so rapid that it couldn't have been declining for even thousands of years, but perhaps only hundreds. The examples you give of SAT scores, civil war letters, the federalist papers, etc. as you have interpreted them would all seem to suggest that if we extrapolate backwards even a thousand years the human race would have been many fold more intelligent than it is today, but that is untrue - the middle ages were a time of great trials for humans, lack of education, lack of freedoms, etc. What I have proposed to you or anyone one else in favor of this argument is that the slope of this decline be determined (meaning quantifiable scores of intelligence be used, e.g. IQ scores - SAT would be problematic due to biases in the design of this test). This is why the math is important, to discern whether the human race is 6000 years old, older or younger. All I ask for is a graph, and I believe it would help future readers of the article understand your point better. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

===I'm confused===
Maybe I'm proof of a young earth, but please can you reconcile your two theories to me, as they don't make sense:
* In one, you say that the decrease in language skills since the civil war, shows a decrease in human intelligence.
* In the other, you say that the number of conservative words has increased exponentially - even more so since the civil war.
Thus it seems as if you're implying that as people become less intelligent, and language skills decrease, the number of conservative words in use increases. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:48, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

: There's no contradiction. The dumbest people imaginable would still improve technology, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::So you're saying really dumb people would build a better Large Hadron Collider? Or the next Space Shuttle? By your argument, technological progress is inversely proportional to intelligence. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Israelites must have been more intelligent than us, yet were technologically backwards.

::Plus you're also implying that dumb people are improving the language by making it conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:22, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I've also found an excellent [http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/letters.htm archive of Civil War letters]. Having read through them - especially those of the less educated rank-and-file soldiers, I can't find any basis to support your assertion that language skills have decreased since the Civil War. If anything, the introduction paragraphs for each letter are in many cases far more eloquent than the letters themselves. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Technology -- and language -- build on what exists. Yes, dumb people improve both. I don't know why that would be so difficult to understand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Bear in mind also that there are more people around than there were in the past. Yes, technology is increasing more rapidly than it used to, but that is a result of the combined efforts of billions of people - and existing technology allows more time for advancement by increasing the efficiency of menial tasks that took up a lot of time in other eras.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 17:42, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::Well put. Note also that the English language has a wiki-like quality that enables it to build on prior improvements. For example, once "free speech" becomes a term, it facilitates many more insightful terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== People are getting less intelligent over time. ==

....but they're also, given the increase in new conservative words, getting more conservative over time. Is there a correlation between these facts? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 19:56, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:The consensus seems to be that society becomes more conservative ''despite'' becoming less intelligent. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::Society builds on what is accomplished, and does not have to reinvent the wheel. So technology and conservatism grow over time, but each generation is obviously less intelligent than the one before it. [[The Federalist Papers]], for example, ran in an ordinary newspaper 224 years ago; today an average college student has trouble understanding them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::But they *can* understand Foucault and Derrida, and a much more complex level of mathematics, things that would possibly have been quite difficult 224 years ago [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 20:21, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::No, the average person cannot understand even mildly advanced mathematics. We've been discussing average intelligence, and its decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, you were the one who brought up "average college students," who need to understand ideas that are far more complex than what their counterparts did a couple of centuries, or even decades ago. And do you have any evidence that the average college student, or man in the street, does not understand the Federalist Papers? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 21:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::There is an article stating that man's brain has shrunk 10%. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] Another that says obesity shrinks the brain significantly. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] The source is less than credible with their faux conservatism and their evolutionary clap trap but I am positive it is not the only source discussing the issue described. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: In response to Jpatt, minor differences in brain size between humans are poorly correlated with intelligence. Take, for example, the average size of a woman's brain vs. a man's brain, the woman's brain is smaller (by about 2% if memory serves), but women are no less intelligent than men. Before one jumps to the conclusion that I am saying that an individual person's brain can shrink without damaging cognitive function, let me assure you that I am not. Alzheimer’s Disease patients suffer from, amongst other things, the general atrophy of their brains, loosing significant volume and mass over the progress of the disease. And at the same time, one may also assume I'm saying that animals with small brains (like rats) may be just as intelligent as humans, and let me assure you that I am not saying this - a rat's brain is several orders of magnitude smaller than a human's brain and their level of intelligence is reflected by this. What I am saying is that small percentage differences in humans' brains over time (like what is detailed in the above reference form Jpatt) of minor difference between individual people cannot relay any significant different in intelligence. Here are some interesting anatomical facts about brain sizes: [[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html]] --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::ok, my great-grandfather lived to be 106 years old without ever eating dog food or cashing a Social Security check. Several members of Congress claim their elder constituents, after a lifetime of learning and experience, must eat dog food ''if they don't'' collect and cash Social Security checks. Could this be quantifiable standard to extrapolate backwards a measurement of human intelligence? After all, it not only measures whether or not the species is less intelligent than a generation ago, it could reveal if an individual person gets more stupid with longevity, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Rob, what you presented was a ''qualitative'' (not quantitative) anecdotal (i.e. single example) piece of evidence. Also, I don't see how eating dog food is a sign of lack of intelligence if the alternative for these elders is to starve, that is a very sad state of affairs. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::It could be quantitative if the phenomenea becomes widespread, as has been alleged by several members of Congress. Getting stupider as one gets older is indeed a sad state of afffairs, especially if it becomes wiespread as is apparent. Take for example the Parable of Ten Virgins ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=KJV Mathew 25]) or wise King Solomon's admonition, "A good man leaves an in heritance to his children", ([http://bible.cc/proverbs/13-22.htm Proverbs 13:22]). How many people today choose to ignore the inherited wisedom passed down through the ages that simply says, "prepare for the future", and choose rather to squander their resources on riotous living? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Main page is now protected from editing ==

Andy, the reason you stated as to why you protected this article is because of edits to remove one counter example (the decreasing intelligence argument), and that you have refuted the criticisms to this counter example. However, you merely rested the counter example several times on this talk page and offered nothing new to support it, and it was other members of this community, myself included, that provided new information and new perspectives and new analyses that refute the inclusion of this counter example in the article. It is unfortunate that we can no longer add to this page because you are intent on keeping this one counter example, no matter how erroneous it is or how bad it makes the other more intelligent counter examples look. '''The unfortunate thing is that this isn't even a liberal vs. conservative issue, it's an issue about math.''' I suppose that I and others should stop talking about this issue on this page now, as to avoid the 90/10 rule, but when editing is reopened for this article, be sure that it will either be I, the other contributors here, or new contributors that will once again highlight the problems with this counter example and this cycle will begin again.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:38, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Nice try on the reframing thing, but it's not just about math. It's about the intersection of faith and reason. There are a number of issues on which partisans ignore the math, and the worst violators are liberals.

:If you would like to provide a perspective on this issue, please give your right name (and then you can be a source), or quote a reliable source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== I have big issues with this article ==

Ok seriously. Is anyone proud of this article? I'm an atheist, but before you discredit me, please hear me out. I'm going to try to do my best to explain my problems with this article. It is full of logical fallacies and it's written with very little understanding of what the issues are. First, when it talks about the probability that the earth is young at about 96%, it does so using a complete misapplication of statistics.

Also, it states that "no counterexamples have been found for young earth", even if accepted as true, it says nothing about whether the claim of a young earth is true. The fact that nothing can be found to disprove a young earth doesn't mean that our claim that the earth is young is true. It is still up to those making the young earth claim, as those making a positive claim, to provide evidence that demonstrates that the earth is young. Just because I make claim X, and you are unable to disprove that claim, doesn't prove claim X to be true.

Finally, the article talks about "atheist". To be honest, I don't see how this is true. There are many people who do believe in a god who believe that the old earth theory. "Atheism" is just one position to a single argument... whether a god exists or not. Anything that deals outside of whether a god exists is outside of what "atheism" is. There are many Christians who believe the old earth theory. If there was a person who doesn't believe in a god, who believes the young earth theory... that person will still be considered an atheist (since that person doesn't believe in a god). Thus, I feel that the discussion of atheism in this article is wrong, since atheism makes no claim either way on whether the earth is old or young.

What do you guys think? [[User:Loro1rojo|Loro1rojo]] 12:07, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, Loro1rojo. Conservapedia is a conservative site, and makes no apologies for taking a firm stance. Part of that stance is a strongly critical eye when it comes to the claims of evolutionary theory. Now: not everyone on the site is one hundred in percent in agreement on these points. Certain editors believe in God's Creation and a young earth; others believe that God created everything, but the Earth is old. There are even a few atheist editors who contribute productively.

:Note that I said "contribute productively." That means adding information, rather than arguing that long-established articles should be changed. That is an approach that is simply not likely to be successful, particularly from a very new editor. Due to the high number of vandals who routinely attack the site, any new editor is going to be viewed with suspicion.

:I would suggest spending some time working on contributing to the project. As you may have heard, Conservapedia is a meritocracy; those who have worked to help the project grow tend to have more weight when arguing for a change than those who have only joined recently. Once you have established yourself as a productive member of the project, then it might be appropriate to suggest significant changes to existing articles.

:Best of luck to you. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:25, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Spiral galaxies ==

I'm not happy with the claim that spiral galaxies being young disprove an old Earth, mainly because it simply isn't relevant. Astronomers say quite plainly that spiral galaxies are young (although they talk on a scale of billions of years) whereas elliptical galaxies are claimed to be old. It's perfectly accurate to say that spiral galaxies can't be as old as the universe, but astronomers and evolutionists are just going to shrug their shoulders and say "We know. So what?" I think this example should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:01, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: It's implausible that spiral galaxies would be much younger than the universe itself. The fact that spiral galaxies are young implies that the universe is young.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The variability of the speed of light as a counterexample to relativity requires a 2-billion-year-old universe ==

Aschlafly, on the counterexamples to relativity page you made the argument that the speed of light was not constant based on [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html this study], which argues that the speed of light might have been different 2 billion years ago. How does this reconcile with an young universe? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Straightforwardly. The scientists who studied the changing speed of light are no doubt evolutionists, so they naturally think and speak in terms of an old universe. Their specific finding relating to the variability of the speed of light can be sound despite the false framework in which they understand it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:07, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:::So their entire conceptual framework is flawed, but their findings within a completely flawed framework are valid, only they can't see that their data--which relies on years measured in hard numbers--that gives them the correct findings is fundamentally flawed because of their conceptual framework? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 21:10, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Not their entire conceptual framework, just a specific aspect of it. They interpret various things wrongly to give an implausibly old age for the universe, but otherwise their observations and deductions are fairly sound. It's not all-or-nothing - we can work out which aspects of someone's work are valid and which aren't, rather than just accepting on faith that everything evolutionist scientists say is true. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:18, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
== Groundwater and entropy ==

How does groundwater relate to entropy? Entropy is energy unavailable for work, and it only necessarily has to stay constant or increase in a closed system. Groundwater is not a closed system.

I realise that I'm treading on thin ice at the moment because of my recent block, and it seems that there is a strong prejudice against removing counterexamples from any of these articles, but it is my strongly and sincerely held belief that by going for quantity rather than quality we are harming the credibility of CP as a source of information. The intro to this article says that the Old Earth hypothesis can't survive one counterexample - and I fully agree with that - so why do we need 35-odd counterexamples, at least half of which are completely fatuous? The Bible explains the water cycle, and by claiming that (a mistaken understanding of) entropy says that groundwater can't survive we contradict both Scripture and a pile of scientific evidence so high that you could use it to build a good-sized waterfall. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:04, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-08-27T01:07:05Z

Jcw:

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

----


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

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

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

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

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

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

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

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

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

== Great Lakes ==

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

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

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

== Salt Water Lakes ==

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

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

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

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

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

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

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

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

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

== What's a counterexample? ==

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

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

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

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

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

So, how do the examples fit in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Lakes again ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<references/>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.. but then the article has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::You do a good job of criticizing the SAT, I'm not claiming it to be a perfect measure of aptitude. But it is an approximation and 95% of colleges agree. The most straightforward and plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is declining intelligence. No other explanation is as plausible ... at least not to an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 20 June 2011 (EDT

::::::Wait. What? An open mind is closed to '''all''' possibilities as to ''why'' SAT scores have dropped over the last few years, except for the option of people becoming less intelligent? Shouldn't we check whether the SAT's as they existed in the 1970's and as they existed in 2005 (say) to make sure the tests aren't just ''harder''? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:48, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Just a thought. Could not the drop in SAT scores be explained by the dramatic drop in the amount of time students spend studying (in the public school system). Television and video games are replacing time that students use to spend studying. I can't find the link, but there was a story that said time devoted to study fell over 50% since the 70's.

== Sources ==

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

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

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

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

== Newsweek ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Receding Moon ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pattern ==

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

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

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

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

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

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

For short: not a good example, neither.

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

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

== Speculations ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Solar Fusion ==

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

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

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

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

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

::I agree that this example should come out. The ratios of H and He in the Sun are perfectly consistent with a solar age of 4.5-5 billion years. Of course they are ALSO consistent with a solar age of 6,000 years, so it proves nothing either way, but to claim that the composition of the Sun disproves an old Earth is just wrong and exposes us to attack. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:18, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== Geothermal Activity ==

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

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

== Questionable Probabilities ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

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

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

::::That's because of evaporation. The entropy claim, however, is simply wrong. Entropy does not mean disorder and even if it did, the water cycle (as explained in THE BIBLE ITSELF) makes it clear that groundwater is constantly replenished from other sources, not least the rain that is currently pouring off my roof. I do think we're better served by sticking to a few solid counterexamples than padding the list with weak ones. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:57, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

''1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.''

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

''2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.''

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

''3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]''

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

''4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]''

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

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

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

''1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].''

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

''2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.''

See above.

''3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.''

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

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

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

''5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.''

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

''6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.''

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

''7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]''

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

''8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].''

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Here's an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

''9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.''

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

''10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.''

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

''11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.''

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

''12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago!''

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

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

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

''1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.''

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

''2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]''

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.''

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

''4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

''5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''6. The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

There are fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

''7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.''

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.''

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

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

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Inferences about a lack of equilibrium (i.e., lack of very long term stability) can be drawn from the drying of a major river like the Colorado River.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Even if it were 'unstable' in the 'long-term' (both highly ambiguous and undefined terms I might add), a lack of stability is not equal to non-existence. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 10:14, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Similar inferences are drawn in other contexts without objection. For example, if there are puddles of water on the ground in the morning, then it is reasonably inferred that it rained the night before, not every night for the last seven days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::I agree with the analogy. Saying that the earth is young because one river dries up is a lot like saying you believe that it rained because you saw one puddle. Do you also infer that new rivers imply that the earth is young? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 21:29, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
When it next rains one might reasonably expect that a puddle will form in the same place and will once again dry up afterwards. How then can we possibly draw any conclusions about the age of the earth from looking at just one wet-dry cycle? We can't. Looking at one cycle doesn't tell us how many cycles there have been. The decreasing discharge of the river has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of the age of the earth. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:16, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Fundamental misunderstanding of dog breeding ==

The article stated under the Biology section: "The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today." The statement asserts that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing, suggesting that if we extrapolate backward in time, an old-Earth would be overrun with pure breed dogs. Dogs, however, were domesticated only a few thousand years ago by man from more docile wolves, and even then only a few pure breed dogs existed for centuries. Only in the 19th century did the number of dog breads exploded in the western world as designer dogs because a status symbol amongst the newly emerging middle class and new uses for dogs were discovered. The argument directly states that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing due to crossbreeding - while the genetic purity of older dog breeds is slowly being diluted, new designer dog breeds are always being developed (as tradition stretching back over a century).unsigned by User:Mike127

== Diminishing intelligence, etc. ==

The first argument under Biology reads: "The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[24] music, personal letters,[25] quality of political debates,[26] the quality of news articles,[27] and many other measures." While this statement may work well for arguing that the world is nearing its end, it certainly doesn't support or refute old Earth or young Earth theories.unsigned by User:Mike127

: Sure it does. The observed slope of the intelligence curve over time is sharply negative. Extrapolate backwards and before long the IQs are astoundingly high. But there's no evidence of astoundingly high IQs for man, so the conclusion is clear: time does not extend much backwards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:52, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:: But if the slope is so steep, then Earth couldn't be even 6,000 years old. If the decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon, then extrapolation would produce erroneous results. This website [[http://tamlin.info/graphs_aclu_page.htm]] plots SAT scores starting from the 1960s, and if one were to extrapolate backwards using these scores, then we would have to assume all people from the 18th century and before, if SATs had existed then, would have gotten perfect scores. If the website is correct that the removal of prayer from schools caused this decrease in SAT scores, and before God was removed everything was fine, then that means this meter of human intelligence is flawed: it is subject to outside sources of variability. I cannot find a graph that plots IQ scores for a population over any long length of time, but the point would be the same, extrapolation of intelligence in a dubious means of gauging the age of Earth, the extrapolation is inappropriate either because human intelligence levels fluctuate over time (i.e. the user's perceived decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon) or because if extrapolation was appropriate, we would expect people just a few hundred years ago to all be geniuses, and this was not the case. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 13:32, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Adam and Eve were a lot smarter (before the fall) than IQ tests could possibly measure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:34, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::I am unaware of any part of Genesis that states that Adam and Eve were '''astronomically''' smarter than humans today. The point I was making above, to restate, is that if human intelligence could drop so quickly in the 20th century, and extrapolation backwards is justified, then humans just a few hundred years ago or less, perhaps just a hundred years ago depending on what data you look at, must have been extraordinary geniuses, and that is simply not factual by any historical standards. Thus, I fail to see your point: the bible does not corroborate your statement and even if it did, it would still suggest that human intelligence is declining by a nonlinear function, thus linear extrapolation, as the article implies, is not justified.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I feel it necessary to point out that if the extrapolation of human intelligence backwards in time is not a justifiable proof of young Earth, this does not mean that this is in some way a proof of old Earth theories. The concept is simply flawed and cannot delineate one theory from another, thus it should not be included on this list.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Mike, this is simple logic. Extrapolation backward more than a half-dozen or so thousands of years is simply inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, this is simple math. My point is that extrapolation backward even 6000 years would also be inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years. We would be forced to conclude that the Earth isn't even 6000 years old but far far younger if the slope of this decline is consistent. If the slope is not consistent (meaning the acceleration of the decline of in intelligence is variable), then any extrapolation is not appropriate and will lead to erroneous results, like the earth being only 1000 years old for instance. If the argument is to be kept in the article, then an accommodating graph should be presented or linked as a reference, showing key markers of intelligence in recent decades and how the proposed extrapolation would yield an age for the Earth that is 6,000 years rather than something far younger than this.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:04, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, I am a great fan of this website and your counterexamples are normally very sound, but I have to disagree with you on this one. You are assuming that the rate of decline in human intelligence is constant, whereas it changes over time, according to the interplay of many complex factors.
::Using the same type of logic, and keeping in mind that average height has increased by one inch since 1960, I could argue that the Earth could not possibly be more than 3000 years old, because before then, people would have had a negative height. And that is assuming that before the birth of Christ, they were less than 2 feet and a half tall on average. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 22:17, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Neither objection above withstands scrutiny. The counterexample does not "prove too much," because 800 SAT scores in the past would not be inconsistent with the high quality works and reading abilities of common people centuries ago. Nor are increases in height analogous, because that is obviously affected by diet, sleep, medicine and other advances in society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Andy, if neither of the above arguments are enough to convince you of the central flaw of this line of reasoning, then may I ask that you or another contributor supply this article with a graph illustrating how this backward extrapolation gives an age of 6000 years using actual quantifiable means of measuring human intelligence (i.e. IQ scores). Or, if someone has posted such a graph on the internet, please provide a link to this graph in the article as a reference. I only ask that the math actually be conducted and not assumed to fit a given theory. And I again feel like I should add that removal of this argument as proof of young Earth does not in effect support an old Earth, it supports neither.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:41, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps we've become so unintelligent as to ignore the lack of evidence for the underlying assumption that the rate of decline is constant? Andy, if it were the case that people were becoming more intelligent, would that be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The rate of decline need not be constant, and nothing in the counterexample implies that it would be. But it's continuous and differentiable -- surely not a step function.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You have provided no evidence that the rate has always been negative. Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::So, would I be right in saying that in 200 years mankind's intelligence will disintegrate into nothing more than walking apes or are we headed toward [[liberal stupidity]] against [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]. Striking. [[Paulhernandez]] 00:37, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I think the most reasonable approach here is to remove this counter example until such time that evidence can be provided that supports it. This is my concern: if a new reader, a homeschooler, or anyone interested in the subject comes to this article and comes across this flawed argument, this would tend to discredit the other arguments on the page. For example, if you were to meet someone for the first time, and you share a conversation with them, agree with everything they have to say about a subject, but then this person makes some outlandish statement about the subject, wouldn’t that make you question their other statements and even your own beliefs since you share some many beliefs with this individual? Essentially, a rotten apple spoils the bunch, and that's what this counter example is. Let's remove this counter example, and if someone can provide an analysis of declining human intelligence, if it is in fact declining, that fits the counter example, then the subject can be reopened for debate. If we are to make headway in establishing this website as a preeminent educational resource, we must make sure our statements are well thought-out, that the arguments made by this site hold water, and that those arguments that don’t hold water are not allowed to spoil the others that are most certainly valid.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 15:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::Brad's comment is like suggesting that heat may flow to hotter locations. There's something called [[entropy]] that means disorder does increase over time, also known as the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. Argue against it if you like, but I doubt you're going to persuade anyone.

:::::::::::Explain this: why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth? When you can look at your own position objectively, then you can realize great insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Andy, your analogy is fatally flawed and fails to persuade. You're essentially arguing that your mind is closed. Is your mind open to outside influence? Then the law of entropy does not apply, as it is not closed.
::::::::::::Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? Why can't you answer the question? Wouldn't the [[Flynn effect]] (a theory much more widely accepted than your assertion to the contrary) be stronger evidence for a young earth because if you extrapolated it backwards, society would have been so unintelligent as to not survive?
::::::::::::How do you reconcile your insight that society becomes less intelligent with your insight that society becomes more conservative?
::::::::::::I'm not opposed to the existence of a young earth. Is your mind open to that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 17:46, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You raise an interesting point there, Brad. Society IS inevitably becoming more and more conservative, as can be seen by the evolution of language, and as conservativism favours logical thinking, IQ should rise as an effect. What is the data showing that average IQs are decreasing, by the way? I'd love to see those studies myself, I am very interested by this subject. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:35, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Brad, perhaps some graphs will help. [http://static.inky.ws/image/400/image.jpg this graph] shows liberalism (in red) increasing linearly, conservatism (in green) increasing quadratically. The point is that when we talk about liberalism or conservatism 'increasing', it means the strength and persuasiveness of the ideas; that's how both can be increasing at once. The scope and magnitude of the policies demanded by liberals increases, as does the strength and coherence of the conservative alternative. In the marketplace of ideas, the stronger ideas win out in the long run, so on average the number of adherents of either side will be in the same proportion as the relative strengths of the ideas. I hope that's clear... [http://static.inky.ws/image/401/image.jpg This graph] shows the effect of the previous graph on numbers. Obviously these are just demonstrations of general trends, but it does show how these two effects can be reconciled. In fact, I think the graphs are rather interesting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:49, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks, Jcw, the graphs do make it a bit more easy to understand and to digest, although it's a complex matter and I am not sure I grasp it completely still. What do the numbers in the graphs stand for, exactly? Thanks for taking the time to try to explain this, I am feeling really dense now :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::No problem Leonard. Here's how I interpret it; others may well disagree. As Andy observes, the rate at which new conservative ideas are produced and refined is increasing rapidly. Andy's original observation was of an exponential increase, but I think that's an artifact of the measurement - if you look at the top right part of the green line on the first graph, it looks exponential in that region, but taken as a whole it's a quadratic curve. Likewise, Andy's observation of words since 1600 shows exponential growth, but graphing exponential growth over several thousand years shows that it can't be that fast over the whole period. It has also been observed that liberalism is on the increase. In both cases, what we're talking about is - in my opinion - the relative strength of the two world-views. As humanity develops, ideas are tested against each other, old ideas are tested against new ideas and so on, with the better ideas surviving in the long run. The previous observations about growth of conservatism and liberalism can be reconciled on that assumption; the two sides are both developing their ideas and improving them. Thus the first graph shows how conservative ideas develop faster than liberal ones - liberals merely add more ideas linearly, while conservatives can combine new with old productively, so each year the increase is greater than the year before.
::The second graph shows (again, hypothetical) numbers of conservatively or liberally inclined people, based on the previous graph - the number of adherents of each view is assumed to be proportional to the ratio of the numbers in the previous graph. Again, it's all just a demonstration rather than an assertion about the details of actual politics, but hopefully it illustrates what we're talking about here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:10, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Jcw, Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative. Andy's new insight asserts that society will also become less intelligent. I don't believe you've reconciled anything.
:::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The apparent decrease in intelligence is easily explained by the increase in liberal influence in teaching. Liberal ideas hold disproportionate sway in the education field in many Western countries: note that homeschoolers' performance isn't falling, so it's not that humans are getting inherently less intelligent, but that the influence of growing liberalism is leading to less-educated people who use their God-given intelligence far less than they used to. My hypothetical graphs suggest that liberals are getting more liberal and conservatives more conservative, which seems perfectly in line with the observations. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::The influence of liberalism on eduction is decreasing because the geometric growth in conservative insights implies that the obstacles -- liberal censorship and deceit -- lose ground at a geometric rate in a free society. True or false?
:::::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:25, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Brad, your tone makes it abundantly clear that you're not trying to engage in a reasonable discussion on this point. What's more, your point doesn't make sense. As I said above, liberal and conservative ideas aren't distributed evenly in all areas, so one area - education - can be increasingly liberal while another - the US population a whole - can be increasingly conservative. Please think your points through before posting them and try to be more civil; it will help the discussion immensely. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'm sorry you feel that way, Jcw. I am trying to engage in a reasonable discussion by positing that an increase in intelligence (as evidenced by the Flynn effect) is a stronger argument for a young earth. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:54, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I too disagree with the analogy you drew between Brad's comments and the Laws of Thermodynamics. And as far as your question goes: ''"why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth?"'' -- I don't think anyone in this conversation is suggesting that they do not support a young Eart, we just don't support this argument for young Earth. This issue is not as black and white as you seem to see it: removal of this counterpoint does not inherently advantage the arguments for an old Earth. If I said that an alien came to me and told me that the Earth is billions of years old, or that it is 6000 years old, you and no other logically minded person would agree that this was proof for one theory vs another. And you shouldn't, it's a ludicrous argument, and just because you support the theory that this so-called proof supports, it doesn't mean you have to support this "proof" as well. As an earlier contributor posted, using the same logic about declining human intelligence to extrapolate the age of the Earth, one could use increasing human height to argue that the Earth is far younger than 6000 years (the contributor suggested it would be closer to 3000 years and that means everyone during Jesus's time would be under 2 feet tall, which is not true). You have yet to provide any extrapolation based on hard numbers, only supplying us with anecdotes like civil war letters and the federalist papers as examples of declining intelligence. Even if these examples were valid (and that is doubtful), it would suggest a very steep slope for the decline of intelligence over the past 200 or so years, thus people 1000 years ago should all be genius is the slope is consistent according to your argument. And the slope does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested; this is basic mathematics and regression theory. Again, the argument is poorly thought out and does not seem to be supported by any hard evidence or even the majority of commentators here, thus it should be removed from the article until such time when an analysis is presented that supports this argument. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:Pick any measure you like, and it's clear that intelligence is declining. Read, for example, [[Civil War]] letters and compare them to what the average person produces today. How long could intelligence be declining at a significant rate? Not hundreds of thousands of years, or even tens of thousands of years.

