Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T16:15:27Z

LoganBertram: /* Solar Fusion */

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== Sources ==

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

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

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

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

== Newsweek ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Receding Moon ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pattern ==

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

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

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

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

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

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

For short: not a good example, neither.

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

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

== Speculations ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Solar Fusion ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Geothermal Activity ==

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

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

== Questionable Probabilities ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T16:07:22Z

LoganBertram: /* Receding Moon */

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T15:59:38Z

LoganBertram: /* Receding Moon */

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

::Many of them also believe that the moon was formed from the debris of a meteor strike and it has been moving away from the surface ever since. If we extrapolate the math back to 10 billion years, we get this as our conclusion. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 18:00 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T15:55:08Z

LoganBertram: /* Sources */

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T15:49:53Z

LoganBertram: /* Answer to Aschlafy */

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T15:44:22Z

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

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T15:20:29Z

LoganBertram: /* Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory */

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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/>

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T15:18:11Z

LoganBertram: /* Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory */

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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/>

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T15:04:28Z

LoganBertram: /* Reply to above 4 comments */

'''''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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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/>

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-08-09T22:45:07Z

LoganBertram: /* Why do they do it? */

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Drudge Bias ==

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

: You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

: As a fairly active Wikipedia editor myself, I can attest that I post only what I can back up with primary, non-editorialized sources. That being said, this isn't always the case for all Wikipedia users. Since the site is entirely user generated, there is a great deal of room for opinion to filter in. The fact is, any user generated site, this one especially included, is prone to the whims and biases of its users, and it is the job of other editors to call attention to these biases and ensure their verification. So, if anyone has a problem with liberal bias in Wikipedia, they can fix it by posting a well cited edit, which is, unfortunately, more than I can say for this site, which allows protected and edit-proof pages. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 6:44 9 August 2010 (EST)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Negative Words ==

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are using. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

===Racistpedia===
I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
:I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

:::You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Cover up ==

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Messy ==

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

== o3o ==

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight

:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Concealing facts==

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

==a question==

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia ''because'' it has liberal bias and gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

== Jim Pouillon ==

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pouillon Jim Pouillon]

==I beg to differ==

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like?
I am willing to debate about this. --[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

:Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

:Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

::First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.
::I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
::I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.
::Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the [[Evolution]] page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?
::Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
:::'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our [[Evolution]] and [[Carbon dating]] pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our [[Liberal Style]] article. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::::John Fraiser, the [[Liberal Style]] is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.
::::I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:::::Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the [[radiometric dating]], not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the [[global warming]] fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

:::::The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

== "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " ==

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious [[placement bias]]? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)
:::::You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah." ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:ISLAM#Allah]

Worth including?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Possible Bias ==

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wind turbine line ==

If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states:
'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.

:The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here. A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.

:The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Hans Bethe and SDI ==
Links:
*[[Hans Bethe]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Manhattan Project]]
*[[atomic bomb]]
*[[quantum physics]]
*[[Nobel Prize]]
*[[SDI]]
*[[nuclear proliferation]]

Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president." Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics. If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him. Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic. He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president. While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics. SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering. But apparently he knew his politics: he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all. All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute. And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community. He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb. That is an exaggeration. You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe. The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard. It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement. But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such. It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia. Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack." And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion. As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"? We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less). And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything. So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.

:::::Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me. I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat. While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader. But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.

:::::p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths. Support for the program is not somehow self-evident. There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."

::::::Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view. Physics is not engineering. I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact. (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)

::::::This is a common form of liberal bias: cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too. It's fallacious and should be exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now. First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense. For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because her critical stance was important and controversial at the time.

:::::::Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"? Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise? Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists? Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian? Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses. Cheers. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::Jane Fonda was only "important" concerning Vietnam because of her highly publicized betrayal. No one respected Jane Fonda's expertise on military strategy, and there's no reason to think Hans Bethe had any expertise on engineering with respect to SDI. Wikipedia might as well feature Jane Fonda's opinion about SDI also!