:The logic is simple and unmistakable. I doubt you've heard it before, but that's not a reason to reject it. Honestly, after all this discussion, I still don't see a logical objection to this counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a few glaring problems with using the change in language between the Civil War and now to measure intelligence. Firstly, you're ignoring how the language has developed during the period, and has become more practical and less "flowery" - hardly a sign of less intelligence. Unless you're referring to text-speak of course, which hasn't exactly entered mainstream literature or business yet. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that for every Civil War letter that was written, there was at least an equal number of illiterate soldiers on either side. And the final point, which is baffling me, is that here you're using diminishing language skills to show that people are becoming less intelligent, and yet elsewhere on Conservapedia, you claim the language is becoming more conservative. Which is it, because you can't use language to prove two entirely contradictory points? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:14, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: There's no contradiction. Technology will improve despite people getting less intelligent. The counterexample is well-supported and can hardly be doubted. Examples are numerous for the obvious decline in intelligence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::There might not be a contradiction, but you are claiming that language is becoming more conservative, which implies society is becoming more conservative, whilst at the same time claiming people are becoming less intelligent. Likewise, you use Civil War letters as an example, compared to modern day writing, and yet you claim the Babylonians - who must have been very intelligent compared to us - had a language that could not express complex terms, such as "sin" ([http://www.jstor.org/pss/1196058 actually they could - in very definitive terms]). I have no problem with you claiming humans are becoming less intelligent, but by using language as an example, you're shooting your other theories in the foot. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, you forgot to do any math to support this counter example, and this counter example depends on a mathematical principle: regression and extrapolation. Let’s assume for the sake of any argument that human intelligence is declining, and let's also say it is declining rapidly, as you have insisted. If it is declining so rapidly in the last 200 years, then why wasn't the average person during the middle ages a genius by today's standards? If the slope is as steep as you insist, estimates the intelligence of people during Jesus's time would suggest that they were many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, and while a few might have been, the Bible is full of examples of stupid, ignorant people, so this too seems unlikely according to the Bible and historical records. And remember, Andy, the slope of the decline does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested, this cannot be argued, this is math, math is not biased. Please, provide us with the math that your argument holds water, until then, this counter example should be removed, '''let’s not let this flawed counter example spoil the bunch.''' --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 00:09, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::My revisions to the article have been once again reverted by Aschlafly. Andy, shouldn't you at least err on the side of caution, given that several members of the community have given very cogent examples as to how this line of reasoning is flawed, and allow the counter example to be removed from the article until such time that consensus amongst contributors can be reached, or at least some actual data is presented in support of this claim. And by data I mean '''the regression analysis and interpolation the counter example alludes to''' but neither you nor any other member of this community have produced yet. If the counter example must stay in the article because of one member of the community's desire to see it stay, then we should at least include that this counter example points to a VERY young Earth, far less than 6000 years.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:08, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Mike, the counterexample does not require precise mathematical analysis. Intelligence is significantly declining in a way that could not have lasted for tens of thousands of years with the level of intelligence and historical evidence seen today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy, the reason why a mathematical analysis is needed is because you've insisted that the slope of the decline in intelligence is steep enough that intelligence could not have been declining this fast for all that long (not hundreds of thousands of years, but instead only thousands). However, if the slope is as steep as you say (e.g. comparing the federalist papers to today's news) then it would seem that the decline of intelligence would have been so rapid that it couldn't have been declining for even thousands of years, but perhaps only hundreds. The examples you give of SAT scores, civil war letters, the federalist papers, etc. as you have interpreted them would all seem to suggest that if we extrapolate backwards even a thousand years the human race would have been many fold more intelligent than it is today, but that is untrue - the middle ages were a time of great trials for humans, lack of education, lack of freedoms, etc. What I have proposed to you or anyone one else in favor of this argument is that the slope of this decline be determined (meaning quantifiable scores of intelligence be used, e.g. IQ scores - SAT would be problematic due to biases in the design of this test). This is why the math is important, to discern whether the human race is 6000 years old, older or younger. All I ask for is a graph, and I believe it would help future readers of the article understand your point better. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

===I'm confused===
Maybe I'm proof of a young earth, but please can you reconcile your two theories to me, as they don't make sense:
* In one, you say that the decrease in language skills since the civil war, shows a decrease in human intelligence.
* In the other, you say that the number of conservative words has increased exponentially - even more so since the civil war.
Thus it seems as if you're implying that as people become less intelligent, and language skills decrease, the number of conservative words in use increases. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:48, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

: There's no contradiction. The dumbest people imaginable would still improve technology, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::So you're saying really dumb people would build a better Large Hadron Collider? Or the next Space Shuttle? By your argument, technological progress is inversely proportional to intelligence. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Israelites must have been more intelligent than us, yet were technologically backwards.

::Plus you're also implying that dumb people are improving the language by making it conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:22, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I've also found an excellent [http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/letters.htm archive of Civil War letters]. Having read through them - especially those of the less educated rank-and-file soldiers, I can't find any basis to support your assertion that language skills have decreased since the Civil War. If anything, the introduction paragraphs for each letter are in many cases far more eloquent than the letters themselves. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Technology -- and language -- build on what exists. Yes, dumb people improve both. I don't know why that would be so difficult to understand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Bear in mind also that there are more people around than there were in the past. Yes, technology is increasing more rapidly than it used to, but that is a result of the combined efforts of billions of people - and existing technology allows more time for advancement by increasing the efficiency of menial tasks that took up a lot of time in other eras.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 17:42, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::Well put. Note also that the English language has a wiki-like quality that enables it to build on prior improvements. For example, once "free speech" becomes a term, it facilitates many more insightful terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== People are getting less intelligent over time. ==

....but they're also, given the increase in new conservative words, getting more conservative over time. Is there a correlation between these facts? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 19:56, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:The consensus seems to be that society becomes more conservative ''despite'' becoming less intelligent. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::Society builds on what is accomplished, and does not have to reinvent the wheel. So technology and conservatism grow over time, but each generation is obviously less intelligent than the one before it. [[The Federalist Papers]], for example, ran in an ordinary newspaper 224 years ago; today an average college student has trouble understanding them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::But they *can* understand Foucault and Derrida, and a much more complex level of mathematics, things that would possibly have been quite difficult 224 years ago [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 20:21, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::No, the average person cannot understand even mildly advanced mathematics. We've been discussing average intelligence, and its decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, you were the one who brought up "average college students," who need to understand ideas that are far more complex than what their counterparts did a couple of centuries, or even decades ago. And do you have any evidence that the average college student, or man in the street, does not understand the Federalist Papers? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 21:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::There is an article stating that man's brain has shrunk 10%. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] Another that says obesity shrinks the brain significantly. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] The source is less than credible with their faux conservatism and their evolutionary clap trap but I am positive it is not the only source discussing the issue described. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: In response to Jpatt, minor differences in brain size between humans are poorly correlated with intelligence. Take, for example, the average size of a woman's brain vs. a man's brain, the woman's brain is smaller (by about 2% if memory serves), but women are no less intelligent than men. Before one jumps to the conclusion that I am saying that an individual person's brain can shrink without damaging cognitive function, let me assure you that I am not. Alzheimer’s Disease patients suffer from, amongst other things, the general atrophy of their brains, loosing significant volume and mass over the progress of the disease. And at the same time, one may also assume I'm saying that animals with small brains (like rats) may be just as intelligent as humans, and let me assure you that I am not saying this - a rat's brain is several orders of magnitude smaller than a human's brain and their level of intelligence is reflected by this. What I am saying is that small percentage differences in humans' brains over time (like what is detailed in the above reference form Jpatt) of minor difference between individual people cannot relay any significant different in intelligence. Here are some interesting anatomical facts about brain sizes: [[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html]] --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::ok, my great-grandfather lived to be 106 years old without ever eating dog food or cashing a Social Security check. Several members of Congress claim their elder constituents, after a lifetime of learning and experience, must eat dog food ''if they don't'' collect and cash Social Security checks. Could this be quantifiable standard to extrapolate backwards a measurement of human intelligence? After all, it not only measures whether or not the species is less intelligent than a generation ago, it could reveal if an individual person gets more stupid with longevity, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Rob, what you presented was a ''qualitative'' (not quantitative) anecdotal (i.e. single example) piece of evidence. Also, I don't see how eating dog food is a sign of lack of intelligence if the alternative for these elders is to starve, that is a very sad state of affairs. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::It could be quantitative if the phenomenea becomes widespread, as has been alleged by several members of Congress. Getting stupider as one gets older is indeed a sad state of afffairs, especially if it becomes wiespread as is apparent. Take for example the Parable of Ten Virgins ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=KJV Mathew 25]) or wise King Solomon's admonition, "A good man leaves an in heritance to his children", ([http://bible.cc/proverbs/13-22.htm Proverbs 13:22]). How many people today choose to ignore the inherited wisedom passed down through the ages that simply says, "prepare for the future", and choose rather to squander their resources on riotous living? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Main page is now protected from editing ==

Andy, the reason you stated as to why you protected this article is because of edits to remove one counter example (the decreasing intelligence argument), and that you have refuted the criticisms to this counter example. However, you merely rested the counter example several times on this talk page and offered nothing new to support it, and it was other members of this community, myself included, that provided new information and new perspectives and new analyses that refute the inclusion of this counter example in the article. It is unfortunate that we can no longer add to this page because you are intent on keeping this one counter example, no matter how erroneous it is or how bad it makes the other more intelligent counter examples look. '''The unfortunate thing is that this isn't even a liberal vs. conservative issue, it's an issue about math.''' I suppose that I and others should stop talking about this issue on this page now, as to avoid the 90/10 rule, but when editing is reopened for this article, be sure that it will either be I, the other contributors here, or new contributors that will once again highlight the problems with this counter example and this cycle will begin again.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:38, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Nice try on the reframing thing, but it's not just about math. It's about the intersection of faith and reason. There are a number of issues on which partisans ignore the math, and the worst violators are liberals.

:If you would like to provide a perspective on this issue, please give your right name (and then you can be a source), or quote a reliable source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== I have big issues with this article ==

Ok seriously. Is anyone proud of this article? I'm an atheist, but before you discredit me, please hear me out. I'm going to try to do my best to explain my problems with this article. It is full of logical fallacies and it's written with very little understanding of what the issues are. First, when it talks about the probability that the earth is young at about 96%, it does so using a complete misapplication of statistics.

Also, it states that "no counterexamples have been found for young earth", even if accepted as true, it says nothing about whether the claim of a young earth is true. The fact that nothing can be found to disprove a young earth doesn't mean that our claim that the earth is young is true. It is still up to those making the young earth claim, as those making a positive claim, to provide evidence that demonstrates that the earth is young. Just because I make claim X, and you are unable to disprove that claim, doesn't prove claim X to be true.

Finally, the article talks about "atheist". To be honest, I don't see how this is true. There are many people who do believe in a god who believe that the old earth theory. "Atheism" is just one position to a single argument... whether a god exists or not. Anything that deals outside of whether a god exists is outside of what "atheism" is. There are many Christians who believe the old earth theory. If there was a person who doesn't believe in a god, who believes the young earth theory... that person will still be considered an atheist (since that person doesn't believe in a god). Thus, I feel that the discussion of atheism in this article is wrong, since atheism makes no claim either way on whether the earth is old or young.

What do you guys think? [[User:Loro1rojo|Loro1rojo]] 12:07, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, Loro1rojo. Conservapedia is a conservative site, and makes no apologies for taking a firm stance. Part of that stance is a strongly critical eye when it comes to the claims of evolutionary theory. Now: not everyone on the site is one hundred in percent in agreement on these points. Certain editors believe in God's Creation and a young earth; others believe that God created everything, but the Earth is old. There are even a few atheist editors who contribute productively.

:Note that I said "contribute productively." That means adding information, rather than arguing that long-established articles should be changed. That is an approach that is simply not likely to be successful, particularly from a very new editor. Due to the high number of vandals who routinely attack the site, any new editor is going to be viewed with suspicion.

:I would suggest spending some time working on contributing to the project. As you may have heard, Conservapedia is a meritocracy; those who have worked to help the project grow tend to have more weight when arguing for a change than those who have only joined recently. Once you have established yourself as a productive member of the project, then it might be appropriate to suggest significant changes to existing articles.

:Best of luck to you. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:25, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Spiral galaxies ==

I'm not happy with the claim that spiral galaxies being young disprove an old Earth, mainly because it simply isn't relevant. Astronomers say quite plainly that spiral galaxies are young (although they talk on a scale of billions of years) whereas elliptical galaxies are claimed to be old. It's perfectly accurate to say that spiral galaxies can't be as old as the universe, but astronomers and evolutionists are just going to shrug their shoulders and say "We know. So what?" I think this example should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:01, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: It's implausible that spiral galaxies would be much younger than the universe itself. The fact that spiral galaxies are young implies that the universe is young.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The variability of the speed of light as a counterexample to relativity requires a 2-billion-year-old universe ==

Aschlafly, on the counterexamples to relativity page you made the argument that the speed of light was not constant based on [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html this study], which argues that the speed of light might have been different 2 billion years ago. How does this reconcile with an young universe? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Straightforwardly. The scientists who studied the changing speed of light are no doubt evolutionists, so they naturally think and speak in terms of an old universe. Their specific finding relating to the variability of the speed of light can be sound despite the false framework in which they understand it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:07, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
== Groundwater and entropy ==

How does groundwater relate to entropy? Entropy is energy unavailable for work, and it only necessarily has to stay constant or increase in a closed system. Groundwater is not a closed system.

I realise that I'm treading on thin ice at the moment because of my recent block, and it seems that there is a strong prejudice against removing counterexamples from any of these articles, but it is my strongly and sincerely held belief that by going for quantity rather than quality we are harming the credibility of CP as a source of information. The intro to this article says that the Old Earth hypothesis can't survive one counterexample - and I fully agree with that - so why do we need 35-odd counterexamples, at least half of which are completely fatuous? The Bible explains the water cycle, and by claiming that (a mistaken understanding of) entropy says that groundwater can't survive we contradict both Scripture and a pile of scientific evidence so high that you could use it to build a good-sized waterfall. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:04, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-08-27T01:06:54Z

Jcw:

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

----


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

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

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

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

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

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

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

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

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

== Great Lakes ==

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

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

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

== Salt Water Lakes ==

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

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

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

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

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

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

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

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

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

== What's a counterexample? ==

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

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

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

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

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

So, how do the examples fit in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Lakes again ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<references/>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.. but then the article has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::You do a good job of criticizing the SAT, I'm not claiming it to be a perfect measure of aptitude. But it is an approximation and 95% of colleges agree. The most straightforward and plausible explanation for the declining SAT scores is declining intelligence. No other explanation is as plausible ... at least not to an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 20 June 2011 (EDT

::::::Wait. What? An open mind is closed to '''all''' possibilities as to ''why'' SAT scores have dropped over the last few years, except for the option of people becoming less intelligent? Shouldn't we check whether the SAT's as they existed in the 1970's and as they existed in 2005 (say) to make sure the tests aren't just ''harder''? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:48, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Just a thought. Could not the drop in SAT scores be explained by the dramatic drop in the amount of time students spend studying (in the public school system). Television and video games are replacing time that students use to spend studying. I can't find the link, but there was a story that said time devoted to study fell over 50% since the 70's.

== Sources ==

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

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

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

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

== Newsweek ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Receding Moon ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pattern ==

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

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

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

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

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

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

For short: not a good example, neither.

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

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

== Speculations ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Solar Fusion ==

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

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

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

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

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

::I agree that this example should come out. The ratios of H and He in the Sun are perfectly consistent with a solar age of 4.5-5 billion years. Of course they are ALSO consistent with a solar age of 6,000 years, so it proves nothing either way, but to claim that the composition of the Sun disproves an old Earth is just wrong and exposes us to attack. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:18, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== Geothermal Activity ==

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

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

== Questionable Probabilities ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

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

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

::::That's because of evaporation. The entropy claim, however, is simply wrong. Entropy does not mean disorder and even if it did, the water cycle (as explained in THE BIBLE ITSELF) makes it clear that groundwater is constantly replenished from other sources, not least the rain that is currently pouring off my roof. I do think we're better served by sticking to a few solid counterexamples than padding the list with weak ones. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:57, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

''1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.''

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

''2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.''

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

''3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]''

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

''4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]''

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

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

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

''1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].''

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

''2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.''

See above.

''3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.''

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

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

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

''5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.''

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

''6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.''

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

''7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]''

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

''8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].''

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Here's an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

''9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.''

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

''10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.''

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

''11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.''

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

''12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago!''

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

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

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

''1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.''

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

''2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]''

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.''

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

''4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

''5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''6. The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

There are fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

''7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.''

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]''

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

''9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.''

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

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

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Inferences about a lack of equilibrium (i.e., lack of very long term stability) can be drawn from the drying of a major river like the Colorado River.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Even if it were 'unstable' in the 'long-term' (both highly ambiguous and undefined terms I might add), a lack of stability is not equal to non-existence. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 10:14, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Similar inferences are drawn in other contexts without objection. For example, if there are puddles of water on the ground in the morning, then it is reasonably inferred that it rained the night before, not every night for the last seven days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::I agree with the analogy. Saying that the earth is young because one river dries up is a lot like saying you believe that it rained because you saw one puddle. Do you also infer that new rivers imply that the earth is young? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 21:29, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
When it next rains one might reasonably expect that a puddle will form in the same place and will once again dry up afterwards. How then can we possibly draw any conclusions about the age of the earth from looking at just one wet-dry cycle? We can't. Looking at one cycle doesn't tell us how many cycles there have been. The decreasing discharge of the river has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of the age of the earth. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:16, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Fundamental misunderstanding of dog breeding ==

The article stated under the Biology section: "The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today." The statement asserts that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing, suggesting that if we extrapolate backward in time, an old-Earth would be overrun with pure breed dogs. Dogs, however, were domesticated only a few thousand years ago by man from more docile wolves, and even then only a few pure breed dogs existed for centuries. Only in the 19th century did the number of dog breads exploded in the western world as designer dogs because a status symbol amongst the newly emerging middle class and new uses for dogs were discovered. The argument directly states that the number of pure dog breeds is diminishing due to crossbreeding - while the genetic purity of older dog breeds is slowly being diluted, new designer dog breeds are always being developed (as tradition stretching back over a century).unsigned by User:Mike127

== Diminishing intelligence, etc. ==

The first argument under Biology reads: "The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[24] music, personal letters,[25] quality of political debates,[26] the quality of news articles,[27] and many other measures." While this statement may work well for arguing that the world is nearing its end, it certainly doesn't support or refute old Earth or young Earth theories.unsigned by User:Mike127

: Sure it does. The observed slope of the intelligence curve over time is sharply negative. Extrapolate backwards and before long the IQs are astoundingly high. But there's no evidence of astoundingly high IQs for man, so the conclusion is clear: time does not extend much backwards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:52, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:: But if the slope is so steep, then Earth couldn't be even 6,000 years old. If the decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon, then extrapolation would produce erroneous results. This website [[http://tamlin.info/graphs_aclu_page.htm]] plots SAT scores starting from the 1960s, and if one were to extrapolate backwards using these scores, then we would have to assume all people from the 18th century and before, if SATs had existed then, would have gotten perfect scores. If the website is correct that the removal of prayer from schools caused this decrease in SAT scores, and before God was removed everything was fine, then that means this meter of human intelligence is flawed: it is subject to outside sources of variability. I cannot find a graph that plots IQ scores for a population over any long length of time, but the point would be the same, extrapolation of intelligence in a dubious means of gauging the age of Earth, the extrapolation is inappropriate either because human intelligence levels fluctuate over time (i.e. the user's perceived decrease in intelligence is a recent phenomenon) or because if extrapolation was appropriate, we would expect people just a few hundred years ago to all be geniuses, and this was not the case. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 13:32, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Adam and Eve were a lot smarter (before the fall) than IQ tests could possibly measure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:34, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::I am unaware of any part of Genesis that states that Adam and Eve were '''astronomically''' smarter than humans today. The point I was making above, to restate, is that if human intelligence could drop so quickly in the 20th century, and extrapolation backwards is justified, then humans just a few hundred years ago or less, perhaps just a hundred years ago depending on what data you look at, must have been extraordinary geniuses, and that is simply not factual by any historical standards. Thus, I fail to see your point: the bible does not corroborate your statement and even if it did, it would still suggest that human intelligence is declining by a nonlinear function, thus linear extrapolation, as the article implies, is not justified.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I feel it necessary to point out that if the extrapolation of human intelligence backwards in time is not a justifiable proof of young Earth, this does not mean that this is in some way a proof of old Earth theories. The concept is simply flawed and cannot delineate one theory from another, thus it should not be included on this list.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 21:37, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Mike, this is simple logic. Extrapolation backward more than a half-dozen or so thousands of years is simply inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, this is simple math. My point is that extrapolation backward even 6000 years would also be inconsistent with the decline in intelligence observed in the last 50 years. We would be forced to conclude that the Earth isn't even 6000 years old but far far younger if the slope of this decline is consistent. If the slope is not consistent (meaning the acceleration of the decline of in intelligence is variable), then any extrapolation is not appropriate and will lead to erroneous results, like the earth being only 1000 years old for instance. If the argument is to be kept in the article, then an accommodating graph should be presented or linked as a reference, showing key markers of intelligence in recent decades and how the proposed extrapolation would yield an age for the Earth that is 6,000 years rather than something far younger than this.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:04, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, I am a great fan of this website and your counterexamples are normally very sound, but I have to disagree with you on this one. You are assuming that the rate of decline in human intelligence is constant, whereas it changes over time, according to the interplay of many complex factors.
::Using the same type of logic, and keeping in mind that average height has increased by one inch since 1960, I could argue that the Earth could not possibly be more than 3000 years old, because before then, people would have had a negative height. And that is assuming that before the birth of Christ, they were less than 2 feet and a half tall on average. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 22:17, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Neither objection above withstands scrutiny. The counterexample does not "prove too much," because 800 SAT scores in the past would not be inconsistent with the high quality works and reading abilities of common people centuries ago. Nor are increases in height analogous, because that is obviously affected by diet, sleep, medicine and other advances in society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Andy, if neither of the above arguments are enough to convince you of the central flaw of this line of reasoning, then may I ask that you or another contributor supply this article with a graph illustrating how this backward extrapolation gives an age of 6000 years using actual quantifiable means of measuring human intelligence (i.e. IQ scores). Or, if someone has posted such a graph on the internet, please provide a link to this graph in the article as a reference. I only ask that the math actually be conducted and not assumed to fit a given theory. And I again feel like I should add that removal of this argument as proof of young Earth does not in effect support an old Earth, it supports neither.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:41, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps we've become so unintelligent as to ignore the lack of evidence for the underlying assumption that the rate of decline is constant? Andy, if it were the case that people were becoming more intelligent, would that be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The rate of decline need not be constant, and nothing in the counterexample implies that it would be. But it's continuous and differentiable -- surely not a step function.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You have provided no evidence that the rate has always been negative. Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::So, would I be right in saying that in 200 years mankind's intelligence will disintegrate into nothing more than walking apes or are we headed toward [[liberal stupidity]] against [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]. Striking. [[Paulhernandez]] 00:37, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I think the most reasonable approach here is to remove this counter example until such time that evidence can be provided that supports it. This is my concern: if a new reader, a homeschooler, or anyone interested in the subject comes to this article and comes across this flawed argument, this would tend to discredit the other arguments on the page. For example, if you were to meet someone for the first time, and you share a conversation with them, agree with everything they have to say about a subject, but then this person makes some outlandish statement about the subject, wouldn’t that make you question their other statements and even your own beliefs since you share some many beliefs with this individual? Essentially, a rotten apple spoils the bunch, and that's what this counter example is. Let's remove this counter example, and if someone can provide an analysis of declining human intelligence, if it is in fact declining, that fits the counter example, then the subject can be reopened for debate. If we are to make headway in establishing this website as a preeminent educational resource, we must make sure our statements are well thought-out, that the arguments made by this site hold water, and that those arguments that don’t hold water are not allowed to spoil the others that are most certainly valid.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 15:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::Brad's comment is like suggesting that heat may flow to hotter locations. There's something called [[entropy]] that means disorder does increase over time, also known as the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. Argue against it if you like, but I doubt you're going to persuade anyone.

:::::::::::Explain this: why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth? When you can look at your own position objectively, then you can realize great insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Andy, your analogy is fatally flawed and fails to persuade. You're essentially arguing that your mind is closed. Is your mind open to outside influence? Then the law of entropy does not apply, as it is not closed.
::::::::::::Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? Why can't you answer the question? Wouldn't the [[Flynn effect]] (a theory much more widely accepted than your assertion to the contrary) be stronger evidence for a young earth because if you extrapolated it backwards, society would have been so unintelligent as to not survive?
::::::::::::How do you reconcile your insight that society becomes less intelligent with your insight that society becomes more conservative?
::::::::::::I'm not opposed to the existence of a young earth. Is your mind open to that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 17:46, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You raise an interesting point there, Brad. Society IS inevitably becoming more and more conservative, as can be seen by the evolution of language, and as conservativism favours logical thinking, IQ should rise as an effect. What is the data showing that average IQs are decreasing, by the way? I'd love to see those studies myself, I am very interested by this subject. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:35, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Brad, perhaps some graphs will help. [http://static.inky.ws/image/400/image.jpg this graph] shows liberalism (in red) increasing linearly, conservatism (in green) increasing quadratically. The point is that when we talk about liberalism or conservatism 'increasing', it means the strength and persuasiveness of the ideas; that's how both can be increasing at once. The scope and magnitude of the policies demanded by liberals increases, as does the strength and coherence of the conservative alternative. In the marketplace of ideas, the stronger ideas win out in the long run, so on average the number of adherents of either side will be in the same proportion as the relative strengths of the ideas. I hope that's clear... [http://static.inky.ws/image/401/image.jpg This graph] shows the effect of the previous graph on numbers. Obviously these are just demonstrations of general trends, but it does show how these two effects can be reconciled. In fact, I think the graphs are rather interesting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:49, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks, Jcw, the graphs do make it a bit more easy to understand and to digest, although it's a complex matter and I am not sure I grasp it completely still. What do the numbers in the graphs stand for, exactly? Thanks for taking the time to try to explain this, I am feeling really dense now :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 18:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::No problem Leonard. Here's how I interpret it; others may well disagree. As Andy observes, the rate at which new conservative ideas are produced and refined is increasing rapidly. Andy's original observation was of an exponential increase, but I think that's an artifact of the measurement - if you look at the top right part of the green line on the first graph, it looks exponential in that region, but taken as a whole it's a quadratic curve. Likewise, Andy's observation of words since 1600 shows exponential growth, but graphing exponential growth over several thousand years shows that it can't be that fast over the whole period. It has also been observed that liberalism is on the increase. In both cases, what we're talking about is - in my opinion - the relative strength of the two world-views. As humanity develops, ideas are tested against each other, old ideas are tested against new ideas and so on, with the better ideas surviving in the long run. The previous observations about growth of conservatism and liberalism can be reconciled on that assumption; the two sides are both developing their ideas and improving them. Thus the first graph shows how conservative ideas develop faster than liberal ones - liberals merely add more ideas linearly, while conservatives can combine new with old productively, so each year the increase is greater than the year before.
::The second graph shows (again, hypothetical) numbers of conservatively or liberally inclined people, based on the previous graph - the number of adherents of each view is assumed to be proportional to the ratio of the numbers in the previous graph. Again, it's all just a demonstration rather than an assertion about the details of actual politics, but hopefully it illustrates what we're talking about here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:10, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Jcw, Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative. Andy's new insight asserts that society will also become less intelligent. I don't believe you've reconciled anything.
:::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The apparent decrease in intelligence is easily explained by the increase in liberal influence in teaching. Liberal ideas hold disproportionate sway in the education field in many Western countries: note that homeschoolers' performance isn't falling, so it's not that humans are getting inherently less intelligent, but that the influence of growing liberalism is leading to less-educated people who use their God-given intelligence far less than they used to. My hypothetical graphs suggest that liberals are getting more liberal and conservatives more conservative, which seems perfectly in line with the observations. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::The influence of liberalism on eduction is decreasing because the geometric growth in conservative insights implies that the obstacles -- liberal censorship and deceit -- lose ground at a geometric rate in a free society. True or false?
:::::Is your mind open to the possibility that increasing intelligence could be a stronger argument for a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:25, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Brad, your tone makes it abundantly clear that you're not trying to engage in a reasonable discussion on this point. What's more, your point doesn't make sense. As I said above, liberal and conservative ideas aren't distributed evenly in all areas, so one area - education - can be increasingly liberal while another - the US population a whole - can be increasingly conservative. Please think your points through before posting them and try to be more civil; it will help the discussion immensely. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'm sorry you feel that way, Jcw. I am trying to engage in a reasonable discussion by positing that an increase in intelligence (as evidenced by the Flynn effect) is a stronger argument for a young earth. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:54, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I too disagree with the analogy you drew between Brad's comments and the Laws of Thermodynamics. And as far as your question goes: ''"why are you so opposed to the possibility of intelligence declining, and the existence of a young earth?"'' -- I don't think anyone in this conversation is suggesting that they do not support a young Eart, we just don't support this argument for young Earth. This issue is not as black and white as you seem to see it: removal of this counterpoint does not inherently advantage the arguments for an old Earth. If I said that an alien came to me and told me that the Earth is billions of years old, or that it is 6000 years old, you and no other logically minded person would agree that this was proof for one theory vs another. And you shouldn't, it's a ludicrous argument, and just because you support the theory that this so-called proof supports, it doesn't mean you have to support this "proof" as well. As an earlier contributor posted, using the same logic about declining human intelligence to extrapolate the age of the Earth, one could use increasing human height to argue that the Earth is far younger than 6000 years (the contributor suggested it would be closer to 3000 years and that means everyone during Jesus's time would be under 2 feet tall, which is not true). You have yet to provide any extrapolation based on hard numbers, only supplying us with anecdotes like civil war letters and the federalist papers as examples of declining intelligence. Even if these examples were valid (and that is doubtful), it would suggest a very steep slope for the decline of intelligence over the past 200 or so years, thus people 1000 years ago should all be genius is the slope is consistent according to your argument. And the slope does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested; this is basic mathematics and regression theory. Again, the argument is poorly thought out and does not seem to be supported by any hard evidence or even the majority of commentators here, thus it should be removed from the article until such time when an analysis is presented that supports this argument. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

:Pick any measure you like, and it's clear that intelligence is declining. Read, for example, [[Civil War]] letters and compare them to what the average person produces today. How long could intelligence be declining at a significant rate? Not hundreds of thousands of years, or even tens of thousands of years.

:The logic is simple and unmistakable. I doubt you've heard it before, but that's not a reason to reject it. Honestly, after all this discussion, I still don't see a logical objection to this counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a few glaring problems with using the change in language between the Civil War and now to measure intelligence. Firstly, you're ignoring how the language has developed during the period, and has become more practical and less "flowery" - hardly a sign of less intelligence. Unless you're referring to text-speak of course, which hasn't exactly entered mainstream literature or business yet. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that for every Civil War letter that was written, there was at least an equal number of illiterate soldiers on either side. And the final point, which is baffling me, is that here you're using diminishing language skills to show that people are becoming less intelligent, and yet elsewhere on Conservapedia, you claim the language is becoming more conservative. Which is it, because you can't use language to prove two entirely contradictory points? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:14, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: There's no contradiction. Technology will improve despite people getting less intelligent. The counterexample is well-supported and can hardly be doubted. Examples are numerous for the obvious decline in intelligence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::There might not be a contradiction, but you are claiming that language is becoming more conservative, which implies society is becoming more conservative, whilst at the same time claiming people are becoming less intelligent. Likewise, you use Civil War letters as an example, compared to modern day writing, and yet you claim the Babylonians - who must have been very intelligent compared to us - had a language that could not express complex terms, such as "sin" ([http://www.jstor.org/pss/1196058 actually they could - in very definitive terms]). I have no problem with you claiming humans are becoming less intelligent, but by using language as an example, you're shooting your other theories in the foot. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, you forgot to do any math to support this counter example, and this counter example depends on a mathematical principle: regression and extrapolation. Let’s assume for the sake of any argument that human intelligence is declining, and let's also say it is declining rapidly, as you have insisted. If it is declining so rapidly in the last 200 years, then why wasn't the average person during the middle ages a genius by today's standards? If the slope is as steep as you insist, estimates the intelligence of people during Jesus's time would suggest that they were many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, and while a few might have been, the Bible is full of examples of stupid, ignorant people, so this too seems unlikely according to the Bible and historical records. And remember, Andy, the slope of the decline does need to be consistent or abide by a known nonlinear function in order to perform the extrapolation you have suggested, this cannot be argued, this is math, math is not biased. Please, provide us with the math that your argument holds water, until then, this counter example should be removed, '''let’s not let this flawed counter example spoil the bunch.''' --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 00:09, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::My revisions to the article have been once again reverted by Aschlafly. Andy, shouldn't you at least err on the side of caution, given that several members of the community have given very cogent examples as to how this line of reasoning is flawed, and allow the counter example to be removed from the article until such time that consensus amongst contributors can be reached, or at least some actual data is presented in support of this claim. And by data I mean '''the regression analysis and interpolation the counter example alludes to''' but neither you nor any other member of this community have produced yet. If the counter example must stay in the article because of one member of the community's desire to see it stay, then we should at least include that this counter example points to a VERY young Earth, far less than 6000 years.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:08, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Mike, the counterexample does not require precise mathematical analysis. Intelligence is significantly declining in a way that could not have lasted for tens of thousands of years with the level of intelligence and historical evidence seen today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy, the reason why a mathematical analysis is needed is because you've insisted that the slope of the decline in intelligence is steep enough that intelligence could not have been declining this fast for all that long (not hundreds of thousands of years, but instead only thousands). However, if the slope is as steep as you say (e.g. comparing the federalist papers to today's news) then it would seem that the decline of intelligence would have been so rapid that it couldn't have been declining for even thousands of years, but perhaps only hundreds. The examples you give of SAT scores, civil war letters, the federalist papers, etc. as you have interpreted them would all seem to suggest that if we extrapolate backwards even a thousand years the human race would have been many fold more intelligent than it is today, but that is untrue - the middle ages were a time of great trials for humans, lack of education, lack of freedoms, etc. What I have proposed to you or anyone one else in favor of this argument is that the slope of this decline be determined (meaning quantifiable scores of intelligence be used, e.g. IQ scores - SAT would be problematic due to biases in the design of this test). This is why the math is important, to discern whether the human race is 6000 years old, older or younger. All I ask for is a graph, and I believe it would help future readers of the article understand your point better. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

===I'm confused===
Maybe I'm proof of a young earth, but please can you reconcile your two theories to me, as they don't make sense:
* In one, you say that the decrease in language skills since the civil war, shows a decrease in human intelligence.
* In the other, you say that the number of conservative words has increased exponentially - even more so since the civil war.
Thus it seems as if you're implying that as people become less intelligent, and language skills decrease, the number of conservative words in use increases. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:48, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

: There's no contradiction. The dumbest people imaginable would still improve technology, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::So you're saying really dumb people would build a better Large Hadron Collider? Or the next Space Shuttle? By your argument, technological progress is inversely proportional to intelligence. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Israelites must have been more intelligent than us, yet were technologically backwards.

::Plus you're also implying that dumb people are improving the language by making it conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:22, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I've also found an excellent [http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/letters.htm archive of Civil War letters]. Having read through them - especially those of the less educated rank-and-file soldiers, I can't find any basis to support your assertion that language skills have decreased since the Civil War. If anything, the introduction paragraphs for each letter are in many cases far more eloquent than the letters themselves. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Technology -- and language -- build on what exists. Yes, dumb people improve both. I don't know why that would be so difficult to understand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Bear in mind also that there are more people around than there were in the past. Yes, technology is increasing more rapidly than it used to, but that is a result of the combined efforts of billions of people - and existing technology allows more time for advancement by increasing the efficiency of menial tasks that took up a lot of time in other eras.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 17:42, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::Well put. Note also that the English language has a wiki-like quality that enables it to build on prior improvements. For example, once "free speech" becomes a term, it facilitates many more insightful terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== People are getting less intelligent over time. ==

....but they're also, given the increase in new conservative words, getting more conservative over time. Is there a correlation between these facts? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 19:56, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:The consensus seems to be that society becomes more conservative ''despite'' becoming less intelligent. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::Society builds on what is accomplished, and does not have to reinvent the wheel. So technology and conservatism grow over time, but each generation is obviously less intelligent than the one before it. [[The Federalist Papers]], for example, ran in an ordinary newspaper 224 years ago; today an average college student has trouble understanding them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::But they *can* understand Foucault and Derrida, and a much more complex level of mathematics, things that would possibly have been quite difficult 224 years ago [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 20:21, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::No, the average person cannot understand even mildly advanced mathematics. We've been discussing average intelligence, and its decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, you were the one who brought up "average college students," who need to understand ideas that are far more complex than what their counterparts did a couple of centuries, or even decades ago. And do you have any evidence that the average college student, or man in the street, does not understand the Federalist Papers? [[User:JamesES|JamesES]] 21:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::There is an article stating that man's brain has shrunk 10%. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] Another that says obesity shrinks the brain significantly. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html] The source is less than credible with their faux conservatism and their evolutionary clap trap but I am positive it is not the only source discussing the issue described. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: In response to Jpatt, minor differences in brain size between humans are poorly correlated with intelligence. Take, for example, the average size of a woman's brain vs. a man's brain, the woman's brain is smaller (by about 2% if memory serves), but women are no less intelligent than men. Before one jumps to the conclusion that I am saying that an individual person's brain can shrink without damaging cognitive function, let me assure you that I am not. Alzheimer’s Disease patients suffer from, amongst other things, the general atrophy of their brains, loosing significant volume and mass over the progress of the disease. And at the same time, one may also assume I'm saying that animals with small brains (like rats) may be just as intelligent as humans, and let me assure you that I am not saying this - a rat's brain is several orders of magnitude smaller than a human's brain and their level of intelligence is reflected by this. What I am saying is that small percentage differences in humans' brains over time (like what is detailed in the above reference form Jpatt) of minor difference between individual people cannot relay any significant different in intelligence. Here are some interesting anatomical facts about brain sizes: [[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html]] --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:04, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::ok, my great-grandfather lived to be 106 years old without ever eating dog food or cashing a Social Security check. Several members of Congress claim their elder constituents, after a lifetime of learning and experience, must eat dog food ''if they don't'' collect and cash Social Security checks. Could this be quantifiable standard to extrapolate backwards a measurement of human intelligence? After all, it not only measures whether or not the species is less intelligent than a generation ago, it could reveal if an individual person gets more stupid with longevity, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Rob, what you presented was a ''qualitative'' (not quantitative) anecdotal (i.e. single example) piece of evidence. Also, I don't see how eating dog food is a sign of lack of intelligence if the alternative for these elders is to starve, that is a very sad state of affairs. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 12:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::It could be quantitative if the phenomenea becomes widespread, as has been alleged by several members of Congress. Getting stupider as one gets older is indeed a sad state of afffairs, especially if it becomes wiespread as is apparent. Take for example the Parable of Ten Virgins ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=KJV Mathew 25]) or wise King Solomon's admonition, "A good man leaves an in heritance to his children", ([http://bible.cc/proverbs/13-22.htm Proverbs 13:22]). How many people today choose to ignore the inherited wisedom passed down through the ages that simply says, "prepare for the future", and choose rather to squander their resources on riotous living? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Main page is now protected from editing ==

Andy, the reason you stated as to why you protected this article is because of edits to remove one counter example (the decreasing intelligence argument), and that you have refuted the criticisms to this counter example. However, you merely rested the counter example several times on this talk page and offered nothing new to support it, and it was other members of this community, myself included, that provided new information and new perspectives and new analyses that refute the inclusion of this counter example in the article. It is unfortunate that we can no longer add to this page because you are intent on keeping this one counter example, no matter how erroneous it is or how bad it makes the other more intelligent counter examples look. '''The unfortunate thing is that this isn't even a liberal vs. conservative issue, it's an issue about math.''' I suppose that I and others should stop talking about this issue on this page now, as to avoid the 90/10 rule, but when editing is reopened for this article, be sure that it will either be I, the other contributors here, or new contributors that will once again highlight the problems with this counter example and this cycle will begin again.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:38, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Nice try on the reframing thing, but it's not just about math. It's about the intersection of faith and reason. There are a number of issues on which partisans ignore the math, and the worst violators are liberals.

:If you would like to provide a perspective on this issue, please give your right name (and then you can be a source), or quote a reliable source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== I have big issues with this article ==

Ok seriously. Is anyone proud of this article? I'm an atheist, but before you discredit me, please hear me out. I'm going to try to do my best to explain my problems with this article. It is full of logical fallacies and it's written with very little understanding of what the issues are. First, when it talks about the probability that the earth is young at about 96%, it does so using a complete misapplication of statistics.

Also, it states that "no counterexamples have been found for young earth", even if accepted as true, it says nothing about whether the claim of a young earth is true. The fact that nothing can be found to disprove a young earth doesn't mean that our claim that the earth is young is true. It is still up to those making the young earth claim, as those making a positive claim, to provide evidence that demonstrates that the earth is young. Just because I make claim X, and you are unable to disprove that claim, doesn't prove claim X to be true.

Finally, the article talks about "atheist". To be honest, I don't see how this is true. There are many people who do believe in a god who believe that the old earth theory. "Atheism" is just one position to a single argument... whether a god exists or not. Anything that deals outside of whether a god exists is outside of what "atheism" is. There are many Christians who believe the old earth theory. If there was a person who doesn't believe in a god, who believes the young earth theory... that person will still be considered an atheist (since that person doesn't believe in a god). Thus, I feel that the discussion of atheism in this article is wrong, since atheism makes no claim either way on whether the earth is old or young.

What do you guys think? [[User:Loro1rojo|Loro1rojo]] 12:07, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, Loro1rojo. Conservapedia is a conservative site, and makes no apologies for taking a firm stance. Part of that stance is a strongly critical eye when it comes to the claims of evolutionary theory. Now: not everyone on the site is one hundred in percent in agreement on these points. Certain editors believe in God's Creation and a young earth; others believe that God created everything, but the Earth is old. There are even a few atheist editors who contribute productively.

:Note that I said "contribute productively." That means adding information, rather than arguing that long-established articles should be changed. That is an approach that is simply not likely to be successful, particularly from a very new editor. Due to the high number of vandals who routinely attack the site, any new editor is going to be viewed with suspicion.

:I would suggest spending some time working on contributing to the project. As you may have heard, Conservapedia is a meritocracy; those who have worked to help the project grow tend to have more weight when arguing for a change than those who have only joined recently. Once you have established yourself as a productive member of the project, then it might be appropriate to suggest significant changes to existing articles.

:Best of luck to you. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:25, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Spiral galaxies ==

I'm not happy with the claim that spiral galaxies being young disprove an old Earth, mainly because it simply isn't relevant. Astronomers say quite plainly that spiral galaxies are young (although they talk on a scale of billions of years) whereas elliptical galaxies are claimed to be old. It's perfectly accurate to say that spiral galaxies can't be as old as the universe, but astronomers and evolutionists are just going to shrug their shoulders and say "We know. So what?" I think this example should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:01, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: It's implausible that spiral galaxies would be much younger than the universe itself. The fact that spiral galaxies are young implies that the universe is young.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The variability of the speed of light as a counterexample to relativity requires a 2-billion-year-old universe ==

Aschlafly, on the counterexamples to relativity page you made the argument that the speed of light was not constant based on [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html this study], which argues that the speed of light might have been different 2 billion years ago. How does this reconcile with an young universe? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Straightforwardly. The scientists who studied the changing speed of light are no doubt evolutionists, so they naturally think and speak in terms of an old universe. Their specific finding relating to the variability of the speed of light can be sound despite the false framework in which they understand it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:06, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
== Groundwater and entropy ==

How does groundwater relate to entropy? Entropy is energy unavailable for work, and it only necessarily has to stay constant or increase in a closed system. Groundwater is not a closed system.

I realise that I'm treading on thin ice at the moment because of my recent block, and it seems that there is a strong prejudice against removing counterexamples from any of these articles, but it is my strongly and sincerely held belief that by going for quantity rather than quality we are harming the credibility of CP as a source of information. The intro to this article says that the Old Earth hypothesis can't survive one counterexample - and I fully agree with that - so why do we need 35-odd counterexamples, at least half of which are completely fatuous? The Bible explains the water cycle, and by claiming that (a mistaken understanding of) entropy says that groundwater can't survive we contradict both Scripture and a pile of scientific evidence so high that you could use it to build a good-sized waterfall. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:04, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Jcw

2011-08-27T00:51:55Z

Jcw:

This is a [[meritocracy]], and you deserve blocking privileges. They have just been awarded to you. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, much appreciated. I'll endeavor to use the privileges responsibly and to the benefit of CP. If I have questions about blocking policy or anti-vandal tactics, is it alright to ask publicly on your talk page, or is there a better venue? Thanks again. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:50, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, your new privileges were just in time! Great effort a little while ago.

::I'll mark your talk page here as "watched" and you can ask any questions about blocking here, or on my talk page. Looks like you already know what you need, however!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Indeed, the vandals never seem to be far away... One question occurs at once: from the username policy, I'd assume that anyone with a clearly incorrect username should be gently blocked and invited to re-join. Is that something I can legitimately do, or should I leave it to the admins? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:57, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Please do block inappropriate user names, even before any edits. Note that it is necessary to unblock the option boxes in those cases in order to allow re-registering under an appropriate name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:22, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes, I'll be careful of that. Thanks for all the help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

==Freyja==

I won't put up with edit warring over my talk page. If you want to have this sort of discussion on here, you have to be civil and respectful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:21, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

:Genuine thanks for being even handed and deleting the whole thread, rather than selectively deleting individual contributions. [[User:Freyja|Freyja]]

::I suppose I can't be upset at your using a sock to post that... I look forward to an interesting discussion elsewhere - perhaps on your talk page, or a CP debate page? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello there, I'm new here on Conservapedia. However it seems I cannot create new pages. Is there any way I am able to do so? Or is it a restriction to protect the wiki from vandals creating nonsense pages? [[User:TomFowdy|TomFowdy]] 10:33, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

: When an entry does not exist, there is a link to click for it in order to create it. You should be able to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== A minor point ==

First, congrats! And thanks for sorting out the A.D.s at [[Otho]]. Now for the minor point: virtually all of you edits are marked as ''minor''. That's very humble, but not right :-) Please have a look at [[Help:Editing etiquette#Minor Edit box]].

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:Ah yes, a good point - I set the software to mark all edits as 'minor' when I first started contributing, and back then it was true. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:05, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== Alert block ==

Jcw, your alert block earlier was superb. I should have promoted you to this sooner: SkipCaptcha. Now you won't have to enter captcha characters any more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, that'll be useful - reverting blanked pages usually involves a captcha, so skipping it will make fixing vandalism twice as fast. Speaking of which, have you considered a tool to allow banning a vandal and reverting all his edits at once? Of course it would only be applicable to the run-of-the-mill drive-by vandals who blank a few pages then get banned, but it could save a lot of time spent reverting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:37, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
::::I think MediaWiki has an extension called Nuke something or other that does that type of reverting. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== thanks, removed reference to website ==

Thanks, I removed reference to the website in question. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:11, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Glad to be a help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:15, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== N3hima blocked ==

Good catch, I think they are trying to check whether the sysops read all the posts. Thank God you were alert :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:32, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks. That's actually the first remotely intelligent attempt at vandalism I've seen - I'd almost stopped paying attention by the time it came to the vandalism. I think if the user had had a more reasonable name I might not have noticed at all. Silly vandal! [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:04, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
::Hehe, I do not like vandalism, but I must admit that this one attempt made me laugh! Still, good catch! --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 02:23, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative words count ==

You appear to have inadvertently reverted my change to the word count on Conservative Words. I added "left wing" to the 1800s. That is why the count was changed. --[[User:BertramB|BertramB]] 21:15, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
:Ah yes, my mistake. However, you seem to be adding some dubious words to the list - 'vacuous' seems awfully like parody to me. Please come and discuss your additions on the talk page. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:37, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
::I confess I am a little concerned and even put out by your reaction to my editing. And by the reaction of Aschlafly. Between you, you have removed all of my additions to the article. At least in your case you gave some sort of reason (in relation to "garrote" which I address below) but Aschlafly gave no reason at all other than an assertion that the edits didn't meet the "particularly high quality level" required. So I am left to ponder how my entry of "vacuous - Empty, void or free. A common characteristic of liberal argument" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "blather - nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common on the lamestream media"". Or how my entry of the word "morals - A person's moral qualities" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "fat farm - a place where obese people -- such as self-centered atheists -- might go to try to lose weight". Perhaps you could explain the difference to me? I have an interest in etymology and am very interested in editing the page so it would be of great assistance to know how these things are judged.
::As to the word "garrote" I regarded it as a conservative term in light of the fact that it was the state sanctioned method of execution in Spain for some time. Indeed American authorities kept the garrote as a method of execution in the Philippines after its capture in 1898. Capital punishment is often decried by liberals who have little or no concept of righteous punishment for criminal acts, whereas conservatives have always recognised the benefit of capital punishment in building a law abiding and just society. That was why I included the word. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and will not reintroduce the word into the article without consulting you. --[[User:BertramB|BertramB]] 00:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

== Trolling? ==

I'm sorry - but when is raising legitimate concerns about the conduct of people on Conservapedia "trolling"? Or is the standard response to "something I don't like" to delete it? Please can you enlighten me, so I know for future reference. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:04, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:Please go back and re-read what you wrote. Your tone was rather offensive, indeed it seemed calculated to provoke Conservative. I'm sure you can make your substantive points in a less strident manner, then they'll be more likely to get a response. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:14, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry, I was - am - annoyed. But I will tone down my questions for him. Thank you! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:21, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::No problem TracyS, it happens to us all. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:28, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

== Well-deserved promotion ==

You've just received a well-deserved promotion to full 24x7 editing, without interruption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:Superb, many thanks. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 03:02, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

== Netball ==

Hi - I was curious why you reverted my change on netball? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:32, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add: This is from the referenced article on netball: Netball is an Olympic recognised sport. The sport gained recognition in 1995, after a twenty year period of lobbying. '''It has never been played at the summer Olympics but recognition means that it could be played at some point in the future.'''

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:36, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hi Sharon. That entry could certainly be improved to make the point clearer, but I think it is correct - if you look at the WP article as it is now, and at its talk page, it's clear that there's been an overtly feminist attempt to overstate the importance and the international standing of netball using WP. The links given perhaps aren't the best chosen, but illustrating a wiki controversy by static links is always a difficult task. Note that the example is from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], so that would be the best place to take issue with it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:52, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::I agree that the WP article overemphasizes the sport - I know I've never heard of it before. There already is a statement in the CP article about feminists' arguments about the sport, but I still maintain that the WP article does NOT say the game is played in the Olympics, which the CP article states. The above bolded sentence has been in the WP article since it was created. Personally, I'd add a bit about sport fanaticism too, to all sporting articles, since it can be just as bad if not worse than feminism. ;-) [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:26, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I think you're right on that point - I certainly wouldn't object if you re-wrote that part to be clearer about exactly what's wrong with the WP article. As for sports fanaticism, I entirely agree - my idea of sport involves dead birds and gin, so the fanaticism one sees around professional sports is incomprehensible to me. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:43, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Endosymbiotic Theory ==

Hi, I recently authored a page on Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) that was factually accurate (I cited sources) and well-written (two users felt the page was excellent). I spent a great deal of time on it in order to legitimize Conservapedia as a source for scientific information. However, I found that it was almost immediately altered beyond recognition. We had a less-than-productive debate on the Talk page, and you removed the one comment that was rather insulting/trolling. I fail to see how it was, seeing as it DID raise legitimate concerns concerning the article. I don't know if you read my original article, but I feel that it is far superior to the current one and demonstrates a much better understanding of biological science. Please take a look and give me your thoughts. With all due respect, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 18:54, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:Hi Professor. Please don't take this personally, but you really could have chosen a better username - real names or something like them are much preferred around here, and a name like 'professor' tends to suggest an attempt to impress with credentials. I'm sure that's not your intention, but one 'professor' amongst many 'first name last initial's is bound to stand out.
:As for the article, your version had much to recommend it but was sadly flawed. This site takes a firmly [[Creationist]] view, so you must have realized that the large block of confidently-presented 'evidence' for an evolutionary theory would be provocative; then you cap it with a needless quote from Dawkins, which is hard to take otherwise than as an affront.
:Speaking for myself, I'd welcome more information about the modern evolutionary view, but this isn't WP - information like that has to put properly in context and not given improper weight. If you want to improve the article, I suggest adding a bit at a time and discussing changes with other editors. Good luck. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::That doesn't justify removing evidence. It's factual information--that it disagrees with a certain fundamentalist world view is not my concern or that of any other scientist. Are you suggesting that we lie or distort information because it is not in accordance with our beliefs? Should we engage in [[liberal deceit]] and prevent the truth from being known? It's not only against the teachings of most modern religions to lie: it is also antithetical to the principles of modern society.[[User:Professor|Professor]] 19:37, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Professor, this website, by sheer virtue of this name will always prefer the conservative, american christian viewpoint to anything else. please keep that in mind.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:41, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Professor, please don't use words like 'lie' in such a cavalier fashion. I don't doubt that your additions were factual, but the presentation of facts matters a great deal, especially with such a controversial topic. Any discussion of evolutionary ideas must present both sides of the argument - your evolutionary additions are welcome, but the article as you left it was hopelessly biased towards the evolutionary side. No doubt your points can be added to the article, but each put in its proper context and discussed objectively. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Netball redux ==

First, I get the gin part, but dead birds? Do I even want to ask?

Second, I would appreciate it if someone higher than me here at CP would look at the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] entry for netball and gender bias. The part about the editor getting banned for his edits isn't true. He got banned for harassment and for reporting the main author of the WP netball article to her supposed real-life employer. Given the name of the person who added the entry to the CP bias article and who wrote the CP netball article (they used the name of an editor who actually was a supporter of the main author), I suspect either the banned editor or one of his friends couldn't let it go. They made sure to use one of the main author's edits, which then shows her name in the CP references.

I don't like sneaky nasty tricks and this one definitely has the feel of one to me. Thanks! [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:35, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:The dead birds are the (hopeful) consequence of shooting, a popular sport in the UK. As for the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] article, if I understand you correctly you're not objecting to the basic point of the entry, but to the way its worded? If that's the case I'd say go ahead and change the wording yourself. If your objections are more fundamental, the best thing to do is put a query on the talk page - even better, if you can see from the edit history who added it in the first place, a query on that editor's talk page - asking for clarification. I hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 11:20, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== Digestive System ==

Good morning. It *looks* as though you deleted my request for a citation (if not, I apologize for my mistake and would you please direct me to whoever did).

In the Article "Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge" under the heading "Digestive System" I recently added a request for a citation on the words "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." While I am a strong believer that the Bible is loaded with scientific foreknowledge, I believe this section needs a scientific or medical citation to uphold it as valid as (a) all medical/scientific writings I have read on the matter encourage handwashing before eating and (b) Jesus was talking about the uselessness of CEREMONY - not WASHING.

(Personally, I believe the section should be deleted completely, but Andy Schlafley believes otherwise. As he has stated to me that we resolve arguments with reason in here, a citation is a reasonable request. To say "Because Andy Schlafley says so" is not "reason" nor a medical or scientific argument.)

Kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:21, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

== FYI re: blocking ==

Andy recommended to me to use a 5-year block instead of an infinite one. See my talk page if you'd like.--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 08:55, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for the advice - I'll heed it at once. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:56, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Incivility ==

I wanted to apologize really quickly for the remarks on the debate page. Air conditioner broke today, so I'm a little bit of a bad mood and I let it get to me when editing.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 17:01, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
: No problem, it happens to us all. Happy editing. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:05, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== What incivility? ==

I called his behaviour disgraceful. It is. I've now called it "behaviour unbecoming of a sysop".

Do not censure a debate again. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:01, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
: I recommend taking another look at what you posted. If you can't see how it's uncivil, I'd suggest taking some time away from the keyboard to cool off. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:05, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Poll about Rob/Conservative ==

Instead of removing the vote completely, if you consider the accompanying comments to be rude, why not just remove that part while leaving the actual vote and the signature? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== RobSmith block ==

You realize you changed Andy's block on [[User:RobSmith]], don't you? He was the one to set it to one month. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:02, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:I was going to say the same thing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:05, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::Yes, I'm afraid so. Perhaps I'll get into trouble for it, but if you'd seen what I've seen you'd have done worse. I don't want to give the parodists more of what they want by dragging the details out into the open, but I assure you Rob's infinite block was more than deserved. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:06, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob is a parodist? I doubt it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:08, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
And the point is moot now because Iduan has changed it back, a decision which I of course will respect. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:07, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:I was just saving my explanation on here when you responded. Yes, I reverted, sir - I don't mean it as anything personal at all, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I think in this case the higher-ups are best suited to make these decisions - and Andy is ''the'' high-up, so I think it's best to yield to his judgement.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:10, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah, and I was just responding on your talk page when you posted this. Don't worry, I didn't take it that way at all and I quite understand your position. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:14, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:::It seems that your British spelling is proper. Tell us a bit more about yourself, than what's on your user page.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:17, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Certainly. As you've observed I'm British, living in Oxford after studying at University there. I work in the IT industry as a systems analyst, which is extremely boring but pays the bills. I'm an Anglican and a Tory as well as a keen field sportsman and amateur stonemason (an odd hobby, I know). If anything in particular interests you, please do ask - I don't mean to be reticent on my user page, I just never know what to put in those places. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:30, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

I noticed you deleted my post - I wasn't trying to be mean when I posted about the 90/10 rule. I've just noticed you haven't editing any articles, just talk pages. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:I didn't take it as mean, Sharon, just unhelpful in the context. If you must know, every time I sign on to CP I find vandalism and trolling that requires reverting, which I think is a valuable service to CP. No doubt I'll be told if the administrators don't see it that way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:30, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

::You must have pretty bad luck then. While I have reverted vandals, etc, there have been many times I log on when everything's quiet - it gives me a chance to improve the site. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:14, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Counter examples to evolution ==

Hi there. I'd really like to improve this article because I think it's important, but not very good just now. A lot of the arguments it makes are based on old information or a misunderstanding of what evolutionists are saying. I've had a lot of debates with evolutionists and they just love being able to accuse us of using strawman arguments, and unfortunately there are a lot of them here. I think we should cut out a lot of the silly stuff and focus on promising areas like irreducible complexity. How does that sound? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:15, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Two suggestions: one, bring these points up on the talk page and see what other editors think about them; two, if you think a significant rewrite of the article is required, work on your own version in your userspace and ask for the input of major contributors to the existing article. Either way, to get any changes made you'll have to marshall your arguments to convince the other editors here that your changes are for the better. Making major changes unilaterally isn't going to help with that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 09:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Advice needed ==

Hi there,

Conservative asked me if I'm interested in creating an article on the "Elevatorgate" episode that has the atheists ripping each other's heads off, and I quite fancy the idea of doing it. However sadly Conservative has locked his talk page because he's busy, so I can't ask him for advice. There's so much info on this incident that it's almost embarrassingly easy to put something together, but what do we want to focus on to make a good, informative article? Watson's intolerance, Dawkins' aggression or the atheist movement's self-destructiveness? My personal opinion is the first and third of those, but I'd like some input from a more experienced CPer before I devote hours of my life to writing an article!

== SORRY!! ==

I don't feel good about reverting your reversion because you've been here a lot longer than me, but I honestly feel that there are issues with CP that need to be dealt with. Too much of the time CP is preaching to the choir and using a message that nobody else is going to listen to. Like I said on the talk page, I have a BSc in evolutionary biology and I'm pretty knowledgable on the subject. I have concluded for solid, SCIENTIFIC reasons that evolutionary theory is wrong, and we can easily demonstrate that. However we don't help ourselves by using arguments that people a lot less knowledgable than me can effortlessly shoot down. I hope you'll join the discussion on the "Counterexamples to evolution" talk page, because in my situation it would be really good if I could persuade you to add your firepower to my argument. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:42, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:No need to be sorry, I can see your reasoning. One has to be very careful around here of evolutionists and atheists trying to subvert the project. They use a variety of tactics to do that, one of which is trying to sow doubts about the strength of our articles. Of course we're very happy to deal with legitimate discussion and criticism, but we have to be very sensitive to motivation. It's clear that you genuinely want to improve the article and supply the best arguments, but I suspect FCapra has a rather less wholesome motivation.
:As for getting involved in the substance of the discussion, I'm afraid my knowledge of biology is very poor, so I can't really give an informed opinion. For what it's worth, I'll say that it's important to realize that simply because an evolutionist has an answer to a particular point, he isn't necessarily right about it. If some of the arguments given in the article are frequently criticized by evolutionists, that might just mean we should develop responses to their criticisms rather than dropping the point in question. For example, if evolutionists have a model for how social behaviour evolved, that doesn't mean the argument from social behaviour is false, simply that they have a putative answer to it. Rather than ceasing to argue against evolution using that argument, we should examine how their model is flawed and so doesn't in fact answer the point. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Saint Francis of Sales

2011-08-27T00:42:11Z

Jcw: /* Collaborations with future Saints */

[[Image:St_francisdesales.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Saint Francis of Sales]]

'''Saint Francis of Sales''' (b. 1567, died 1622) from Thorens in the Duchy of Savoy, [[France]]. He was the [[Bishop]] of [[Geneva]] that converted forty-thousand [[Protestants]]. Francis was a [[patient]] holy man that provided simple, clear explanations of [[Catholic]] doctrine. He is a [[Doctor of the Church]] and is called the Gentleman Saint.

==Early Life==
First born of twelve children to an aristocratic family, father François de Sales de Boisy and mother Françoise de Sionnaz. His parents intended that he become a lawyer, enter politics, and carry on the powerful family line. For thirteen years, he knew he was destined to be a [[priest]] but let nobody know of his intentions. At an early age, his father sent him to the colleges of La Roche and Annecy. He began to study theology at the college of Clermont, Paris under the care of the [[Jesuits]]. Francis went to Padua to get a [[doctorate]] in law. Upon completion of schooling, he had been admitted as a lawyer before the senate of Chambéry and about to be appointed [[senator]]. Francis declared his intention of embracing the ecclesiastical life, a move his family fiercely opposed. Without knowing about it, Francis was appointed provost of his [[diocese]], second in rank to the [[bishop]].

==Conversions==
Just over the mountains from where Francis lived was [[Switzerland]], [[Calvinist]] territory during the time of the [[Protestant Reformation]]. Francis decided that he should lead an expedition to convert the Calvinists back to Catholicism. <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=51 St. Francis de Sales] Catholic Online</ref> The diocese was too poor to support him and the expedition became only Francis and his cousin. For three years they had doors slammed in their faces and even rocks thrown at them. His cousin had left him and he had not made one convert. Francis' unusual patience kept him working. No one would listen to him, no one would even open their door. He wrote out his [[sermon]]s and slipped them under the doors. This is the first record of religious tracts being used to communicate with people. By the time he went back home, he had converted 40,000 back to Catholicism. In 1602 at age 35, he was made bishop of the diocese of [[Geneva]].

==Collaborations with future Saints==
In 1607, Francis with St. Jane Frances de Chantal, he founded the Institute of the Visitation of the [[Blessed Virgin]], for young girls and widows. During his stay in Paris, he gave sermons from the pulpit. The French citizens had declared, "Never, have such holy, such apostolic sermons been preached." He came into contact here with all the distinguished ecclesiastics of the day, and in particular with [[St. Vincent de Paul]]. His friends tried energetically to induce him to remain in France, which he declined. <ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06220a.htm</ref>

==Canonized==
December 27, 1622, he had a seizure. He received the [[last rites|last sacraments]] and made his profession of faith, repeating constantly the words: "God's will be done! Jesus, my God and my all!" He died the next day in Lyons, France at age 56.

At the time of the [[French Revolution]], his heart was carried by the Visitation [[nun]]s from Lyons to Venice, where it is [[venerated]] today. St. Francis de Sales was [[beatified]] in 1661, and [[canonized]] by [[Pope Alexander VII]] in 1665; he was proclaimed [[Doctor of the Universal Church]] by [[Pope Pius IX]], in 1877. He is the patron [[saint]] of journalists.

==Works==
*Controversies (leaflets which were scattered among the inhabitants of Le Chablais)
*Defense of the Standard of the Cross (a demonstration of the virtue)
*Introduction to the Devout Life (the soul living in the world, into the paths of devotion)
*A Treatise on the Love of God (consists of 12 books, theory of Divine love, the love of complacency and the love of benevolence, affective love which is practised in prayer, effective love- conformity to the will of God and submission to His good pleasure, teachings on how to apply practically the lessons taught therein.
*Spiritual Conferences (familiar conversations on religious virtues addressed to the sisters of the Visitation)
*Sermons
*Letters
*A large number of very precious treatises.

The Church says "The writings of Francis de Sales, filled with celestial doctrine are a bright light in the Church, pointing out to souls an easy and safe way to arrive at the perfection of a Christian life."

==Quotes==
*Man is the perfection of the Universe. The spirit is the perfection of man. Love is the perfection of the spirit, and charity that of love. Therefore, the love of God is the end, the perfection of the Universe.
*All of us can attain to Christian virtue and holiness, no matter in what condition of life we live and no matter what our life work may be.
*Make yourself familiar with the angels, and behold them frequently in spirit; for without being seen, they are present with you. <ref>[http://saints.sqpn.com/saintf03.htm Saint Francis de Sales] Star Quest Production Network</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Sermons/F_Sales.htm THE SERMONS OF ST. FRANCIS DE SALES ON PRAYER]
*[http://www.cin.org/saints/exervirt.html The Exercise of Virtues]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Francis, of Sales}}

[[Category:Saints]]

Proof by induction

2011-08-27T00:35:52Z

Jcw:

A '''proof by induction''' is a technique of mathematical [[proof]]. It is one of the axioms of [[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] set theory, allowing a mathematician to have proofs that proceed in order through all the [[Natural_number|natural numbers]]. Proofs by induction are divided into three categories: weak (or classic) induction, strong induction, and transfinite induction. As the names suggest, weak induction proofs require fewer assumptions than strong induction proofs. Sometimes these assumptions are too weak, in which case strong induction is necessary. Transfinite induction involves infinitary mathematics, including the [[Axiom of Choice]]. Many mathematicians avoid transfinite induction when possible.

=== Weak Induction ===

Hypothesis A is true for 0. Then assume [[hypothesis]] A is true for the number n. Prove that it must be true for n+1.

=== Strong Induction ===

Hypothesis A is true for 0. Then assume hypothesis A is true for all the numbers less than n. Prove that it must be true for n.

=== Technique of Induction ===
Both Weak and Strong Induction are based on the [[Peano's Axioms|Peano Axioms]], especially the ''Induction Axiom'':<blockquote>If a set S of numbers contains zero and the successor of every number in S, then S contains every number. </blockquote>
If you want to show that an hypothesis A is true for all [[Natural Numbers]], you look at the set S of all numbers for which the hypothesis is true: you show, that <ol><li>zero is an element of the set S 
<math>0 \in S</math><li>with any number n, S contains the successor of n <math> n \in S \Rightarrow (n+1) \in S </math></ol>
By the ''Induction Axiom'', S then includes all Natural Numbers, i.e., the hypothesis A hold for all Natural Numbers.
A standard example for this kind of reasoning is the following: 
Hypothesis A: ''For any Natural Number n, the sum of the numbers less or equal to n is <math>\frac{n(n+1)}{2}</math>''
<ol><li>Show: A holds for zero, i.e., zero is in S:
That's easy: The sum of all natural numbers less or equal to zero '''is''' zero, and this equals <math>\frac{0(0+1)}{2}</math>
<li>Show: If A holds for n, then A holds for n+1:
So, we assume that A is true for n: 
(*) <math>1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}</math> 
We have to show, that then A is true for n+1: 
<math>1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n + (n+1)= \frac{(n+1)((n+1)+1}{2}</math> 
How to do this? For example, the following way, starting with (*): 
<math>1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}\quad |</math>adding (n+1) on both sides 
<math>\Leftrightarrow</math> 
<math>1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n + (n+1)= \frac{n(n+1)}{2} + (n+1)\quad|</math>simplify the right side 
<math>\Leftrightarrow</math> 
<math>1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n + (n+1)=\frac{n(n+1)}{2} + \frac{2(n+1)}{2}=\frac{n(n+1)+2(n+1)}{2}=\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}</math>
Now, we're finished: the hypothesis A holds for all the Natural Numbers.

=== Transfinite Induction ===

Assume hypothesis A is true for a finite number n or an infinite [[cardinal]] k. Prove it must be true for n+1 (respectively, k+1).

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Ontological argument

2011-08-27T00:32:45Z

Jcw: nonsensical - of course it's a proof

[[Image:Anselm.jpg|thumbnail|right|175px|[[Anselm of Canterbury]] was the originator of the ontological argument]]
According to the [[Stanford University|Stanford]] Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone."<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/</ref> [[Anselm of Canterbury]]'s ontological argument uses the definition of [[God]] to prove His existence. Anselm's ontological argument remained influential for centuries, and was later used by [[Descartes]]. Anselm's proof is as follows:

:God is that for which no greater being is conceivable.

:That which exists is greater than that which does not exist.

:That which does not exist fails to satisfy the definition of God.

:Therefore God exists.

In a sense this proof of the existence of God is similar to the mathematical proofs based on deriving a contradiction of something is not true. Accepting the definition of God, as most would, while then denying that God exists leads to a contradiction as existence is a necessary element of perfection in this context.
==Recent Ontological Arguments==
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following regarding recent developments in ontological arguments for the existence of God:
{{cquote|In more recent times, [[Kurt Gödel]], [[Charles Hartshorne]], [[Norman Malcolm]] and [[Alvin Plantinga]] have all presented much-discussed ontological arguments which bear interesting connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, [[Rene Descartes|Descartes]] and [[Gottfried Leibniz|Leibniz]]. Of these, the most interesting are those of Gödel and Plantinga; in these cases, however, it is unclear whether we should really say that these authors claim that the arguments are proofs of the existence of God.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/</ref>}}

== Criticism ==

[[Atheists]] tend to agree with the first premise defining God, and from that follows in a strong, apparently deductive fashion. Anselm's proof bypasses [[Hume's Fork]].

But Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm, played [[devil's advocate]] by using [[reductio ad absurdum]] and envisaged a 'lost, yet most perfect island'. Gaunilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists. Anselm responded by arguing that such an island is not instrinsically necessary to existence because the concept of no greater conceivable being existing would only apply to God, not to something tangible such as an island.

[[Kant]] weighed in against Descartes' version, challenging the premise that existence is a predicate of perfection. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.

[[Davies]] insisted that Anselm's argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. In other words, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument is therefore [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to an existent of God to an existent God, and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.

== Counter-criticism ==

Is not the ideal which is God made sensible by the fact that the principle of deductive logic cannot itself be deduced? It must, like ontological arguments for God, be assumed “in order to be proved“.

The way in which existence is deduced as a property of perfection is different from the way in which a future (pending) puddle on pavement is deduced from present rain, because, unless something exists as a property of itself, then nothing exists. In other words, '''non'''-existence is not a property either of anything that does exist or of anything that does not exist; while '''existence''' is a property of anything that '''does''' exist; and, only some things may exist necessarily; and, ''perfection of the ultimate concept (God) includes '''necessary''' existence''; and, existence in any sense is not necessarily included in the concept of a personally possessed hundred thalers.

If God exists, then His existence surely is a necessary property of His perfection. But, if God does not exist, then it remains to be explained how it can be deduced that existence is not a property of anything that exists. For, if nothing, including existence, is inherently mutual to anything, then nothing at all can be deduced, in any way, from anything.

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-27T00:30:32Z

Jcw: Undo revision 905730 by FCapra (talk) trolling

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

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

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Hunter S. Thompson

2011-08-24T14:56:43Z

Jcw: Undo revision 904899 by Jakesans (talk)

'''Hunter Stockton Thompson'''<ref> Louis Proyect called him a "conveyor of conventional liberal thought." [http://www.counterpunch.org/proyect02232005.html] </ref> was a self-described "Gonzo" journalist whose writing was based on the notion that truth is stranger than any fiction. His work consciously blurred the line between the real and the imaginary. In ''[[Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas]]'', he described his writing as "A savage journey into the heart of the American Dream."

Much of his writing in ''Rolling Stone'' magazine dealt with contemporary politics; Thompson had an active intolerance for almost all politicians across the spectrum, with the exception of [[Democrat]] [[George McGovern]]. His open hatred for [[Richard Nixon]] was especially pronounced despite the fact that he interviewed [[Richard Nixon]] and discussed football with him at length. He compiled his dispatches for ''Rolling Stone'' magazine during the 1972 campaign into the book, ''Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72''. He became close friends with Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner.

Thompson once ran for sheriff of Pitkin County, [[Colorado]] on a platform that advocated the legalization of illegal [[drugs]] and wishing to keep big business out of Aspen (which he proposed to rename 'Fat City') and his home town of Woody Creek. His political movement was dubbed 'Freak Power,' as Thompson was calling on the marginalized sections of society to be his main support base. Both major parties tried to keep Thompson out of office although Thompson lost by a small margin.

Thompson was the inspiration for the character of Duke in the [[Pulitzer Prize]]-winning comic strip ''[[Doonesbury]]'', and was portrayed by [[Johnny Depp]] in a film version of ''[[Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas]]''.

Some have expressed the belief that Thompson attracted attention in the drug culture because he was as a person what many people wanted to be -- a rebel.

Thompson, a lifelong gun enthusiast, committed [[suicide]] by by a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 2005.
He is survived by his son Juan Thompson.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Thompson, Hunter S}}
[[Category:Journalists|Thompson, Hunter S]]
[[Category:Authors]]

Pinot noir

2011-08-24T14:56:30Z

Jcw: Undo revision 904898 by Jakesans (talk)

'''Pinot noir''' is the preeminent red [[grape]] variety in many of the world’s finest [[wine]] growing regions, such as the [[Pacific Northwest]] of the [[United States]]; Burgundy and Champagne, in [[France]]; and Kent, in England.

In Burgundy, pinot noir is used to make some of the most highly regarded red wines anywhere on Earth, but many experts believe that, as Pinot noir tends to produce its best wines in areas of lower [[temperature]]s, various regions further north may well eclipse the famous vineyards of the Cote d’Or in the very near future.

[[Category:Alcoholic Beverages]]

Free good

2011-08-23T14:52:17Z

Jcw: Undo revision 904635 by Bean (talk)

A '''free good''' is a good that is not [[scarce]]. It is a good which has a [[supply]] that always exceeds [[demand]] even at a price of zero. Examples of free goods are air and seawater at sea or near the coast.

[[category:economics]]

User:BenKovitz

2011-08-23T08:27:56Z

Jcw:

I'm a big fan of wikis, especially when used to explore conflicting ideas. At their best, I think the writing wikis produce is wiser and better informed than any one person could ever be. I'm glad to see a serious, large-scale wiki dedicated to articulating conservative positions and attitudes.

I'm also very interested in [[evolution]]. I have a question about conservatism and evolution, which people here might be able to answer:

<blockquote>Why do most conservatives oppose the idea of evolution?</blockquote>

I'm not asking here for arguments against evolution. Those are easy to find. I'm asking for an explanation of what in conservatism makes evolution seem so worthy of opposition.

Does evolution seem like a threat? If so, to what? Is it only because evolution contradicts a literal reading of ''Genesis''? Or is there more to it? Or maybe there's no real connection: Are there countries where the conservative side does not oppose evolution?

Better than answering me here, I'd like to see the topic get a page of its own, so here's an invitation link for anyone who'd like to start it: [[Why conservatives oppose evolution]].

:No need for a separate page, the answer is simple: evolution is a false doctrine and conservatives pursue the truth without bias. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::Well put, Jcw. ''Conservapedia'' shouldn't have a separate page on "why conservatives oppose teaching the [[Piltdown Man]] as truth" either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

(continuing discussion moved to [[Talk:Piltdown Man]])

I would be grateful if you would take the trouble to write a thoughtful response.

Maybe the following will help. An important part of conservatism is respect for tradition, even when the reasons for a tradition are not known to you, because traditions are the residue of many failures and disasters of the past; traditions steer you away from disasters of a kind that you can't appreciate until it's too late. Why do people who see the truth of that principle so clearly, oppose it so vociferously in biology? It seems to me just as plausible that liberals would be the ones opposing evolution, insisting that only a central, governing authority could possibly have made something as complex as living things, and demanding a complete, step-by-step "proof" of evolution, fully understandable by any non-expert—and that conservatives would be calling evolution a principle pervading all of nature, to be ignored at your peril, and pointing out that the billions of years of evolution make it irrational to demand detailed proof and perfectly preserved evidence of every mutation-step from microbes to man, let alone the selective pressures that favored them.

The same could be said for the usual conservative and liberal positions regarding free markets and respect for the harshness and unperfectibility of worldly life. Is it just chance that conservatives happen to oppose evolution and liberals favor it? Or is there some deeper reason why the mindset that finds capital punishment, low taxes, and states' rights compelling, finds it implausible that present-day species developed from earlier species by a long process of trial and error?

—[[User:BenKovitz|Ben Kovitz]] 21:41, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:A [[conservative]] is not a defender of all traditions. Conservative values are constantly working to improve society, and end harmful traditions (like communism).

:Moreover, the [[theory of evolution]] is a claim that a '''''process''''' exists that changes one species into another. There is nothing conservative (or true) about insisting that nature will inevitably change what mankind and animals are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Are these just straw men? I didn't say that conservatives defend ''all'' traditions or are ''completely'' against modifying or ending traditions when they've shown themselves to be harmful. That wouldn't fit the idea that traditions evolve and accumulate wisdom, and no one holds such a simplistic view of tradition. Anyway, would you be willing to offer a serious answer to my question? —[[User:BenKovitz|Ben Kovitz]] 23:54, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ben, my response was indeed thoughtful, although not verbose. I'm not sure what the point was of your digression on tradition, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand: conservatives refuse to accept evolution for the same reason we refuse to accept [[moral relativism]] or, in Andy's apt comparison, the Piltdown man: it's false. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:31, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine, but ''that'' answer is a cop-out. "Because I'm always right" is not a reason why anyone thinks what they think, especially in a matter of complexity and controversy. Maybe the following illustration will help, though it's a bit esoteric. If you asked me why people who favor agile software development methods also usually favor object-oriented languages, "Because agile developers always use the best tool for the job" would not be a thoughtful response. There is a connection between agile development and object-oriented languages, and understanding it helps you understand agile development better. —[[User:BenKovitz|Ben Kovitz]] 02:41, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm puzzled by the dismissive responses to my question. This web site is here to educate people about conservatism, right? I figured you would be pleased at the opportunity to explain the connection between opposition to evolution and other conservative ideas. —[[User:BenKovitz|Ben Kovitz]] 02:41, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent) For the last time, my answer is precisely apt to your question. If you'd asked what evidence is there against evolution there'd be room for more voluble discussion, but you didn't - you asked why we don't accept it: "the connection between opposition to evolution and conservative ideas'. The answer is simply 'because it's false'. A key conservative idea is pursuit of the truth, and the truth about evolution is that it doesn't happen. That's all there is to say and all I shall say. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 04:27, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2011-08-22T19:49:59Z

Jcw:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

No one seems to have been able to attach any meaningful support to the claims in this section. Jack Chick tracts are not proof. The section has been removed until someone can find halfway trustworthy sources for the claims made in it --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:41, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Jihad is an important part of Islam. These people believe in a religion that supports "holy war", if killing infidels isn't a major part of Islam I fail to see why much else is.[[User:RightPatriot|RightPatriot]]

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== Dilution of Conservative POV ==

Please do not water this article down! By the tacit and explicit agreement of the so-called moderate elements of Islam, their failure to consistently and loudly speak out against violence, it is a violent religion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)

But there are several instances of Muslims and Muslim organizations speaking out against violence and terrorism. A notable example is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm [[User:YNathanielsz|YNathanielsz]] 20:23, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, let's all be very careful not to water down the bias in this article! Neutrality is for liberals! Anyone who isn't willing to be held accountable for the actions of everyone even tangentially associated with them is just as guilty as a terrorist! [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 18:03, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Dialectical Logic of Islamists ==

''Dialectical logic'' [http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/The_Lost.html] is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have devloped their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. '''Islamists''' are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments.[http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/Mayor.html]--[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:32, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:36, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

== Christianity never attacked the Islamic world." ==

The Pope authorized the Crusades. Is the argument that they weren't an attack, the target wasn't the Islamic world, or that Catholics aren't Christians? [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 19:58, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:'Attack' in this context means to be the aggressor. Christendom didn't attack the Islamic empire, it defended itself against invasion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 03:06, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::Right. #1 then. Okay, thanks. [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 09:37, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I'd hardly call the crusades a defence against Islamic invasion. While Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike see Jerusalem and the surrounding areas as the holy land, the Islamic Kingdoms of the time had had control of the area for a very long time before the Crusades. All territorial claims aside, by any technical definition of the word, it was a Christian invasion. I think this is somewhat of a grey area, and is easily up for debate. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 15:31, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:Not a defense against an Islamic invasion? Do you know how much of Christian Europe was conquered by Islamic hordes before we pushed them back? I suggest you read about the Reconquista and more generally about the period from the collapse of the Western Empire to the high middle ages. It's a period little taught but most rewarding of study. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

User:BenKovitz

2011-08-22T17:31:47Z

Jcw:

User:BenKovitz

2011-08-21T20:39:52Z

Jcw:

Homosexuality and choice

2011-08-20T20:00:54Z

Jcw: Undo revision 903764 by Ocleot625 (talk)

[[File:Decision screen.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Given the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and given the [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed]], the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support.]]
'''Homosexuality and choice''' are closely related. When answering the question of is homosexuality a choice one has to consider that homosexual acts between [[consenting adults]] are, by definition, done by choice.

Given that there are people who state they are [[ex-homosexuals]] and given that the [[Homosexuality and Health|homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health]], it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Those who make this choice suffer significantly higher rates of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence in homosexual couples]]. In addition, according to experts [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal]]. Also, the [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexual population has a greater propensity to engage in illegal drug use]].

A person may have a craving for alcohol so strong that he feels powerless to resist it (see [[Alcoholism]]), yet people are free to choose to seek treatment for this addiction with drugs, therapy, or support groups. Psychiatrists often concede that [[religion|spirituality]] provides the most effective cure for those who are willing to try it. For example, the [[Christianity|Christian]] group [[Teen Challenge]] reported the following:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref>

Whereas alcohol addiction is generally regarded as a [[disease]] and/or a moral failing, homosexuality in recent decades has come to be seen as normal. It is clear to the vast majority of people that overindulging in alcohol hurts the individual as well as society. For example, [[drunk driving]] contributes to auto accidents by increasing reaction time and reducing alertness. Alcoholism is closely related to [[absenteeism]] and [[domestic violence]]. But a political decision was made in the mid-1970s to drop homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. In fact, the chief "[[scientific]]" reason given to deny a link between homosexuality and choice is that major American mental health organizations deny the link. In other words, scientists have voted on it, and they disapprove (see [[politicization of science]]).

In addition, a distinction is made between choosing to have homosexual desires and choosing to engage in homosexual sex acts. And there are other aspects of choice to homosexuality. One can decide the following aspects: whether or not to believe that homosexual acts are detrimental to one's immortal soul, emotional well-being or physical health and one can also obviously choose whether to enter into a homosexual relationship or not. Obviously one must use wisdom and also do diligence in regards to these matters. For example, the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible condemns homosexuality]] and sound [[Bible exegesis]] reveals this matter.

A 2003 poll done by Ellison Research of [[Phoenix]], [[Arizona]] stated that 82% of all [[United States|American]] [[Protestantism|Protestant]] ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make".<ref>http://www.ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/Release%206%20Homosexuality.htm</ref>

The Russian Orthodox Church view is that homosexuality is a choice.<ref>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_GAY_RIGHTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-12-23-07-15-38</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref name="vatican">http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref name="vatican" />

Dr. Nadia El-Awady reflects the view of many adherents of [[Islam]] when he stated the following:
{{Cquote|Much research has been done over the years to discover the scientific origins of homosexuality. Mostly it has been to disprove the fact that homosexuality is a matter of choice.<ref>http://www.unav.es/civil/nsd/nosindebate/elawadi.pdf</ref>}}

[[Edmund White]] wrote:
{{Cquote|When I was a young man, in the sixties, before the beginning of [[gay liberation]], I was always in therapy trying to go straight. I was in love with three different women over a ten-year period, and even imagined marrying two often. But after the [[Stonewall Uprising]] in 1969 . . . I revised my thinking entirely: I decided I was completely gay and was only making the women in my life miserable. Following a tendency that Garber rightly criticizes, I denied the authenticity of my earlier heterosexual feelings in the light of my later [[homosexual identity]]. After reading ''Vice Versa'', I find myself willing to reinterpret the narrative of my own personal history.<ref>Edmund White, [http://www.queerbychoice.com/indirectchoice.html "Gender Uncertainties: Marjorie Garber Looks at Bisexuality"] (review of [[Marjorie Garber]]'s book Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life), from The New Yorker, July 17, 1995, p. 81 </ref>}}

==The homosexual agenda and choice==
One of the goals of the [[homosexual agenda]] is to "indoctrinate children in the nation's public schools by convincing kids that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=4365</ref> Because schools fail to warn children of the dangers of homosexuality, and because it is taught that homosexuality is not only "normal" but "healthy" as well, homosexuality starts to seem like a good choice to young school children. To supplement this many schools give homosexuals preferential treatment, for instance protecting a homosexual student from teasing in cases where they would not protect a heterosexual student. Homosexuals are also given exclusive clubs that have the goal of recruiting additional students to homosexuality.<ref>http://www.gsanetwork.org/about/index.html</ref>

These are just some of ways that students are tricked into mistakenly thinking that homosexuality is a desirable lifestyle. As people get older and study the [[Bible|word of God]] they become less susceptible to being misled like this. This is the reason the homosexual agenda targets school children for recruitment into homosexuality.

==Optimal Choice==
The optimal choice is never to become involved in homosexual activities, given the [[Homosexuality Research|many undesirable consequences of homosexuality]] and given what the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible states about homosexuality]]. However, there is certainly hope for the individual who wants to [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcome homosexuality]] by the grace of [[God]].

Furthermore, as there is no link between homosexuality and genetics, it very likely that homosexuals will engage in homosexual activitys not because they were born that way(as some claim<ref>www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=weblog&id=97&wlid=5&cn=55</ref>), but rather because they choose to<ref>http://www.socyberty.com/Gay-&-Lesbians/Proof-That-Homosexuality-is-Not-a-Choice.666271</ref>.

==Choice and Genetics==
Proponents of the [[homosexual agenda]] often claim that homosexuality is unchangeable and has a genetic basis. However, this does not prove that homosexuals do not choose to behave this way. By definition, a consenting homosexual relationship must be made by choice, even if there is a latent homosexual desire. People with homosexual tendencies in their genetics can still resist the [[temptation]] to commit sin, and remain faithful to the teachings of the [[Bible]].

==See Also==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[Overcoming homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Causes of Homosexuality]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Mystery:Why do people choose homosexuality%3F]]

==External links==
*[http://www.queerbychoice.com/feelings.html How can feelings ever be chosen?]
*[http://www.queerbychoice.com/indirectchoice.html What is an indirect choice?]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-08-20T01:12:18Z

Jcw:

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?

: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit

: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.

: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last Kiss==
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Possible Addition==

Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::"Another Brick In The Wall" is more of a neutral song. Its part of a concept album in which the main character slowly seperates himself from society. Most Pink Floyd songs are about madness, due to their original lead singer going insane. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)

==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==

:I'm glad the commies were thrown out
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Are these truly conservative? ==

While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.

For example: The Beatles - Revolution
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing.

I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I would just like add that Revolution 1 was written as a reaction against the protesters against the Vietnam War who were getting violent. All Revolution is saying is for the protesters to protest, but not violently, which is still liberal, but a message than other liberal songs. However, for other Beatles songs, they range from being liberal (Why Don't We Do It in the Road?) to be being kind of conservative (Let It Be). Most however, are pretty much neutral. You usually kind Paul McCartney as being more concervative, and Lennon as liberal. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:28, 24 November 2010 (EST)

:One problem with the above analysis: Why Don't We Do It In the Road was McCartney's; Lennon was rather famously not involved at all. Personally I've always thought of it as a kind of parody of the free love movement, though apparently that wasn't McCartney's intention. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:25, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== In Your Eyes ==

Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God. Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing. See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been "basic statistical interpretation". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Why did you cite your counterexample, if it wasn't an example of the logical fallacy #2 in [[liberal logic]]? Do you really think a counterexample disproves causation?

==Land of Confusion==
Does Genesis' ''Land of Confusion'' belong on the list? I remember the music video portraying Ronald Reagan (in puppet form) as inept, and it parodies several conservative leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, et. al. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 13:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

: It's liberal lyric of "too many people" is enough reason to bounce it from the list. Thanks for catching this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Should Fortunate Son really be on this list?==

It's vehemently anti-war. Please correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a very conservative belief. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

:I just looked the lyrics. Pretty confused stuff. I'd agree it's not conservative. Would you like to toss it from the list? Please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Done. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

== Long Black Train by Josh Turner? ==

To me, this song seems like a good candidate for this list. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 07:14, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== The Decision by Ricky Van Shelton ==

I think this is another good candidate for this list. It's a song about a teenage girl who gives in to peer pressure and gets pregnant and the consequences of that action. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 09:02, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== New Agey ==

I removed the new agey phrase of "the cycle of life, death and rebirth," for the "Lightning Crashes," by Live, but feel free to discuss here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

: That wasn't meant to seem "new agey" in the least, but I do understand what you're saying. The song presents a view of life as being cyclical, as the baby is being born an old woman dies, and "The confusion that was hers belongs now to the baby down the hall." I think the lyrics really speak to the significance of life (not just at childbirth), but as a whole. I don't think the song is necessarily about the old woman being reincarnated as the newborn child, but it definitely seems to speak of the circle of life.[[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 15:56, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a rewording would work then? How about replacing "the cycle of life, death and rebirth" with "the joy of childbirth in contrast with the end of life"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

::: I agree that a rewording would work, thank you for working with me. Perhaps we could just say that the song celebrates the significance of life from birth until death, almost in an as one door closes another opens kind of way? [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

== Song idea ==

"One Man, One Woman" sung by ABBA. Indirectly a tribute to traditional marriage and monogamy.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 12:14, 12 January 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good by the title, so how about adding it where you think it would be appropriate in the list? Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Takin' Care of Business ==

This song by BTO is on the list for supporting "Hard work ethic", but its not. The refrain is jokingly ironic. "I love to work at nothing all day; and I've been taking care of business"

The body of the song describes a more easy going life just making music rather than waking up early, catching trains for work, etc.

I'm not saying it makes the song liberal, and not sure why its even necessary to classify songs along political lines, but it sure as heck ain't about working hard.
I'd suggest if someone wants to keep it here because its a good song, and if people can only enjoy it because it conforms to their political views, than change the reason to "Mike Huckabee performed the song" [comment by AndrewJackson]

:You left out how the song praises the self-employed, which is a very conservative, hard-working group of people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::Fair enough, but the praise you speak of is "If you ever get annoyed [with, based on earlier lyrics, either your traditional job or the unpleasant commute involved], look at me, I'm self-employed; I love to work at nothing all day." That could be taken as either "I made so much money as an entepreneur that I no longer need to work" or "My official job title is 'Bum'." Neither one of them really expresses admiration for "hard work" in its own right, though the former is certainly a more positive role model than the latter. I do ''like'' the song, but I'm not entirely sanguine about considering it "conservative." [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:36, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== Adonai My Lord ==

I'm going to delete this song from the list, as it is from the atheistic industrial metal genre. The lyrics reflect a sort of militant Christianity that does not reflect well on the religion as a whole. For example, this group has a song called "Christf---"...obviously they are not conservative. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:14, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

==No U2?==

Surely -- despite the band's liberal leanings -- one of U2's unashamedly Christian songs should make it in. Gloria seems the obvious choice. The chorus, you may remember, goes: "Gloria, in te domine/ Gloria, exultate/ Gloria, Gloria/ Oh Lord, loosen my lips." --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:34, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed. Gloria is definitely a good choice. Perhaps "40"; its lyrics are directly lifted from Psalm 40. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 12:43, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
::You're kidding right? [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-election/u2-honoured-to-be-involved-with-obama-celebrations-14145757.html Conservative indeed..] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:06, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Bono has had a relationship with every President since Clinton; for instance, he worked with Bush on issues relating to Africa and AIDS awareness. The band is very Christian and in no way ashamed of their Christianity. And, rare for rock stars, three of the four members of the band are married family men. They are known for their charitableness and philanthropy, which are of course [[conservative]] traits. Without a doubt, U2 is a conservative, Christian band and they should have representation on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:21, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

::::''Gloria'''s a good choice, please add it if you agree. But U2 became increasingly liberal the more media attention it obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Maybe it's possible to be Christian and pro-family, and yet left-leaning politically. Anyway, I vote for "Beautiful Day" ... The heart is a bloom / Shoots up through the stony ground / But there's no room / No space to rent in this town

:::::Reminds me of how inhospitable this fallen world can be to the spirits of believers trying to lead a godly life in the midst of a secular world which often seems to be ruled by the devil (John 12:31). Yet God's love is there, like sunshine! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:53, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

== Brothers in Arms - Dure Straits ==

I would like to suggest Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits. It's about war and having ones "brother's in arms" in support. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:32, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
:If there is no argument to it's inclusion I'll add it soon. Let me know your thoughts though...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:42, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== YMCA? ==

I'd always heard that the Village People's YMCA was about [[homosexual]] men seducing other men? That doesn't sound very [[conservative]] to me. Is this just a rumor? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:45, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:This was obviously added as a joke, and no one else seems to have realized it! [[User:TriciaS|TriciaS]] 12:25, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::Nope - the song is a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Right. And Antony came to bury Caesar, not to praise him. "It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A. / They have everything that you need to enjoy, / You can hang out with all the boys..." [[User:TriciaS|TriciaS]] 13:32, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
::::It was probably written about more savory activities at the Y but later became identified as a gay anthem. I don't think it's a "conservative song" if it's overwhelmingly associated with homosexuality. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:43, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::The song is a good faith tribute and attempts to redefine it are not factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:10, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Does anyone have any solid sources one way or the other as to what this song means? I tried some brief googling, but didn't turn up anything at all trustworthy. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: The band leader said it was a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association, and we respect original meaning at ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Awesome. Do you have a source for that I can add?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Really? Have You Looked Into These Songs? ==

I'd just like to say that I think it's really jacked that you're going around and trying to SAY what these songs mean. For example, Metallica is NOT a conservative band. James Hetfield was a heavy drinker until he went to rehab, Kirk Hammett suffered from drug addiction during his teen years, and if you listen to any other song you hear that they are NOT a conservative band.

Furthermore, Journey is NOT a conservative band. Steve Perry openly voted for Obama in 2008. --[[User:Beanna|Beanna]] 20:04, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: This isn't a list of conservative bands. It's a list of conservative ''songs''. Even liberals are capable of occasionally singing a conservative song.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== An idea... ==

I was looking at this list and realised that most of the songs listed here are big hit numbers. I was thinking that it might be interesting to look at whether the more conservative a song is the better it does on the charts. Even though the artist might be liberal it seems there bigger hits are in fact conservative songs! Maybe by charting something like this we could prove that people respond better to the conservative message and perhaps change the minds of some liberal singers. Just an idea. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:31, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:We could add the respective chart ranking to this page and then collate the results by rank and date. Perhaps, like the conservative words, we might even see the same pattern repeated here! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:48, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

::Great idea!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:::It'll be a big project though so it'll be awhile for me to collate the results but I fear that we'll find that the majority of new hits are liberal in nature (particulalry coming from M&M and Usher etc) but I think that is because of the "hollywood" influence. Interestingly artists distanced from "fame" have better messages and ''still'' produce amazing hits. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:11, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== From a youngin' ==

Citizen/Soldier by 3 Doors Down. I don't know about the band themselves, but any song that supports the National Guard should be listed here, in my honest option. If no one minds, I'll add it.

== Wish you were here ==

This is a good list of songs, but as far as I know, ''Wish you were here'' (the title track, along with the entire eponymous album) was not dedicated to a conservative president, but rather to ex-Pink Floyd member Syd Barrett. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:19, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that this needs a citation, given that it is so contrary to the conventional story. I've looked for one, but every indication points to it being inspired by Syd Barrett, not a conservative leader (indeed; one would think, Pink Floyd being made up of Englishmen, that it would be a conservative PM, not President.). --[[User:Monty]]

== Two song suggestions ==

Hallowed Be Thy Name - Iron Maiden

1) Like Welcome to the Family, it's about death row, but not anti-death penalty.

2) Multiple references to an afterlife. "Tears they flow but why am I crying?/After all I am not afraid of dying/Don't I believe that there never is an end?" and later in the song: Mark my words believe my soul lives on/Don't worry now that I have gone/I've gone beyond to seek the truth".

3) The very title of the song is derived from the Lord's Prayer, which is also implied to be the protagonist (in the song)'s final words.

Declaration Day - Iced Earth

The whole thing is about the American war for independence, so it's probably a good choice for the list.

I'll add them for the time being, but if most of you think they don't go, I'll take them down.

: Thanks for suggesting them, but I don't see much that is conservative in your first suggestion other than acceptance of an afterlife (or judgment). That's an important message, but some of the religious references seem to be simply an attempt to give the song gravitas. Perhaps others have some insights about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Perhaps it's time to branch out and create a category or essay on "Songs of interest to conservatives" or [[Songs that Conservatives like]].

::I like a lot of songs, even if I would be hard pressed to say why they are "conservative songs". Not every song or book or movie I like is [[Conservative]], and I think it's important to be broad-minded enough not to condemn everything that isn't 100% in line with my beliefs and values.

::In fact, I go even further and say that one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are supremely narrow-minded. All the talk about "tolerance" is a one way street with them. They want us to tolerate their radical notions, but they are ready at the drop of a hat to kick us out of their cushy little world any time we offer a different idea.

::You would never hear of a Bible-belt Christian walking up to a famous liberal author and kicking his wine glass over at a picnic, saying, "We don't allow liberals here." (see [[Glen Beck in NYC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:35, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== I don't think Lola qualifies ==

IIRC, it ends with a complete lack of repentance -- "I'm glad I'm a man, and so is Lola". I don't think that this song qualifies as conservative if it celebrates that which we abhor.

:Our sister project, Wikipedia, says the song "details a romantic encounter between a young man and a transvestite" (hardly a conservative theme). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== Overhaul the "Greatest Conservative Songs" ==

I think this is something that needs to happen before this Essay begins to get out of control. GCSs Essay needs to reorganized into some sort of categorical order—be it alphabetical or otherwise—in order to clean up the Essay and to provide clarity to avoid double posting. I will be happy to categorize it alphabetically by either the artist or song. -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've just rewritten most of the page. Everything is nearly exactly the same, except for a small amount of rephrasing to keep things grammatically correct. I've added peak chart position for every song, but in the interest of making that data comparable, I've limited it to US chart positions. There are some songs (like Brothers In Arms) which charted well in other countries, but didn't chart at all in the US. I eliminated two duplicate entries - Ballad of the Green Berets, and God's Gonna Cut You Down. Enjoy. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]
::Good work CGoodwin. Maybe we can have the same revision for [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]. [[User:KBarnett|KBarnett]] 15:47, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:::CGoodwin, your tabular format and ranking information is interesting. Well done. But surely ''Amazing Grace'' has been more popular than just about every other song on the list. How should the table reflect that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Billboard popularity only measures against how everything else is selling at the same time. If an song sold 100 copies a week for 20 years, it would never crack the charts. The other thing is that there are over 3000 recorded versions of the song. The highest charting individual version I've found is Elvis's, which reached #79. If you want to reflect a broader historical sense of popularity, I'd suggest doing a personal ranking. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

:::::Great Job CGoodwin! Very clean and will definatly help those looking to post songs to check to see if they are or are not already posted. -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 16:32, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Particle man? Really? ==

I think someone must be sabotaging this page. I fail to see how "Particle man" qualifies as an allegory, rather than fun wordplay around a tune not entirely unlike the Spiderman theme song.

:I have to agree on this one, I looked up what people think is the meaning, and seems its more likely an atheist song then a conservative one. [[User:KenN|KenN]]

== No Johnny Cash? ==

Have there really been no suggestions for Johnny Cash songs here? So many of his works discuss the importance of faith, of accepting Jesus, or praise the values of small town country life over the extravagant lifestyles many liberals seem to push for.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 12:54, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

"YMCA", "In the Navy", "San Francisco", and "Macho Man" are NOT conservative songs. They're celebrations of the gay lifestyle. They never did any conservative songs. Have you actually listened to the words
:This point has already been discussed above. Also, please sign your posts. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Black liberation theology

2011-08-20T00:21:29Z

Jcw: Undo revision 903483 by Historian33 (talk) Please explain why you want to remove this reference

'''Black liberation theology''' is the affirmation of Black humanity that emancipates black people from White [[racism]]. Based on victimology, it is essentially a highly selective interpretation of the Gospels in an attempt to co-opt Christianity to promote [[Communism]] and [[Marxism]]. Black Liberation Theology was coined by James Cone, PhD. in 1970, now teaching at New York's Union Theological Seminary. It is to reject the idea of [[God]]'s universal nature in favor of race based superiority.

==Liberation Theology==
The idea of Liberation Theology came from supporters in Latin America and South America. Many in Liberation Theology movement realized that [[Christianity]] in its current form cannot be defeated. By selective interpretation, it was used by radical priests and nuns who supported the oppressed people and liberating revolutionaries; Castro, Che Guevara, the Shining Path terrorists in Peru and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

==James Cone, PhD==
James Cone is the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology and wrote about the movement in his many books. As stated "Black Liberation Theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black community. If God is not for us and against White people, then he is a murderer and we had better kill him (God). Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the White enemy. What we need is the Divine love expressed in Black power. Which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity we must reject his love.

==Ties To Marxism==
Black Theology of Liberation by Cone laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim."
"The Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."

This victim identity invites a distorted view of reality, fosters nihilism, and divides rather than unites.

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought." West calls for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers." In his book, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. <ref>[http://www.acton.org/commentary/443_marxist_roots_of_black_liberation_theology.php The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology] Action Institute</ref>

==Reverend Jeremiah Wright==
Jeremiah Wright himself is a supporter of the Nation of Islam that latched onto the views of two race based theologists, Dwight Hopkins and James Cone. Rev. Wright's statements are the heart of this theology. "Jesus was a poor black man" because he lived in oppression at the hands of "rich white people." The government is responsible for infecting blacks with HIV. [[Barack Obama]]'s spiritual mentor of twenty years, Rev. Wright taught victimology, race-based theology mixed with Christianity.

==Black Theology Books==
* ''Black Power and Black Theology'', (James Cone)
* ''A Black Theology of Liberation'', (James Cone)
* ''God of the oppressed'', (James Cone)
* ''For My People: Black Theology and the Black Church'' (James Cone)
* ''Heart and Head : Black Theology--Past, Present, and Future'', (Dwight Hopkins)
* ''Cut Loose Your Stammering Tongue : Black Theology in the Slave Narratives'', (Dwight Hopkins)
* ''Down, Up and over : Slave Religion and Black Theology'', (Dwight Hopkins)
* ''Introducing Black Theology of Liberation'', (Dwight Hopkins)
* ''Prophesy Deliverance : An Afro-American Revolutionary Christianity'', (Cornell West)
* ''The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought'', (Cornell West)
* ''Black Power : Three Books from Exile Black Power; The Color Curtain; and White Man, Listen!'', (Cornell West & Richard A. Wright)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Black liberation theology

2011-08-20T00:20:34Z

Jcw: /* 'Historian33' */ new section

== 'Historian33' ==

I can see why you've removed the Hitler comparison, but why removed the reference? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:20, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Black liberation theology

2011-08-20T00:12:18Z

Jcw: Unbalanced

'''Black liberation theology''' is the affirmation of Black humanity that emancipates black people from White [[racism]]. Based on victimology, it is essentially a highly selective interpretation of the Gospels in an attempt to co-opt Christianity to promote [[Communism]] and [[Marxism]]. Black Liberation Theology was coined by James Cone, PhD. in 1970, now teaching at New York's Union Theological Seminary. It is to reject the idea of [[God]]'s universal nature in favor of race based superiority.

==Liberation Theology==
The idea of Liberation Theology came from supporters in Latin America and South America. Many in Liberation Theology movement realized that [[Christianity]] in its current form cannot be defeated. By selective interpretation, it was used by radical priests and nuns who supported the oppressed people and liberating revolutionaries; Castro, Che Guevara, the Shining Path terrorists in Peru and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

==James Cone, PhD==
James Cone is the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology and wrote about the movement in his many books. As stated "Black Liberation Theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black community. If God is not for us and against White people, then he is a murderer and we had better kill him (God). Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the White enemy. What we need is the Divine love expressed in Black power. Which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity we must reject his love.

==Ties To Marxism==
Black Theology of Liberation by Cone laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim."
"The Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."

This victim identity invites a distorted view of reality, fosters nihilism, and divides rather than unites.

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought." West calls for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers." In his book, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. <ref>[http://www.acton.org/commentary/443_marxist_roots_of_black_liberation_theology.php The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology] Action Institute</ref>

==Reverend Jeremiah Wright==
Jeremiah Wright himself is a supporter of the Nation of Islam that latched onto the views of two race based theologists, Dwight Hopkins and James Cone. Rev. Wright's statements are the heart of this theology. "Jesus was a poor black man" because he lived in oppression at the hands of "rich white people." The government is responsible for infecting blacks with HIV. [[Barack Obama]]'s spiritual mentor of twenty years, Rev. Wright taught victimology, race-based theology mixed with Christianity.

The Nazis used a similar logic to co-opt the German churches with the "Aryan Christianity" movement in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the "chosen people", not the Jews.

==Black Theology Books==
* ''Black Power and Black Theology'', (James Cone)
* ''A Black Theology of Liberation'', (James Cone)
* ''God of the oppressed'', (James Cone)
* ''For My People: Black Theology and the Black Church'' (James Cone)
* ''Heart and Head : Black Theology--Past, Present, and Future'', (Dwight Hopkins)
* ''Cut Loose Your Stammering Tongue : Black Theology in the Slave Narratives'', (Dwight Hopkins)
* ''Down, Up and over : Slave Religion and Black Theology'', (Dwight Hopkins)
* ''Introducing Black Theology of Liberation'', (Dwight Hopkins)
* ''Prophesy Deliverance : An Afro-American Revolutionary Christianity'', (Cornell West)
* ''The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought'', (Cornell West)
* ''Black Power : Three Books from Exile Black Power; The Color Curtain; and White Man, Listen!'', (Cornell West & Richard A. Wright)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-08-19T22:57:09Z

Jcw:

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Romans 1-8 (Translated)

2011-08-19T22:34:32Z

Jcw: Undo revision 903213 by AugustO (talk) Please avoid revert warring - discuss on the talk page.

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
|Paul, devoted to Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, obeying the Gospel of God,
|Paul uses "slave" to Jesus, but "devoted to" captures this better in modern terminology
|-
|2
|(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
|As he has promised to His prophets in the Bible,
|"Bible" rather than "holy scriptures," to elevate that modern term
|-
|3
|Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
|Regarding His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was formed after the seed of David in the flesh.
|
|-
|4
|And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
|And recognized as the Son of God, with power fueled by a spirit of holiness, as evidenced through His resurrection from the dead.
|The original intent is that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by virtue of His holy behavior and His resurrection.
|-
|5
|By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
|By Whom we have received special gifts and stewardship, for growing the faith worldwide, in His name:
|used "stewardship" to connote the responsibility of Christians to both follow and promote the faith
|-
|6
|Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
|Among whom are also those called to serve Jesus Christ
|Acknowledging those readers who were already among the converted
|-
|7
|To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
|To all of you in Rome, special to God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace of mind from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
|rare instance where translation is longer than KJV
|-
|8
|First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
|First let me thank God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith has become known worldwide.
|modern usage is to minimize "I"
|-
|9
|For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
|For God is my witness, Who I serve with all my heart in the words of His Son, that without fail I mention you always in my prayers,
|
|-
|10
|Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
|Requesting that if by some way I might have a productive journey, God willing, to visit you.
|"at length" is puzzling in the KJV
|-
|11
|For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
|For I miss you greatly, and hope to share with you a spiritual gift, that in the end you may be converted;
|"be established" -> "strengthening you"?
|-
|12
|That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
|In other words, that we may both be comforted by our mutual faith.
|trimmed redundancy in the English here
|-
|13
|Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
|Now please be aware, my friends, that often I sought to come to you (but was kept from doing so), that I might have some success in this with you, even as with other Gentiles
|The original seemed to imply that Paul was hoping to find new converts (bearing "fruit") among these Gentiles, as he had done among others
|-
|14
|I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
|I am grateful both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians; both the wise and the unwise.
|
|-
|15
|So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
|So with all my strength I am also ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome.
|
|-
|16
|For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
|The gospel of Christ does not embarrass me, for it is the power of God leading to salvation all who believe: first to the Jew, and then to the Greek.
|
|-
|17
|For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
|With this God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
|revisit issue of quotes here
|-
|18
|For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
|For God's punishment of atheism and immorality of men who disregard the truth is revealed from heaven.
|instead of "ungodliness", use "atheism"
|-
|19
|Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
|Because what may be known about God is plain enough, and God has shown it to them.
|difficult verse, many modern translations stumble here.
|-
|20
|For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
|The invisible nature of God since the creation of the world is clearly seen, being revealed through the reality around us, including His eternal power and divinity, so non-believers have no excuse.
|
|-
|21
|Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
|When atheists knew God, they refused to glorify Him or be thankful; rather they became egotistical, allowing their minds to close.
|this might be revisited; strong rendition in modern terminology here
|-
|22
|Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
|Declaring themselves to be wise, they became fools,
|amazing how well this describes modern atheists
|-
|23
|And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
|And distorted the glory of the perfect God into an image in the nature of imperfect man, akin to birds, animals, and insects.
|"reptiles" here? Trying insects.
|-
|24
|Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
|Moreover, God relinquished them to degrade themselves through their own lust, so that they dishonor their own bodies with each other.
|"relinquish" here is an improvement on modern translations; note how this verse implicitly links atheism and homosexuality and other promiscuity
|-
|25
|Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
|Who replaced God's truth with a lie, and worshiped and served the created more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen
|Tying back closer to the original, and attempting to retain its poetic nature
|-
|26
|For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
|For this reason God allowed their free will to lead them into homosexuality: for even their women perverted natural acts into crimes against nature.
|Emphasized that God gave people ''freedom'' to choose, and they misused it to choose wrongly
|-
|27
|And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
|The men too, abandoning their natural role with women, misdirected their lust towards each other; men committing acts with other men that are offensive, and their bodies are then punished for their wrongdoing.
|(Keeping this family friendly without diluting the message)
|-
|28
|And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
|And as they put God out of their mind, so God sent them on their way to self-destruction.
|
|-
|29
|Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
|Being filled with immorality, evil, lust, hatred; full of envy, murder, bickering, deceit, and ill-will; gossipers,
|
|-
|30
|Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
|Slanderers, God-haters, spiteful, proud, arrogant, producers of evil, disobedient to parents,
|
|-
|31
|Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
|Lacking understanding, breaking their word, unable to love, and never satisfied or merciful.
|
|-
|32
|Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
|Who being fully aware of God's judgment, and of the death penalty earned by their acts, not only continue to do them, but even take pleasure in doing them.
|
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
|Therefore you have no excuse, you men who pass judgment on others: for when you judge another, you condemn yourself; for those who judge do the same things themselves.
|
|-
|2
|But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
|But we can be certain that the judgment of God is truly against those who commit such things.
|
|-
|3
|And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
|And do you think, you men, who judge others for doing the same as you, that you should escape the judgment of God?
|
|-
|4
|Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
|Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, tolerance and patience; not realizing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
|
|-
|5
|But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
|But after your stubbornness and unrepentant heart gathers anger, against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
|
|-
|6
|Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
|Who will pass judgment to every man according to his deeds:
|
|-
|7
|To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
|To those who through persistent good deeds aspire to God's glory, honor and immortality, in eternal life:
|
|-
|8
|But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
|But to those who are rebellious, and who disregard the truth, and follow sin and anger,
|
|-
|9
|Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
|Suffering and anguish, upon every soul of man who commits evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
|
|-
|10
|But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
|But glory, honor, and peace, to every man who does good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
|
|-
|11
|For there is no respect of persons with God.
|For there is no distinction among men by God.
|
|-
|12
|For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
|For all who have sinned ignorant of the law shall also perish ignorant of the law: and all who have sinned knowing the law shall be judged by the law;
|This refers to the Gentiles being as accountable to God's will as the Jews who had been living under the Mosaic Laws at that time.
|-
|13
|(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
|(For simply knowing of God's law does not make you righteous, but those who follow His laws shall be found righteous.
|
|-
|14
|For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
|For when the Gentiles, who do not know the laws of Moses, act in the manner of the law anyway, these people, without having the law, are still fulfilling it:
|
|-
|15
|Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
|Which shows the intent of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, even while their thoughts may be conflicted;
|Our thoughts may wander or lead to doubt, but a heart focused on God keeps us true
|-
|16
|In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
|In the time when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
|
|-
|17
|Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
|And see, those who call yourselves Jews, and rely on the law, and claim to understand God,
|
|-
|18
|And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
|And know His will, and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
|
|-
|19
|And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
|And are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness,
|
|-
|20
|An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
|An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, whose basis of knowledge and of truth is in the law.
|
|-
|21
|Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
|You who would teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preaches that man should not steal, do you not steal?
|
|-
|22
|Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
|You who says that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhors idols, do you commit sacrilege?
|
|-
|23
|Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
|You who boast of living under the law, do you not dishonor God through breaking that law?
|
|-
|24
|For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
|For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
|
|-
|25
|For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
|For circumcision has value if you follow the law: but if you disregard the law, the act is meaningless.
|
|-
|26
|Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
|Therefore if the uncircumcised follow the law in righteousness, shall they not be regarded as the circumcised?
|Following rituals doesn't matter, but our actions do, where God is concerned
|-
|27
|And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
|And should not the uncircumcised (which is by nature), if they follow the law, judge you instead, who despite your learning and circumcision break the law?
|-
|28
|For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
|For outward appearances does not make one a Jew; neither does circumcision, which is merely a physical trait:
|
|-
|29
|But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
|But one is a Jew if he lives that way to his core; and if the signs are in his heart and soul, and not just in the physical; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
|
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
|What is the advantage, then, in being a Jew? Or what benefit is there to circumcision?
|
|-
|2
|Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
|There are many: primarily, because it was they who were entrusted with the prophesies of God.
|
|-
|3
|For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
|For what if some did not believe? Should their unbelief make having faith of God pointless?
|
|-
|4
|God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
|God forbid: yes, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might justify yourself with your words, and may be overcome when you are judged.
|
|-
|5
|But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
|But if our wickedness deserves the judgment of God, what shall we say in defense? Is God wrong to deliver our punishment? (I speak as a man)
|
|-
|6
|God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
|God forbid: for how else shall God judge the world?
|
|-
|7
|For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
|For if the truth of God has not won over my doubts over His glory; why am I also judged as a sinner?
|Not sure about this interpretation
|-
|8
|And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
|And not rather, (as some deceitfully accuse us of saying) Let us commit evil, that good may come? Whose damnation is just.
|
|-
|9
|What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
|What then? Are we better than them? No, in no way of thinking: for we have previously shown, to both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
|
|-
|10
|As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
|As it was written, "There are none righteous, no, not one:
|
|-
|11
|There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
|There are none who understand, there are none who seek after God.
|
|-
|12
|They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
|They are all fallen from grace, they have collectively become a liability; there are none who do good, no, not one.
|
|-
|13
|Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
|Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have performed deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
|
|-
|14
|Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
|Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
|
|-
|15
|Their feet are swift to shed blood:
|Their feet are swift to shed blood:
|
|-
|16
|Destruction and misery are in their ways:
|Destruction and misery are in their paths:
|
|-
|17
|And the way of peace have they not known:
|And the way of peace is unknown to them:
|
|-
|18
|There is no fear of God before their eyes.
|There is no fear of God before their eyes."
|Should the closing quote go here?
|-
|19
|Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
|Now we know that whatever the law says, it applies to those who live under the law: that every mouth may be silences, and all the world may become guilty before God.
|
|-
|20
|Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
|Therefore by mere adherence to the law no one will be found worthy in His sight: for accompanying the law is the knowledge of sin.
|
|-
|21
|But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
|But now the righteousness of God beyond the law is made clear, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
|"beyond" seems a better word to use instead of "without" here.
|-
|22
|Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
|The righteousness of God which comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all, and upon all, who believe: for there is no difference:
|
|-
|23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|
|-
|24
|Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
|Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is personified in Christ Jesus:
|
|-
|25
|Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
|Whom God had sent forth to be an offering of appeasement through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the forgiveness of past sins, through the tolerance of God;
|
|-
|26
|To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
|To declare here and now, I say, his righteousness: that he might be just, and the defender of he who believes in Jesus.
|
|-
|27
|Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
|Is this boasting then? It is not. By what principle? Of actions? No: but by the principle of faith.
|
|-
|28
|Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
|Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without relying on the rituals of the law.
|
|-
|29
|Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
|Is He the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles as well:
|
|-
|30
|Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
|Realizing that there is one God, Who shall recognize the dedication by faith, and non-dedication through lack of faith.
|
|-
|31
|Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
|Do we then invalidate the law through faith? God forbid: rather, we establish the law.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
|What shall we say then, that Abraham, our forefather, had discovered?
|
|-
|2
|For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
|For if Abraham was judged by his works, he had earned glory; but not before God.
|
|-
|3
|For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
|For what does scripture say? Abraham believed God, and that was credited towards his righteousness.
|
|-
|4
|Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
|Now to the man who only does good works goes a reward measured not in grace, but in debt.
|
|-
|5
|But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
|But to the man focused less on mere acts, but who believes in He who judges the ungodly, his faith is credited towards righteousness.
|
|-
|6
|Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
|Even David described the grace of the man, to whom God delivered righteousness without requiring works,
|
|-
|7
|Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
|Saying, Blessed are they whose wickedness is forgiven, and whose sins are addressed.
|
|-
|8
|Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
|Blessed is the man who the Lord will not find sinful.
|
|-
|9
|Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
|Are these blessings given only to the circumcised, or to the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was attributed to Abraham for his righteousness.
|
|-
|10
|How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
|How was it in his case? Was he circumcised, or uncircumcised? He was not circumcised.
|
|-
|11
|And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
|And yet he received the blessing of the circumcised, a seal of the righteousness of the faith he carried while not being circumcised: that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they be uncircumcised; that righteousness might be bestowed upon them as well:
|
|-
|12
|And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
|And the father of circumcision to those who are uncircumcised, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had despite being uncircumcised.
|
|-
|13
|For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
|For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not made to Abraham or to his descendants through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
|
|-
|14
|For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
|For if only those who follow ritual benefit from that promise, then faith is made meaningless, and the promise accomplished nothing:
|
|-
|15
|Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
|Because the law is the basis for God's wrath: for where there is no law, there is no lawbreaking.
|
|-
|16
|Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
|Therefore it is through faith, that one may earn grace; to ensure that God's promise applies to all the children of Abraham; not just for those who follow ritual, but to those who share the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
|This interpretation should be independently verified
|-
|17
|(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
|(As it is written, I have made you a father of many nations), in the presence of God in whom he believed, who could raise the dead, and bring things into existence from nothing.
|
|-
|18
|Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
|Who against doubt believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken; so shall your descendants be.
|
|-
|19
|And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
|And being strong in faith, he gave no consideration to his own age, despite being about a hundred years old, nor to the infertility of his wife Sara:
|
|-
|20
|He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
|He did not waver in doubt over the promise of God; but instead was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
|
|-
|21
|And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
|And was fully convinced that whatever He had promised, He was able to perform.
|
|-
|22
|And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
|And therefore this was credited to him for righteousness.
|
|-
|23
|Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
|Now this was not written for his sake alone, that this faith was credited to him;
|
|-
|24
|But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
|But also as a lesson for us, who shall be likewise credited, if we believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
|
|-
|25
|Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
|Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our benefit.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
|Therefore being redeemed by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|-
|2
|By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
|Who, by having faith in Him, gives us a means to find grace, and for this we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
|
|-
|3
|And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
|And not only that, but we find glory in ordeals as well: knowing that ordeals teach us patience;
|
|-
|4
|And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
|And through patience, experience; and through experience, hope:
|
|-
|5
|And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
|And we are not ashamed to hope; because the love of God is spread throughout our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which is delivered upon us.
|Not sure of the tense in the last part
|-
|6
|For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
|For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the unbelieving.
|
|-
|7
|For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
|For scarcely anyone would willingly die for a righteous man: let alone risk death for a good man.
|
|-
|8
|But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
|But God proved His love for us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
|
|-
|9
|Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
|Much more then, having been redeemed by His blood, will we be saved from wrath through Him.
|
|-
|10
|For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
|For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled with God by the death of His Son, even more so, being reconciled, will we be saved by His life.
|
|-
|11
|And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
|And not only this, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received atonement.
|
|-
|12
|Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
|Therefore, as sin entered into the world through a single man, as did death by sin; and so death came upon all men, since all have sinned:
|
|-
|13
|(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
|(For while sin was in the world before the law: sin cannot be not judged in the absence of law.
|
|-
|14
|Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
|Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the manner of Adam's transgression, who was the model of those who followed.
|
|-
|15
|But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
|But unlike the offense of man, is the gift of God. For if through one man's sin many are condemned, for many more the grace of God, and redemption by grace, which is though one man, Jesus Christ, has been given in abundance.
|
|-
|16
|And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
|And unlike how it was when one man sinned, is the gift: for the judgment of condemnation was for a single offense, but the free gift provides redemption for many offenses.
|
|-
|17
|For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
|For if by one man's offense death reigned through that one; much more shall those who receive abundance of grace and the gift of redemption reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.)
|
|-
|18
|Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
|Therefore as through the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
|
|-
|19
|For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
|For in the way one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one many will be made righteous.
|
|-
|20
|Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
|In addition, the law was provided, that the recognition of sin might be widespread. But where sin had spread, grace spread even further:
|
|-
|21
|That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
|That as sin had ruled over us to our death, even so might grace rule through righteousness, leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
|What shall we say then? Shall we continue living sinfully, that grace may overcome it?
|
|-
|2
|God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
|God forbid. How can we, having been freed from sin, live any longer under it?
|
|-
|3
|Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
|Do you not understand, that those of us who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ were baptized in acknowledgment of His death?
|
|-
|4
|Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
|Therefore we are spiritually buried with him by baptism in death: and that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, likewise we should also walk in newness of life.
|
|-
|5
|For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
|For if we have been buried together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection:
|
|-
|6
|Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
|Knowing through this, that our former selves are crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, and that afterward we should not serve sin.
|
|-
|7
|For he that is dead is freed from sin.
|For he who is dead is freed from sin.
|
|-
|8
|Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
|Now if we are dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
|
|-
|9
|Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
|Knowing that Christ having risen from the dead can die no more; death has no more dominion over him.
|
|-
|10
|For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
|For in His death, He died for sin once: but in His living afterward, He lives on through God.
|Not sure if this is the right interpretation
|-
|11
|Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
|Likewise consider yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|12
|Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
|Therefore do not let sin rule your mortal body, that you might succumb to it through physical lust.
|
|-
|13
|Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
|Nor surrender your body as an instrument of unrighteousness into sin: but surrender yourselves to God, as those who are reborn from the dead, and your bodies as instruments of righteousness for God.
|
|-
|14
|For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
|For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not simply guided by law, but by grace.
|
|-
|15
|What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
|What then? Shall we sin, because we are not guided by the law, but by grace? God forbid.
|
|-
|16
|Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
|Do you not understand, that whoever you commit yourselves to obey, his servants you become in obedience; whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
|
|-
|17
|But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
|But thank God, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart the lessons which have delivered you.
|
|-
|18
|Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
|Therefore being freed from sin, you became the servants of righteousness.
|
|-
|19
|I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
|I speak frankly because of the weaknesses of your flesh: for as you have surrendered your bodies to filth, and to depravity upon depravity; you can now likewise surrender your bodies as servants to righteousness seeking holiness.
|
|-
|20
|For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
|For when you were the servants of sin, you were without righteousness.
|
|-
|21
|What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
|What benefit was there in doing those things that you are now ashamed of? For the outcome of those things is death.
|
|-
|22
|But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
|But now being made free from sin, and becoming servants of God, you are working towards holiness, and the reward of everlasting life.
|
|-
|23
|For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
|For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
|This is too "classic" a statement to update
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
|Don't you know, brothers (for I am addressing those who know the law) how the law rules over a man as long as he lives?
|
|-
|2
|For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
|For the woman who has a husband is required by law to stay with him as long as he lives; but if the husband is deceased, then the law frees her from that obligation.
|
|-
|3
|So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
|Accordingly, if she marries another man while her husband lives, then she is an adulteress; but if her husband has died, the law does not bind her and she is not an adulteress even if married to another man.
|
|-
|4
|Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
|Likewise, my brothers, you also were freed from the law by the body of Christ; that you shall be married to another -- even to He who is raised from the dead -- that we shall bring forth fruit unto God.
|
|-
|5
|For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
|For when we were focused on the material, the influence of sin, while following the letter of the law, worked through our bodies to lead us towards death.
|
|-
|6
|But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
|But now we are delivered from the law, and the death that comes from following it blindly; that we should instead serve with renewed spirit, and not in rigid adherence to ritual.
|
|-
|7
|What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
|What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I would not have recognized sin, but for the law: For I did not understand lust, until seeing how the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet".
|
|-
|8
|But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
|But sin, finding opportunity through this commandment, brought forth from me all manner of base desire. For without the law sin was dead.
|
|-
|9
|For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
|For I was alive in ignorance of the law once: but when the commandment became known to me, sin was revealed, and I died.
|
|-
|10
|And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
|And the commandment, which was meant to guide life, I found instead to lead to death.
|
|-
|11
|For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
|For sin, finding opportunity through this commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.
|
|-
|12
|Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
|So if the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
|
|-
|13
|Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
|Was it therefore something good which brought death upon me? God forbid. It was sin, defined for what it is by something good, which was killing me; So that sin as defined by the commandment could be regarded as exceedingly wrong.
|
|-
|14
|For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
|For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am human and fallible, enslaved by sin.
|
|-
|15
|For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
|For I do the things I am against: for what I want to do, I do not; but what I hate, I do.
|
|-
|16
|If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
|So if I do things I consider wrong, I agree that the law is good.
|
|-
|17
|Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
|Then it is not me doing it, but the sin that resides within me.
|
|-
|18
|For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
|I know that in me (my body) is nothing good: I want to love, but am unable to find how to perform what is good.
|revisit
|-
|19
|For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
|For the good that I want, I do not; but the evil I do not want, I do.
|
|-
|20
|Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
|Now if I do what I do not want, it is not I who does it, but the sin that resides in me.
|
|-
|21
|I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
|I find a pattern that, when I would do good, evil is still with me.
|revisit "pattern"; could be "law" (KJV) or "principle" (NASB)
|-
|22
|For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
|I rejoice when God's law rules over the inner man,
|revisit; not easy to express this well
|-
|23
|But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
|But I sense another force at work in my body, warring against my better judgment, and enslaving me to the power of sin in my own body.
|Paul uses "νόμος" repeatedly, but it best means "law" when referring to God but "power" for sin and "commands" of the mind ("wishes") when referring to that
|-
|24
|O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
|Oh sinful man that I am! Who shall free me from the body of this death?
|
|-
|25
|I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
|I thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord. With my mind I serve the law of God, while my body is oppressed by the power of sin.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
|Thus there is no condemnation now of Christians, who pursue not pleasures of this world, but who follow the Spirit.
|
|-
|2
|For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
|For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death.
|
|-
|3
|For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
|For what the commandments could not achieve, because it was weak in human nature, God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful man, and for sin, condemned it in human form.
|translate "νόμος" as "commandments" rather than the "law", which has a technical connotation today; translate "σάρξ" as "human nature" rather than "flesh", which has lost its prior meaning.
|-
|4
|That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
|So that God's will might be fulfilled in us, who do not worship worldly glory, but live in the Spirit.
|revisit this rendition
|-
|5
|For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
|For those addicted to worldly pleasures focus on them; but those who are with the Spirit focus on the Spirit.
|revisit this also
|-
|6
|For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
|Obsession with the body is death; focusing on the spiritual is life and peace of mind.
|
|-
|7
|Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
|Because the lustful mind is God-hating; it is not restrained by God's law, nor can it be.
|
|-
|8
|So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
|Those who lust for the body cannot please God.
|
|-
|9
|But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
|But you are not confined to the body, but are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone not have the Spirit of Christ, then he is not of Him.
|awkward, needs improvement
|-
|10
|And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
|If Christ resides in you, then the body is dead from sin, but the Spirit is life from good values.
|"righteousness" -> "good values"
|-
|11
|But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
|But if the Spirit of He who raised up Jesus from the dead resides in you, He who raises up Christ from the dead shall also stir your mortal bodies with His Spirit that resides in you.
|"reside" rather than the more archaic "dwell"
|-
|12
|Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
|Thus, my brothers, we are in debt, not to our bodies, to live beyond the flesh.
|
|-
|13
|For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
|If you long for carnal pleasure, you shall die; but if through the Spirit you expunge the materialism, you shall live.
|"deeds of the body" being replaced by "materialism", worth revisiting; also, "expunge" can be revisited
|-
|14
|For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
|All who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.
|
|-
|15
|For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
|For you have not received the fearful spirit of anxiety, but you have received the spirit of adoption by which we rejoice, "Abba, Father."
|can revisit this
|-
|16
|The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
|The Spirit itself confirms with our spirit that we are sons of God:
|
|-
|17
|And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
|and as sons, we are heirs of God, jointly with Christ. If it occur that we suffer with Him, such that we may also be glorified together.
|τέκνον is properly translated as "son", and fits with the theme of glorification as Christ was; this is a rare instance of gender-neutralizing by KJV
|-
|18
|For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
|I an confident that our sufferings now are not significant compared with the glory to be revealed in us.
|
|-
|19
|For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
|For the sincere expectation of the created human awaits the manifestation of the sons of God.
|"created human" instead of "creature", which connotes insects today; stick with "sons", not "children", because "υἱός" doesn't connote youth
|-
|20
|For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
|For created man was subjected to depravity, not willingly, but by reason of He who subordinated man to hope,
|ὑποτάσσω: subordinated can fit better than subjected in the second reference; ματαιότης: "depravity", not "vanity"
|-
|21
|Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
|Because the created man shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
|
|-
|22
|For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
|For we know that every part of the created man groans and suffers together in pain until now.
|
|-
|23
|And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
|And not only those, but ourselves as well, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even each of us complains to himself, waiting for the adoption, namely, the redemption of his body.
|"groan" is archaic here for Greek "στενάζω", which literally meant "sigh" or "groan" in a prior time; "complain" is the modern equivalent. The redundancy and awkward use of plural are also clarified
|-
|24
|For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
|For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why would he still hope for?
|
|-
|25
|But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
|But if we hope for what we can't see, then we must wait with patience for it.
|
|-
|26
|Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
|Likewise the Spirit also helped our illnesses: for we do not know what we should pray for as we should: but the Spirit prays for us with pleas that cannot be spoken out loud.
|
|-
|27
|And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
|And he who searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because he prays for the saints according to the will of God.
|
|-
|28
|And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
|And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who receive the calling according to his purpose.
|
|-
|29
|For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
|For those who He had foreseen, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
|"predestined" still works better than alternatives like "intended"
|-
|30
|Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
|And furthermore, those who He predestined, they were also called by Him: and those who He called, they were also justified by Him: and those who He justified, they were also glorified by Him.
|
|-
|31
|What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
|What shall we then say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
|
|-
|32
|He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
|He who did not spare His own Son, but sacrificed Him for us all, how shall He not along with Him also freely give us all things?
|
|-
|33
|Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
|Who shall bring any charge against God's chosen? It is God who justifies.
|
|-
|34
|Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
|Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died, or rather, who has risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also prays on our behalf.
|
|-
|35
|Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
|What shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
|
|-
|36
|As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
|As it is written, "For your sake we are killed all day long; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter".
|
|-
|37
|Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
|No, in all these challenges we are more than victors through Him who loves us.
|replaced "things" with "challenges" to reinforce the connection
|-
|38
|For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
|For I am convinced, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor governments, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
|
|-
|39
|Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
|Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
|
|}

[[Romans 9-16 (Translated)]]

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-18T17:47:39Z

Jcw: Undo revision 902823 by BradB (talk) Trolling

Sesame Street

2011-08-17T23:21:48Z

Jcw: Undo revision 902528 by FTH (talk)

[[Image:sesamestreet.jpg|200px|right|]]
'''Sesame Street''' is a television show for children on the [[PBS]] network. It has been around since 1969 and has spawned a series of movies, books, magazines, and toys. Sesame Street features [[muppet]]s interacting with adults and children in an educational setting that emphasizes learning numbers and letters. The show has won a number of [[Emmy Award]]s and is shown in over 25 languages around the world.

==Spinoffs==
Sesame Street successfully launched the career of [[Jim Henson]]'s muppets and has produced countless imitations and variations. A number of Sesame Street movies have been made, including ''Follow That Bird'' and ''The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland''. Sesame Street characters have made appearances on a number of game and talk shows. Many stuffed animals of the Sesame Street characters are sold in amazing quantities and the [[Tickle Me Elmo]] is considered to be one of the best selling toys of all time. A number of musical albums have been released by Sesame Street characters, most notably ''Bert's Blockbusters'' which scored an unexpected success in 1974 with the single ''Doin' the Pigeon''.<ref>[http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/sesame_street/berts_blockbusters/ Bert's Blockbusters - #4 Album of 1974]</ref>

==Muppet Characters==
* [[Big Bird]] -- An 8-foot tall yellow bird who walks on 2 legs, a good natured but simple creature. The character of Big Bird was involved in a real-life media scandal about draft-dodging in the Vietnam War following his appearance in the NBC sitcom "Bill'n'the Bird" in 1968. <ref>http://www.culturenest.co.uk/tvradio.html</ref>
* [[Cookie Monster]] -- a lover of all cookies
* [[Snuffleupagus]] -- a creature who looks a bit like an elephant; at first only big bird saw him, but that has changed
* [[Oscar the Grouch]] -- lives in a garbage can, has a generally cantankerous nature
* [[Elmo]]
* [[The Count]] -- a vampire who loves to count
* [[Bert & Ernie]] -- human muppets; Ernie's child-like goofs are balanced by Bert's more serious nature
* [[Telly Monster]]
* [[Kermit the Frog]] -- a green frog hand muppet who went on to star in the muppet movies
* [[Grover]] -- typical friendly monster, also the voice of Yoda

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.sesameworkshop.org/sesamestreet/ Sesame Street homepage]
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063951/ IMDB website]
* [http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/28/101803.shtml Protest over AK-47 in foreign version]
* [http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/08/mars_and_venus_.html Concern over female stereotypes]

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Sesame Street

2011-08-17T23:04:40Z

Jcw: Undo revision 902522 by Maddos (talk)

Randomness

2011-08-17T18:20:45Z

Jcw: Not a paradox

'''Randomness''' is a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random#Randomness_in_science Randomness in science]</ref>

However, it is still possible to make predictions involving randomness, because randomness tends to average out over time. For example, while nobody can predict the result of a coin toss, it is easy to predict that the coin should land either heads or tails approximately half the time. As a more advanced example, the motions of molecules are random, but it is possible to predict that randomly distributed molecules of water will come together in an ordered structure (ice) when the temperature drops far enough. The ability to make these predictions is an important part of [[statistics]].

==See also==
* [[Random number]]
* [[Random variable]]
* [[Entropy]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Dictionary]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-17T14:16:05Z

Jcw:

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T23:19:34Z

Jcw: /* Perfect number of teeth? */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T23:13:49Z

Jcw:

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T23:02:04Z

Jcw:

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T22:55:00Z

Jcw:

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T22:43:46Z

Jcw: /* Perfect number of teeth? */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T22:38:00Z

Jcw: /* Improving article */

Ferrari

2011-08-16T22:31:12Z

Jcw: Undo revision 901899 by CraigF (talk) BenP is right. The price is a fact, but your opinion of it isn't.

'''Ferrari''' is a sports car manufacturer from [[Italy]]. Founded in 1947 by Enzo Ferrari, they have made some of the most famous track cars in the world in [[Formula1]] and numerous other motor racing classes. They have also produced some of the best engineered and most exclusive road vehicles in the world.
 Ferrari only builds 4,500 cars a year with production split between the V8-engined cars (F430 and F430 Spider) and the V12-engined cars, the 599 GTB Fiorano 2-seater berlinetta and the flagship 2+2 612 Scaglietti.<Ref>About Ferrari : [http://www.ferrariusa.com/index.php?page=about]</ref>
 Since 1950 Ferrari has partipated in every season of the [[Formula One|F1]] World Championship. in 2004 Ferrarri had won 14 Drivers' and 14 Constructors' titles. Ferrari also has an exceptional record of success in endurance racing events such as the 24 Hours of Lemans, where their 250 GTOs set numerous records.

==References==
<References/>

[[category:cars]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T22:16:23Z

Jcw:

CE

2011-08-16T21:37:42Z

Jcw: Undo revision 901843 by Jukebox (talk) Editorializing

One suggestion for the origin of the term '''"Common Era" (CE)''' is an anti-Christian attempt to conceal that Jesus is the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system. "Common Era" has no real meaning, and even the origin of this term is unclear. A later edition (11th) defines it as the Christian Era. The first recorded use of the phrase "common era" was in 1708.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=D_wvAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA515&dq=%22common+era%22&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=800&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1740&as_brr=0&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22common%20era%22&f=false ''History of the Works of the Learned'', January 1703]</ref>

The established calendar dating system, which uses the 'AD' notation, is based on the calculations of [[Dionysius Exiguus]] for the birthyear of [[Jesus]] relative to the foundation of Rome.<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/calendars.html Index to Calendars, NASA site]</ref> At the time, dates used the 'AD' system instituted by pagan and murderer Emperor Diocletian, which used his own date of birth as year 0. Because Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525 wanted to end the memorialization of an evil man who persecuted Christians, he invented a new numbering system based on his calculations of the birth year of Jesus Christ.

While the use of the phrase "Common Era" has existed for hundreds of years, only recently have [[political correctness|politically correct]] [[liberals]] attempted to replace all instances of 'AD' with 'CE.' The original use of 'CE' was to avoid the common practice of countries basing their dates on when their rulers reached power <ref>ex. 15 years in the rulership of King Steven the Third</ref> or were born, i.e. the "regal era" from the birthdate of Jesus Christ, which belonged to all men "the common era." While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are no similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods. Numerous texts, particularly schoolbooks, have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Pope Anacletus

2011-08-16T16:34:38Z

Jcw:

Anacletus was the third [[Pope]], about whom little is known with certainty save that he died a martyr, perhaps in AD 91. <ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm</ref>

<references />

Pope Anacletus

2011-08-16T16:34:27Z

Jcw: Created page with "Anacletus was the third Pope, about whom little is known with certainty save that he died a martyr, perhaps in AD 91. <ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm</ref>"

Anacletus was the third [[Pope]], about whom little is known with certainty save that he died a martyr, perhaps in AD 91. <ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm</ref>

Lazytown

2011-08-16T16:17:16Z

Jcw: Undo revision 901632 by CookingByTheBook (talk)

'''''LazyTown''''' is an [[Icelandic]] children's television program that features a cast and crew from [[Iceland]], the [[UK]] and the [[US]]. The show has been highly successful, airing in over 100 countries and more than a dozen languages.

The series started out in 1996 as a [[live-action]] [[play]], under the title ''Áfram Latibær'' ("Go on Lazytown!"). After its success, a second play was made titled ''Glanni Glæpur í Latabær'' ("Robbie Rotten in LazyTown"). This second play introduced the character Glanni Glæpur (Robbie Rotten) as a [[villain]]. Instead of incorporating [[puppet]]s, all characters were played by live actors, with the exception of a bird puppet in the second play.

During the shift to the televised version many changes were made. For example, Pixel (Goggi Mega) in the first play was a white male child, who was bald and had electronic goggles on at all times. In the second play, his image was changed to be more like a standard technical addict, with green hair, a silver shirt, and dozens of various electronics at his disposal. Some characters did not make it to the TV version, or were drastically changed.

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Lazytown

2011-08-16T16:17:05Z

Jcw: Undo revision 901643 by Jcw (talk)

It’s a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake,
If the way is hazy,
You gotta do the cookin’ by the book,
You know you can’t be lazy!

Never use a messy recipe,
The cake will end up crazy!

If you do the cookin’ by the book,
Then you’ll have a…

BREAK IT DOWN B*TCH
LET ME SEE YOU BACK IT UP
DROP THAT ACT DOWN LOW
TO PICK THAT MOTHERF*CKA UP

BREAK IT DOWN B*TCH
LET ME SEE YOU BACK IT UP
DROP THAT ACT DOWN LOW
TO PICK THAT MOTHERF*CKA UP

NOW, BACK THAT P*SSY
SHE’S A MOTHAF*CKA
HEY, BACK THAT P*SSY
SHE’S A MOTHAF*CKA
HEY, BACK THAT P*SSY
SHE’S A MOTHAF*CKA
HEY, BACK THAT P*SSY
SHE’S A MOTHAF*CKA

It’s a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake, WHAT
If the way is hazy,
You gotta do the cookin’ by the book, WHAT
You know you can’t be lazy! YEAH

Never use a messy recipe, WHAT
The cake will end up crazy, YEAH

If you do the cookin’ by the book, YEAH
Then you’ll have a…

RUB THAT SH*T
IT’S YOURS B*TCH
GRAB HIS D*CK
IT’S YOURS B*TCH
RUB THAT SH*T
IT’S YOURS B*TCH
GRAB HIS D*CK
IT’S YOURS B*TCH

TURN AROUND B*TCH
PUT THAT @SS ON A NIGGA
GRIND ON HIS D*CK
MAKE IT GET A LITTLE BIGGA

TURN AROUND B*TCH
PUT THAT @SS ON A NIGGA
GRIND ON HIS D*CK
YEAH TAKE OUT IT’S BIGGA

You gotta do the cookin’ by the book! YEAH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQp5l4-sfFA

Lazytown

2011-08-16T16:16:35Z

Jcw: Replaced content with "{{speedy}}"

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T15:39:24Z

Jcw: Undo revision 901624 by ElisaCreighton1 (talk)

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 76 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# Evolution is internally inconsistent. It posits that all life must continuously improve, but on the other hand, it holds that some creatures, like the horseshoe crab, the alligator, the shark, and the [[coelacanth]],<ref>http://www.dinofish.com/</ref> have remained virtually unchanged for improbably long time periods.
# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.
# The bacterial flagellum has been proven to be useless when missing a single part of the mechanism. It stands to reason that this must have been created fully formed, and cannot have evolved from a simpler form. The term for this phenomenon is [[irreducible complexity]], and it can be seen in countless biological features.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, [[entropy]] (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own. According to [[Cornell University]] [[genetics|geneticist]] [[John C. Sanford]], not even the energy of the Sun, which might otherwise reduce entropy in a system not thermodynamically isolated such as the Earth, is capable of turning back the inexorable decline of our planet's collected genomes. <ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/]</ref> It seems reasonable to infer, then, that the [[End Times]] will come before or during the eventual collapse of the world's [[ecosystems]] that will come as a result of this irreversible deterioration.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
# [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful.
# The fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
# The manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
# Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
# Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemical substances in their blood that essentially act as an anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.
# The blood of tunicates such as the sea squirt is based on the rare element [[vanadium]] instead of the abundant [[iron]] used in other vertebrates, which would have required a complete re-tooling of its entire circulatory biochemistry <ref>http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/ascidiacea.html</ref>.
# Animals exist in isolated places without any plausible motivation or means for getting there, such as on remote islands or more than 1200 feet high on top of the vertical cliffs of [[Devils Tower]]. Even humans (though large and intelligent) were unable to ascend the peak until 1893, and required specialized climbing equipment.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
# The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Evolution should have removed HIV from the human race as we would have built an immunity to it, much like bacteria do to anti-biotics, yet we have not. In fact the continued existence of disease is proof against evolution as natural selection would have left only humans who were immune to them.
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.
# [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885</ref>
# PrP, the gene responsible for the protein implicated in causing prion diseases like [[Creutzfeldt-Jacob_Disease]], has ''no beneficial function''. If evolution were correct, this gene could not persist in the population, but would quickly be selected against.

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# "[T]he loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]], which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
# '''Where are the human ancestors?''' (That is, the ones that weren't [http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man frauds].)

===Paradoxical fossils===
# The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from high tree branches was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first.<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The long legs of the [[giraffe]]: if a random mutation led to long legs without a long neck or vice versa, the animal would be unable to survive.
# The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
# Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# Blood clotting is a unique process unlike any other in the body, without which the smallest cut could be life-threatening. Only a fully developed clotting system is functional and therefore could not have evolved through intermediate stages.
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.

===Uncategorized===

# The common "Chimney Swift" is a bird having behavior often mistaken for that of a bat<ref>http://www.suite101.com/content/facts-about-chimney-swifts-a25479</ref> -- a mammal -- thereby suggesting a common designer rather than an evolutionary process; the Chimney Swift also migrates all the way from North America to Peru every winter, without any plausible evolution-based guiding mechanism.
# There is excellent evidence indicating that [[dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars</ref>
# No one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild. Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this.
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# [[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

User talk:Jcw

2011-08-16T15:02:52Z

Jcw: /* Why did you block me? */

User talk:Jcw

2011-08-16T13:20:16Z

Jcw: /* Counter examples to evolution */

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-16T13:07:41Z

Jcw: Undo revision 901549 by SamCoulter (talk) Please discuss before making significant changes

Talk:Dinosaur

2011-08-16T00:00:04Z

Jcw: Undo revision 901375 by BillyChisholm (talk)

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]|
[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2]] 



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? [[User:50something|50something]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
:There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "[[baramin|kinds]]", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
:The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
:One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Let me say 1st off like most peolple with any basic background in molecular biology, I beleive in evolution. I'm not trying to hide my view point, but I'm not trying to cause arguments for the sake of it either . I'm just curious on this view point, is there any scientific evidance (even speculative evidance ie. based on tooth shape etc.) to support the view point that all Dinosaurs were herbavoirs, or is it just that the bible indirectlty implies it ( all animals came to be about the same time and there was no death before sin, therefore dinosaurs only ate plants? I'm I correct that this is the reasoning? Though not to be too technical, plants and bacteria are alive too. If they ate these there would be death too (unless they ate only from larger plants ie. only the leaves off the tress but never grass for example.)
-Damien Rivers
: The Bible doesn't merely imply it. It says that plants were to be food for the animals and humans. As for evidence, it's probably more of a lack of conclusive evidence for the evolutionary view. Some creatures classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth don't eat meat! The fruit bat is one example. Further, many carnivores can survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. Also, there are examples of closely-related species in which one is herbivorous and the other is carnivorous. We also have examples of herbivores (e.g. sheep) eating meat on occasion. So there is considerable evidence that originally-herbivorous creatures becoming carnivorous is quite plausible, and so really nothing in science to refute the biblical claim of the animals ''originally'' being herbivorous.
: As far as plants and bacteria being alive is concerned, see [[classification system]] and realise that it depends on your definition. The modern scientific definition is that they are alive, but the biblical definition is that they are not. The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::...which is part of why I'm skeptical of Biblical inerrantism, Philip. I find it difficult to imagine anyone using that as their definition, and I find it extremely difficult to imagine that it's the definition God intended us to employ. There are, after all, a great many creatures other than plants and bacteria which do ''not'' breathe air through their nostrils.

::Biblical exegesis is well and good, but I think too many people place too much faith in the ability of modern man to accurately and faithfully analyze linguistic nuance. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Umm, yeah? What does that have to do with inerrancy? As the article on [[classification system]]s points out, "some systems may be better, or more useful than others, ''especially for a given purpose''" (emphasis altered). The point is, the Bible had a ''different'' purpose than modern science. The Bible's classification system wasn't intended for scientific use. Beyond that, your response amounts to saying, "I can't see how that would be useful, so the Bible must be wrong.", which makes your lack of imagination the benchmark for deciding biblical accuracy! What arrogance! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not at all. My response amounts to "When an assertion is made concerning the original meaning of the Bible, and when this assertion conflicts with observed evidence, it is likely that the assertion is in error." I must confess to not even being sure of which passage you're referring to, as the only passage I can think of offhand that mentions the breath of life in conjunction with the nostrils is Genesis 7:22--and no translation of Genesis 7:22 I have ever read makes "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." a benchmark for all that is living. In fact, it immediately links that qualifier to "...of all that was in the dry land." (There's also Genesis 2:7, but that's referring exclusively to Adam, so I can't imagine it's the basis of your claim.) If there is another line I'm overlooking elsewhere, please feel free to point it out; while I study the Bible, I do not claim to have it committed perfectly to memory, and it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking the line on which you base your argument.

::::Moreover, I can observe that the definition you offered ("The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.") seems rather strongly at odds with Genesis 1:20, which establishes that the creatures brought forth from the water had life. You could add the qualifier that this only applies to creatures on dry land, as per Genesis 7:22, but as I already pointed out, Genesis 7:22 does not establish that only those creatures that had the breath of life in their nostrils were alive; merely that the ones who did and were on dry land all died. It would be possible to argue that "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is in the poetic mode, and meant to refer to a broader range of respiration than strictly the nostrils, but that would also undermine the definition offered.

:::: Is my skepticism when someone says "The Bible says..." or "The Biblical definition is..." arrogance? Perhaps. I think it would be far more arrogant if I were to assume that current scholarship has so successfully captured the nuance and idiom of the autographic texts that no significant errors of understanding remain.

:::: I have faith in God. I know, however, how difficult it is to perfectly render an author's original intent even when you share the author's language, culture, and frame of reference. I would greet ''any'' claim by any scholar that they perfectly comprehended the idiom and tropes of a writer two thousand years dead with healthy skepticism. I know that some advance the argument that it is God's Word, and therefore, He will ensure understanding--but, again, that claim conflicts with what has been observed throughout history. Men...even saintly men...are capable of misunderstanding God's Word, and so coming to wrong conclusions about the world around them. God has not prevented this from happening, so it would be arrogant indeed to presume that He will do so now.

:::: If you want to argue that the writers of the Bible did not consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals, I completely agree; I take no issue with that part of your statement. Certainly, they didn't consider bacteria to be alive...it's extremely unlikely that they considered bacteria at all (I suppose it's possible that God revealed the existence of bacteria to them, but it seems pretty doubtful.) However, I disagree that the Bible defines living things as those that breathe air through their nostrils. I think a stronger case could be made for mobility, and even THAT is not offered as an exclusive definition. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

''NB: Following a request from Benp to move this discussion to another page, I have replied to him on [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment#Dinosaur discussion continuation|my talk page]]''.

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Adaptation and evolution ==
(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section. The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there. However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'm going to have to disagree with DavidR on a couple of his points, but then I will address the more substantial problems with Entheogenicorder's posts.

Leading creationists recommend that we ''don't'' talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is. The real problem is the ''type'' (or ''direction'') of change, not the ''size'' of the change.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a ''fact''. In science, the word "theory" does ''not'' imply something uncertain.

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

"''Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing''": As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one [[Definitions of evolution|defines evolution]] (read that). Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but microbe-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

"''If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.''", "''Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?''": I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He [[creation Week|''clearly'' told us that He created the world in six days]] (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

"''...accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof.''": No, we are accepting what God has clearly said about the ''history'' of this world over ''man-made'' theories by ''scientists'' trying to give us an alternative ''history''. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about ''history'').

"''[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today''": First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall. He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as ''the'' explanation, but it is a ''possible'' explanation. Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores. Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous—there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/279/] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

"''I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!''": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved? I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:If that is your take of things, I don't see why you have any problem with what I said. You may have misread my post, but I did not say anything about the ''size'' of an evolutionary change. Furthermore, I do not think microevolution takes size into consideration, rather it is influenced by type, as you stated. If you think that microevolution is change ''within'' a species, I cannot disagree. Also, you assume I think scientists who interpret the Theory of Evolution as scientific law are thinking clearly; I don't. In addition, a theory ''may'' not be something un''certain'', but it is certainly something un''proven''. That is all. I hope I cleared things up. :\ --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 22:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::I don't think you understand what a theory is-- It's not an unfounded guess. It's the closest you get to "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY TRUE" in science. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:: DavidR, I apologise for not being careful enough in my post. It's not that you said anything explicit about the size of the change, but size is what is implied in talking about ''micro''evolution vs. ''macro''evolution. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what people will likely understand from the user of those terms. It's not a matter of what I think microevolution is. The term is imprecise.
:: Nothing in science is considered ''proven'', so prepending "theory" to it does not downgrade it at all.
:: In case ''I'' need to clear anything up, I was disagreeing with you on those two points only; overall, I agreed with you.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this.

:::“''I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He clearly told us that He created the world in six days (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said''” God has not clearly said anything to me, has He told you in person? What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old and has been endlessly translated from one language to another. It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations. For example, it is widely accepted that Roman historical records prove the existence of Jesus at roughly the same time as we base our calendar around. Therefore, from studying similar Roman records from a later date, it should be considered that some time later, as is historically recorded, Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held. Therefore – for me – it is very difficult to be sure exactly what God told us. Please also see below.

:::“''We are accepting what God has clearly said about the history of this world over man-made theories by scientists trying to give us an alternative history. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about history).” '' I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said, not what God has directly said to you (unless he has?). The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes, especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’. In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical, not a popular view here I imagine but that is my understanding of it. For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years, representing levels of development and culminating in our evolution. With regards to your second point, because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields? You may argue that Religion covers all aspects of life, but a Physicist will probable tell you that so does Physics, and I would argue that so does Philosophy.

:::If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible, I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc, if it had also to be filled with dinosaurs. I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all for 40 days and 40 nights, especially if you take into account that the animals would have needed fresh food, fresh water, fresh hay to sleep on and of course, room to exercise.

:::“''Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on an herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores.”'' The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge. In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’. Carnivores have no mechanism for this. I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!

:::On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before any human – or mammal – remains have been found. This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong. I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:23, 1 February 2008 (BWT)

:::: I see that you've been doing what Andy refers to as [[liberal deceit]]. You make out that you believe at least some of the Bible ("I was brought up with ... the morals as taught by Christ", and "DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything"), now show your true colours, in that you don't think the Bible is reliable enough to take any notice of!
:::: "''God has not clearly said anything to me...''": He has, in the Bible, whether you choose to accept that or not.
:::: "''What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old ...''": Which is consistent with it being written at the time the events happened, which makes it more reliable than something written much later. So that's a ''good'' thing. Strike 1.
:::: "''...and has been endlessly translated from one language to another''": Incorrect, in the sense that you are implying. Modern English translations of the Bible have been translated ''directly'' from the original languages. Again, that supports the idea that it is accurate. Strike 2.
:::: "''It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations.''": You can "conceive" anything you want with a vivid enough imagination, but the ''evidence'' is that the manuscripts have been handed down ''accurately''. Strike 3; you're out.
:::: "''...Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held''": There's your imagination running away again. The evidence is otherwise.
:::: "''I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said...''": Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?
:::: "''The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes...''": Perhaps your difficulty stems from trying to read the literal as metaphorical. Or else you simply know little about making such distinctions. But your inability to do this does not give you ''carte blanche'' to pick and choose what to believe. The experts agree, for example, that the creation account was meant to be understood literally. The language is not that of metaphor. An example of metaphor is elsewhere in the Old Testament where is says that the trees clapped their hands.
:::: "''...especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’.''": Examples please?
:::: "''In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical...For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years.''": Well, you are wrong, as mentioned above, and as the link to [[Creation Week]] above explains. Did you read that?
:::: "''...because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields?''": Oh dear, another lack of comprehension. I wasn't talking about ''discussing'' multiple fields, but speaking ''authoritatively'' about them. Those scientists can discuss ''history'' as much as they like, but they have no more ''authority'' on the subject than me, and I'm not claiming any. I'm quoting other authorities and offering evidence, not claiming that I'm an authority. You can quote other scientists' arguments as much as you like, but the case stands or falls on the strength of their arguments, not their authority, because when it comes to ''history'', they have none.
:::: "''If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible...''": I don't. I accept that there are parables, metaphors, etc. in the Bible. But the Flood account is history, so...
:::: "''I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc...''": ''Proposed'' size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?
:::: "''I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all...''": Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)
:::: "''...for 40 days and 40 nights...''": Showing your ignorance again? The Bible records that they were on the ark for just over a year.
:::: "''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.''": Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary.
:::: "''In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’''": What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat. Which means that a carnivore would have problems eating vegetable matter, but a herbivore would not have the same problems eating meat. Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.
:::: "''Carnivores have no mechanism for this''": Yet some carnivores survive quite satisfactorily on a herbivorous diet.
:::: "''I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!''": There's been recent accounts of them doing so.
:::: "''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago...''": No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence.
:::: "''This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.''": No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.
:::: "''I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth.''": See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here]. I wouldn't normally direct you to an entire web-site for an answer to a specific question, but in your case, you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Admittedly I thought I was clearer at the start in saying that despite being brought up as a Christian, I do not follow the Religion in any institutionalized sense. I would like to point out that it was not a case of me consciously practising [[liberal deceit]]. I was brought up a Christian and I do believe that to deny the true nature of the universe is to take something away from the idea of God. I do believe in what the Bible has to say about loving your brother, equality among all men and many of the other important lessons which are put together into stories. My point here was to ask you to examine your own beliefs and for me to examine my own. As [[Socrates]] once said ‘a life unexamined is a life not worth living.’

:::::From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis, and for a large part it depends on their religious orientation. Many understand the main creation story literally, but others don’t. A small group of Christians, apparently known as '[[Progressive Creationists]]' have spoken to me about the 6-days of creation existing in a metaphorical sense, and this is where much of my confusion arises; if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page. What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities! I can understand the points in the [[Creation Week]] link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God, but my point is about the writing down of the Bible; it may be just my curious nature to question everything, but I would question; would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being? Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do? With regards to the reference to morning and evening; if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference? And even though it is partially covered in the [[Creation Week]] link, could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules and often with revelatory texts, seeks to break with tradition.

:::::You may believe that God spoke to you through The Bible and I may believe that he has, but I may also believe that Buddha has passed on some of his enlightened wisdom in his texts when he says; ‘do not believe on the faith of Sages of the past’. My point was that Moses (and others) traditionally wrote much of the Old Testament, and Moses was a man. Men often create or imagine figures of God or ideas of Spirituality in order to persuade themselves that they are inspired by a higher power. They also create ideas in order to manipulate groups of people into abiding by their will. Men are also often wrong. Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God, even if you believe that the Bible is exactly what Moses (etc.) said and wrote. As you well know, the first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Pentateuch". Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5. I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.

:::::My small point about translation (your Strike 1, 2 & 3) was questioning – as you point out the language is quite loose; ‘isn’t it conceivable that…over thousands of years’ etc. If you read the King James Version, it is most likely that you have as accurate version as possible. As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past, we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is. To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian, scientist, philosopher or anything, so even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.

:::::''Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?'' Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. I wrote, directly from me, that ‘Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible.’ You could only use this argument if I had said it to another person, who had then written it down and conveyed it to you. As I am saying it directly to you, there is less scope for my meaning to be lost. If I said it to an acquaintance of mine, who then thought about it and then passed it on to you, he may not convey my entire message. He may give you the gist of it, but not all of the intricate details, he may wish to elaborate on it, or even change some of the ideas if he couldn’t understand them, or he may even include his own ideas. So you see the difference I’m trying to establish; if God spoke to you in the same way he did Moses, then you would know that what he had said to you was the authentic Word of God, although there’s a fair chance you’d be called a maniac for preaching it. If God says something to Moses, who then writes it into stories and commentaries, or passes them on through generations of oral story telling as is argued by some scholars, then some of His meaning might be lost, confused, misinterpreted etc.

:::::''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.” Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary… What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat… …Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.”'' Firstly, it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence. I provided a brief summation of characteristics usually associated with herbivores, I didn’t mean to over-generalize because obviously there are some exceptions, but many dinosaur fossils found display the same attributes, for example, as elephants do, for grinding the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells. There are also obvious examples of dinosaurs whose physiology is generally geared towards hunting. Secondly, theoretically this is so, but moreover I was trying to examine the differences there can be between herbivores and carnivores. I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.

:::::''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago…” : No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence…” …this idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.: No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.”'' I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods. If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating, which have been used to accurately measure the ages of various buildings and relics around the world then please, let me know, but don’t try and discredit what I’m saying by using the evolutionary theory argument, because that is not relevant here. Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen [http://www.s8int.com/edom.html here], however when it is used to prove the age of the dinosaurs is millions of years, it is repudiated, often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’ or ‘the methods are inaccurate’, though most leading scientists maintain that these claims are [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html unfounded]. Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know. It is the dating techniques using ‘rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years’ to which I am referring.

::::: ''Proposed size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?'' No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better. 300 x 50 x 30 cubits could have meant anything to me; I thought maybe you could provide me with a useful answer of how big that would be in terms of commonly used measurements today, rather than attack the wording and theory of my question. Please also do not accuse me of readily dismissing anything; it is with some consideration and a desire for truth that I look beyond what I have been taught. Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!

:::::''You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough...'' Being English I love a good bit of sarcasm and that was pretty tasty! It was a sweeping generalization admittedly, but the reason for the ambiguity in figures is that as you can see above, I had no idea how big the stated size of the ark actually meant it was, and also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation, or a more general division.

:::::''I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.'' Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view. I can accept that some of the things I have written are probably wrong, and others have been phrased badly. I hope you can as well. My original post here had no real agenda, and this has now developed very much into a two person discusion of providing counter-arguments for each other without getting far. Whilst I have found it useful and also very interesting, I had hoped to find more of a discussion with a lot more theoretical and philosophical musings. I find it very frustrating that we, as humans, unconditionally rely on unproven science and theoretical history to prove our own points, whilst dismissing other science because it is only theoretical. That is the very point of science, and the very nature of it since Aristotle first set out a logical way of thinking. You observe, predict, then experiment and adjust; it is an ongoing process of refining and defining. Once you have created a theory, as a scientist the very first thing you should do is to examine it under the conditions it is most likely to be proved false. That is science; it doesn’t claim to know the ultimate answers, just guide you towards what’s right. While this is completely off-topic again, I found it very [http://members.aol.com/projbin/plerdyn.htm interesting]. I hope you don't find my points or arguments offensive because they aren't meant to be. As I have said before, my purpose here is understanding, hoping both to be understood and to understand. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:57, 5 February 2008 (BWT)

::::::"''From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis''": It depends on what "experts" you are referring to. There are many who claim to know what it means, but have little claim to the title "expert". The experts I was referring to were the ones mentioned in the Barr quote in [[Creation Week]]: professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities. According to Barr, they are all agree on the meaning of the text, that it was six ordinary days.
::::::"''...for a large part it depends on their religious orientation.''": For many of the so-called "experts", probably true. But the experts that Barr was quoting would not, for the most part, believe the account to be literally true. Barr himself is theologically liberal, I believe, but he is explaining what the text is saying, even though he doesn't believe that to be a true and accurate account.
::::::"''...if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page''": In that sense, your confusion is understandable. But you need to go beyond just noting that different groups have different beliefs and see how good their arguments are.
::::::"''What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities!''": That's being unkind (ascribing to them the motive of beleiving what suits them). Most non-fiction texts are literal peppered with metaphors. Take a newspaper, for example. You are meant to understand the news as literal events, but even that newspaper will include metaphors in the text, as metaphors are a normal everyday part of language. So there's nothing odd about the Bible being that way. Also, metaphors are discernable by the context. If the newspaper said that so-and-so had passed away after a heart attack, you know that "passed away" is a metaphor for "died", and you have no reason to wonder if "heart attack" is literal or metaphorical. Acknowledging that the Bible contains metaphor is not an argument of convenience, but a simple recognition of the nature of the text.
::::::"''I can understand the points in the Creation Week link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God...''": You don't need to do that, for most of them at least. The points are mostly to do with understanding the language.
::::::"''...would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being?''": Surely a perfect and omnipotent (and omniscient) being would have the capability of describing things in a way that Moses could understand?
::::::"''...Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do?''": Wouldn't God use language that Moses understood? Besides, from what we understand of God, He doesn't experience day and night: That is something that He created as part of His creation, so He would ''have to be'' talking about earthly days, not any other ones.
::::::"''...if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference?''": Why? Why explain the meaning of words to people who already understand the language?
::::::"''...could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules ...''": In order for something to be called "poetry", it has to follow ''some'' rules, else you could call any text poetry. Sure, the rules might differ in different cultures and at different times in history, but there's still got to be rules. There's no point proposing that a text is poetry without having some reason for doing so, and I don't consider a desire to not take the text literally to be such a reason.
::::::"'''Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God...''": I can be sure. That is, I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence of God's ultimate authorship of it to be convinced of that. You, of course, may not be so convinced. Some will never be convinced, because they will refuse to believe no matter what. But this is not the place to get into the evidence for that.
::::::"''Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5.''": I would not be the first nor the last time that someone has written of themselves in the third person. And it's more than tradition that it was written by Moses, including Jesus Himself testifying to that. Of course that doesn't mean that a later person (e.g. Joshua) didn't append an epilogue to it to record Moses' death, so that fact is not reason to reject Moses' authorship.
::::::"''I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.''": I also find Christians to be somewhat inconsistent like that, but I also find many sceptics, such as yourself, using loaded language, such as referring to people who believe the Bible as "Christians" and those who question it as "scholars". It is nonsense like this, along with many stupid and inconsistent arguments against the Bible, that causes sceptics to have little credibility even with Christians who are more open to examining critical views. A classic example is Thomas Paine using the very point that you used about Deuteronomy recording Moses' death meaning that Moses could not have written the book, yet he acknowledged in his own book that a previous edition ''contained something that he had not himself written''! Did he therefore reject his own authorship of his book? Or acknowledge that he was inconsistent in denying Mosaic authorship? Of course not. When it comes to criticising the Bible, very often anything goes, including inconsistency.
::::::"''As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past...''": So I guess you don't know when you were born?
::::::"''...we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is''": We can "know" what happened about as well as we can know anything. How do I know that man has been to the moon (which happened in my lifetime)? Because I saw evidence and heard that it happened from people I considered to be reliable. How do I know what happened during World War II (which happened before I was born)? The same answer. How do I know what happened 2000 years ago? The same answer. Sure, for much of history the evidence is quite scant, and so we can't be sure, but that's not true all the time, so in many cases we can be as sure of it as we can be of almost anything.
::::::"''To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian...''": Not true. If the evidence is scant, a historian may not have much to go on, but it ''is'' his area of authority.
::::::"''...even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.''": Because words in two different languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence, this is inevitable in a sense. But given the number of different experts (translators, etc.) who have studied this, the worst that can be said is that the English translations don't 100% convey every subtlety of the original languages. But that's a whole lot different to claiming that there is any substantial change that has occurred, and to therefore questioning the veracity of the Bible.
::::::"''Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. (rest snipped)''": The problem with your rebuttal is that it is a straw-man argument. If you wrote something down and gave it to your friend, and your friend carefully rewrote it verbatim and passed it on to me, there is no more chance of misunderstanding arising than if you had written it and given it directly to me. So my argument was not logically flawed. What you probably assumed before but have now stated explicitly is that the Bible was passed down by oral tradition. There's two problems with this. One is that the people at the time were quite practiced at accurately passing things on orally, as that was a common way of passing on information. The second problem is that I know of no reason why the Bible was ever passed on orally, and believe that it was always written down.
::::::"''...it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence.''": If you didn't offer evidence, it would have been an ''unsubstantiated assertion'', but providing evidence doesn't mean that it wasn't an assertion.
::::::"''I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.''": I don't see your point. I'm not claiming that all dinosaurs were carnivorous. God created creatures herbivorous. Some time later, some started eating meat (which, because of the reduced digestive requirements, should not pose any problems). As far as catching the meat is concerned, some creatures would be better at that than other creatures, specifically those that already had sharper teeth, for example. Furthermore, creationists claim that God provided a fair amount of built-in variability in the genes, so possibly there was already the capability of, for example, a variety of teeth forms so that some creatures might develop teeth better suited for carnivory, and natural selection then favours those creatures. You might think that this is evolution, but the distinction is that the "better" teeth required nothing new, as the genetic information already existed.
::::::"''I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods.''": The dating methods are based on evolutionary theory (or naturalism, to be more precise) and the fossils do not show evolution.
::::::"''If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating...''": See [[radiometric dating]].
::::::"''Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen here...''": Carbon dating, yes, but rarely if ever other forms. Carbon dating is able to be calibrated with artefacts of known age for the last few thousand years, so creationists don't take issue with those dates, but get beyond a few thousand years and the methods can't be calibrated.
::::::"''...often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’...''": I don't recall ''ever'' seeing that particular claim.
::::::"''Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know.''": Well, that puts you ahead of many of the evolutionists who argue with me!
::::::"''No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better.''": Modern translations have it in modern measurements, in footnotes if not the actual text. And it's really not that hard to find out what a cubit was anyway, and not my job to tell you something that you could so easily find for yourself.
::::::"''Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!''": Not only those alive today, but those that have gone extinct as well. The average size of a dinosaur was about that of a chicken, if I recall correctly. Only relatively few were really large creatures, and it would have been better (for reproduction after the flood) to take young dinosaurs onto the ark, not fully grown ones. But I'm glad to see that you have learnt something! I don't think you're totally correct about the size of ancient boats, though.
::::::"''...also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation...''": If you read what the leading young-Earth creationists claim, instead of their critics and people who haven't really studied it, there would have been no reason for your confusion.
::::::"''Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view.''": What makes you think I only know it from one point of view? I get evolution thrust at me in the media, on the Internet, in endless debates with sceptics, in science journals and magazines, and books. I know quite a bit about both sides of the issue. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have relatively little knowledge of the creationist side of the issue. Hence my comment was justified. How much reading of the creationist view ''have'' you done?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== Dinosaurs are not Reptiles ==

Please remove that. >_< [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
:Why aren't they reptiles? I can find a number of sources that say that they are. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, reptiles are cold-blooded. The size and location of dinosaur remains, as well as their internal bone structures, have resulted in the discovery that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless this is [[common knowledge]], we'll need a reference or source for it. The article's not protected. --JJJ {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::: It's not common knowledge, because, as I said, I can find a number of sources that say that dinosaurs are reptiles. So I agree a source is needed. And I have two questions. 1) Is cold-bloodedness (still) considered a defining characteristic of reptiles (as distinct from a typical characteristic)? That is, does finding that dinosaurs are warm-blooded mean that they are not reptiles, or does it mean that cold-bloodedness is no longer considered an absolute requirement of reptilianness? 2) Have all dinosaurs been found to be warm-blooded, or just some? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is my understanding that some dinosaurs were found to be warm-blooded. I am not aware of any reclassification away from Reptilian. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why does this page and these thoeries ignore Megafauna? ==

Do you guys even know about megafauna? Why do you automaticlly assume that if antiquity mentions large animals, they are mentioning dinosaurs?

What about the megalania? Or the giant sharks, turtles and crocs of 30,000 years ago? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
: I know about megafauna, but what I don't know is what relevance they have to this article. Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Loch Ness Should Be Removed==

I dont want to get in to the debate of whether or not dino's were around with people or not but I think the Loch Ness section should be removed. Numerous reseachers have scoured the Loch and found nothing, no concrete evidence has been found and the famous "Surgeons picture" was admitted as fake by the surgeon on his deathbed. I may not agree with the premise of this article however I do believe it should a least remain *credible*.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:29, 19 February 2008 (EST)
: I'm not an expert on the Loch Ness monster, but I would have thought that there were a number of other claimed sightings that a particular picture being faked doesn't change a lot. The entry is already there in a qualified way rather than a definite way, so I don't think it matters a lot, and is (as far as I know) accurate in that people who believe it exists think that it could be a plesiosaur. But removing it wouldn't bother me too much. Anyway, I've unlocked the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'll take it out. Also, if there was a pleisour there it would have to be very old and there is not enough food to support a large carnivore such as a dinosaur. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:Maybe we can classify Nessie as "reported" - pending a really clear photo or some bones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Name==
The Greek translation of the name "dinosaur" is to be included; it is part of the history of the subject. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

==Source for claim needed==
The section regarding human and dinosaur fossils states that "It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn't live together." We should consider providing a citation that shows a prominent evolutionist making such an assertion. The current citation is unfortunately inadequate as it also fails to give an example. I fear that without such backing, this comes off sounding like a straw man argument. Any thoughts? Does anyone know where we can find something like this? [[User:Jdisciple|Jdisciple]] 11:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: The article doesn't claim that "prominent evolutionists" say this. I've added a reference to TalkOrigins saying effectively what this article refers to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Philip I believe you have misinterpreted the TalkOrigins response. When he says "There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs" he is talking about that none are found within the same period of time, and he goes on to say "If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places." That statement should be taken out unless someone can show a credible source of "some evolutionary scientists" making that assertion. [[User:AliG|AliG]] 12:05, 13 December 2009 (EDT)

== Error ==

There's an error about halfway through the article, inthe part about Dinosaurs possibly still living. it reads:
*
o Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag;

refs with no content must have a name

I thought the page might have loaded badly but refreshing the page doesn't change it. [[User:Bryankershaw|Bryankershaw]] 20:42, 30 July 2008)

: should be fixed now. thanks for pointing that out -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Evidence? ==

Much of your evidence functions on the basis that people have reported seeing it therefore it exists. This logic is flawed with examples such as Big Foot, the Lochness Monster and many other creatures of Urban Legend. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: Are you saying that claimed sightings of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tasmanian Tiger, and so on are to be totally ignored? Then why have various authorities spent considerable sums of money looking for those things (the Loch Ness monster, at least)? It's because claimed sightings, although certainly not conclusive ''proof'' by themselves, are valid ''evidence''.
: And no, the article does not say "people have reported seeing it therefore it exists" or anything amounting to that. Rather, it says that creationists have a range of arguments, one of which is that various sightings support that they have existed in human history.
: I will concede, however, that the arguments other than reported sightings are only briefly mentioned, compared to the sightings which are covered at some length.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)

----

== Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings ==

In one of the bullets, this page claims, "That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the Cretaceous strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times." Am I the only one that thinks this sounds ridiculous? It really should be taken out, although I am worried it will just be put back in. [[User:MikeRi|MikeRi]] 17:11, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

*This is something relating to Young Earth Creationism, Mike. Since all I know of it is from my exposure to it here, I don't involve myself with such issues. I would recommend you curtail your involvement with such issues here at CP, rather than be judgmental about something you are not expert on, however. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:19, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

*I agree with Mike, we should take out that out the part about Dinosaurs still being around. There's no evidence to support that Dinosaurs have not gone extinct, none from the Bible or any other Conservative doctrine. And TK you didn't have to be so offensive, in fact it's commonly believed that Dinosaurs are in fact extinct, and there's no expert that would say that they are not. Please restrict your involvement on an issue that you have no knowledge of. From your fellow Conservative.--[[User:CraigR|CraigR]] 21:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

== Argument about relative abundance of marine and terrestrial fossils ==

I have removed the argument that human and dinosaur fossils are not found together because most fossils are marine and we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all. This is EXACTLY THE SAME argument used by scientists to explain gaps in the sequence of human evolution, and the obvious danger from the creationist point of view is that after accepting this argument to explain the lack of human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, scientists are going to demand that it's also accepted to explain the absence of ape/human transitions. --[[User:Voiceoftruth2006|Voiceoftruth2006]] 10:36, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Popular Culture Re-Work ==

Removed prior (terrible) info and added a framework to start building up that section again with better information. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:22, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Iridium ==

This article included a query about the prevalence of iridium at the K-T boundary. The global average of iridium levels in the boundary layer is 15 times the background level, peaking at 160 times background near the crater (Alvarez et al, 1980.)

Dinosaur

2011-08-15T23:50:15Z

Jcw: Undo revision 901371 by SmartConservative (talk)

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosaurs===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.[citation needed]

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
** Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actua very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
*Some believe the [[Loch Ness Monster]] to be a [[Plesiosaur]].

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
Creation science shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref> <ref> Find the full quote on [http://books.google.com/books?id=mAIjnLp6r_MC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Ernst+Mayr+1942+%22It+must+be+admitted,+however,+that+it+is+a+considerable+strain+on+one%27s+credulity+to+assume%22&source=bl&ots=TRDzBtumPF&sig=XwvnT327A9sn3Uvs0RLOaQNo5Zo&hl=en&ei=P6H6Te37LMSwhAf03fimAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false], starting from line 6. </ref> }}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|251px|right|There is excellent evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. During a visit to the [[Creation Museum]], the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO] See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<ref>http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers</ref>

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
Dinosaurs have been a fixture of popular culture since their discovery. It is theorized that some of the myths of fantastical creatures stem from the accidental discovery of dinosaur fossils. More recently, dinosaurs have featured in popular stories including books, movies, television, video games, even music.

Dinosaurs were introduced to a wide modern audience when movies like the Jurassic Park series were released.
== See also ==

*[[Evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Young earth creationism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

User talk:Iduan

2011-08-15T23:33:58Z

Jcw:

{{User talk:Iduan/header}}
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal">
*2007
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]
*[[/Archive5|(December)]] 
*2008
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]
*[[/Archive7|(February)]]
*[[/Archive8|(August)]] 
*2009
*[[/Archive9|(January)]]
*[[/Archive10|(February)]]
*[[/Archive11|(March)]]
*[[/Archive12|(April)]] 
*2010
*[[/Archive13|(January)]]
*[[/Archive14|(June)]]
*[[/Archive15|(July)]] 
*2011
*[[/Archive16|(March)]]
*[[/Archive17|(April)]]
*[[/Archive18|(May)]]

</div>
|}

==#1 on Google==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]], since the recent upgrade, has leap frogged ahead of Wikipedia's article, and Mr. Barack Obama's very own website to occupy the [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACAW_enUS425US426&q=barack+hussein+obama #1 position on Google]. Thank you, it was a brilliant idea, and very well executed. It is someting you need to be very proud, and we all appreciate your excellent work.

If I can be of any futher assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
: Rob I couldn't have done it without you - I almost feel as though I should've posted this on your page first! I am very proud of the work we did, and the work that's been done since; thank you so much for your kind words.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:58, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

== math ==

Greetings. I was about to do another round of the revert war with ELWisty on the ham sandwich stuff, and then saw that you had already done it. I don't know what to do about him. This "revert willful ignorance" stuff is pretty outrageous. A year ago he would have been banned so fast his head would spin, but in this new era of a "kinder gentler Conservapedia" I want to show caution and forbearance first, and the door second. But, make no mistake about it, he is either a parodist or so ignorant that he doesn't know the difference. Next, I have to confront him on "willful ignorance" in the "Gabriel's horn" article. Spider-sense is tingling strongly.

But we all have more important things to work on. I want to get into the issue of objectifying block reasons, which is a big project lately, but I've been awfully busy. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:05, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

:Holy sh*t. He's in full-scale revert war. ''I've got better things to do than deal with people like this!'' I want to help contribute to the ongoing project to make this a nicer place. But I guess part of being a better place is having articles get written with good judgment. Sigh. Asbestos suit--check. Flamethrower--check. Machine gun--check. Air cover--check. ..... [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry for not responding for so long; I was all over the place but I assure you I read your comments and payed attention to what was going on, hence my recent block of the user. I must admit I'm out of my depth when it comes to the topic at hand, I've never heard of it before. But I'm hesitant to believe that the user is editing in bad-faith, I think perhaps he misunderstands encyclopedic style and can be overly curt and aggressive. hopefully the short block will change things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:42, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== Sorry about the Madonna stuff ==

I've been editing the article a bit, and Legolas has chirped in to revert on a couple of occassions and his comments have all been directed toward EdPoor (and a bit over-the-top). It's been annoying. I ''think'' I've only commented about it in 2 places: 1) on Legolas's talk page and 2) on JamesWilson's talk page after he became involved and then commented on my talk page. I'll cease, though. Have a great day! [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:I apologize as well, and feel bad I got in this in the first place. I'm done too.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 16:21, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::It's no problem! You're both editing in good faith - that's super awesome. I felt it was getting over the top (with multiple messages to Ed and Andy), hence my comment, but no one's done anything wrong. Happy editing--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:24, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Alphanumeric9 block this guy please]. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 17:35, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:Never mind I see Andy took care of him. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 17:37, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== RobS/Conservative comments ==

I take your point (about the general tone of the RobS/Conservative argument), but of course I daren't redact comments made by sysops. I've been rather appalled, however, by all the users who really have no say in these matters shooting their mouths off. I think it hurts the site in a lot of ways, so I've been trying to clean it up. However, I'm sure you're right; I'll back off and leave it to the sysops. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:No I absolutely agree that the general tone of the debate is terrible (and the newer users instantly jumping it is also unsettling to me, so I share your resentment towards that kind of trolling). I've been trying to clean it up as well - and I applaud your effort; it's just that I have been, on occasion, been using [[Template:personal remark removed]] or reverting sysops, and I can't in good conscience say that TracyS's comment - while, again, I completely disagree from it - wasn't far more civil than content from higher-ups on both sides that I ''haven't'' reverted, but you're doing a great job.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks, I quite understand the position now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop ==

Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop:

If you want to create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps of Conservapedia, my suggestion at the present time is for a group of Conservapedians to pick a topic and then have editors create as many quality articles relating to that topic that are at least 500 words long. I would suggest that the articles not be stubs because that is not going to enhance the reputation of Conservapedia nor give it a sense of accomplishment. I created this project for a couple of editors who seemed interested in this topic: [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]] I suggest creating a project with more widespread appeal because atheism is not on most people's radar in terms of the public at large - especially in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== more math ==

Well, I've been distracted, as have we all, by you-know-what lately, and it's time to pick up a few loose ends. This will mostly involve talk pages; I hope I'm not running close to 90/10 territory.

I need to answer ELWisty rather than leave him hanging. I think all he needs is a little guidance. He now seems to understand how to behave.

Also, there's this guy "JimJast" or whatever, posting stuff that is setting off my crackpot alarms. I've got to sound him out. He may need serious refutation. There is just so much about what he writes that is, well, wrong.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== some input ==

Please see: [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11 ==

The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings You can ignore my email asking you to invite people as I already did it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== RobS ==

Hi Iduan. I understand why you've changed RobS's block back and I have no intention of arguing over it - you have a lot more standing around here, so I'm sure you've done the right thing. However, I don't want you to think I was acting without reason. As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to drag the details out in public, but since his demotion and blocking RobS has been on a spree, insulting CP's sysops in the basest fashion on the vandal wiki. If you say that doesn't warrant an infinite block I'll accept that, I just wanted you to know what my reasoning was. To be perfectly frank, I was - and am - somewhat angry at RobS's behavior. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:12, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:I understand the anger. To be clear, while I agreed with a good percentage of Rob's ideas - as many users did (as evidenced by Conservative's current effort to change blocking policy) - I think that he contributed to a spirit of incivility that plagued every user on the site. You don't have to travel to see this - inflammatory comments by him can be found in the archives of pages on Conservapedia (but I would also point out that he was not the only guilty one). Still, pending evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe that Rob is a good faith editor - who has made many real contributions to this site; if and until Andy or another sysop makes the decision that he should leave permanently, I will obviously respect that, but for now Andy's decision appears to be that Rob should take a short break. And as far as my "standing" goes - I see you as an equal and I respect you as a user, so please don't take any of this personally.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:21, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::I think that's a very reasonable position, in light of which I won't say any more on the subject. I certainly don't take any of it personally. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:33, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Jcw

2011-08-15T23:30:10Z

Jcw: /* RobSmith block */

User talk:Jcw

2011-08-15T23:14:03Z

Jcw: /* RobSmith block */