::::::::More generally, it's a [[liberal trick]] to take a liberal who claims expertise in one field and try to pass him off as an expert in another field. That's what Wikipedia does with Bethe's opinion about SDI, and it is deceptive. Feel free to preface Bethe's liberal opinion about SDI with a disclaimer like, "Someone who had no training or expertise in engineering, Hans Bethe, was a critic of the engineering feasibility of SDI." See how many seconds that clarification lasts on Wikipedia before a liberal censors it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::::That seems to be a slippery slope: Do you accept only the opinions of experts? Are only biologists allowed to speak about evolution? Then Conservapedia's article on [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] should be introduced by the sentence : "Someone who had no training or expertise in biology, Andrew Schlafly, was a critic of [[Lenski]]'s work and wrote the following...."
:::::::::[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 08:17, 26 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::::No, we don't overrely on "experts", see [[best of the public]]. We do object to how liberals deceitfully present an "expert opinion" in a field about which he has no expertise, as in the Bethe case. And since you raised the example of Lenski, have you been able to figure out which field his college education was in?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 26 January 2010 (EST)

== Stats? ==

I noticed the claim added by a user that 'more than half of wikipedia users who claim to Christian are in fact mocking Christianity'

While saying 'some' might be appropriate, without any statistics to back that up the claim of 'more than half' is dubious at best. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 08:16, 26 January 2010 (EST)

:I added that in, it seemed like more than half to me, but I didn't count. Honestly the whole section should be re-worded; I doubt sincerely that the page includes all Wikipedia editors, or even all of the prominent ones. The page is a joke, but it's worth mentioning on here. The section needs to be written in a way that doesn't assume any kind of ''accuracy'' on the part of the poll, and instead focuses on the staggering anti-religion content it drew.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:20, 2 February 2010 (EST)
:I also think this page could be looked at: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion] . It's probably alot more reliable, and has atheists or agnostics making up 3252 pages of users, and supposed Christians 1540 pages.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)

::Please add your info as you think best. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, I re-wrote it and included the new link. I came to the conclusion of ''8 times'' as atheistic, since 2/3 = ~66%, and 8x8=64. Math isn't my area though.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 21:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== Saul Alinsky - wiki wont allow debate ==

I've added the following to the Saul Alinsky wiki page:

It is the opinion of some that Saul Alinksy was an avowed communist and believed that the only route to pure communism was the destruction of Capitalism. Those that hold this belief point to Alinsky's own words written in his book 'Rules for Radicals' "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

Unfortunately, this is repeatedly removed due to 'vandalism'. I can only guess that they're trying to make believe that Saul ALinsky was a righteous patriot and stating facts that tarnish their propaganda is considered 'vandalism'

:Feel free to add it to the list here of more than 200 examples of Bias in Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

::the first problem here is that alinsky is describing marxists in that quote, and not himself. if you want to claim that he was an avowed communist you need to have him saying 'i am an avowed communist' or 'i believe that evils are caused by capitalism blah blah blah', not 'marxists believe that all evils are caused by capitalism'. just because someone is describing what marxists believe doesnt make that person a marxist. i really dont know anything about alinsky, and have no idea what he was. im just trying to describe why your edit got rejected with some detail. secondly, wikipedia articles about living people try to have much more strict rules about what gets in. so if person X is really a believer in philosophy Y, you need a reputable news source that is quoting him about it, or describing his book, or whatever. IE, if his book was really a big deal, then Im sure some reviews of it were published in various magazines or even academic journals, which you could probably find pretty easily with some help from a reference librarian and a good old academic article database at a library. but basically wikipedia has to have some rules about 'living person' articles in order to avoid libel and slander lawsuits, it cannot afford to let unreviewed opinions get put into articles about living people (although it does happen and there are many cases where wikipedia's rules have failed or been inconsistent... but that doesnt mean the rules themselves are bad ideas imho). good luck with any future editing you do there. [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:03, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

== I've heard stories of this, can anyone find a proven example? ==

A few years back, a professor of mine told me that he'd seen a case where Wikipedia had made some false claims and cited some made up study. A few weeks later, quite a few websites had picked up the study from Wikipedia. Somebody then removed the original made up reference on Wikipedia and cited the websites which had got it from Wikipedia!!

Wikipedia has now got so big that it can do this. It can actually make things up, people follow it, then it can cite the followers! It can MAKE UP facts then MAKE them well-referenced. If we could just find a proven case of this, it'd really improve this article.

::::::[[User:Newton|Newton]] 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Newton - a few years back someone at wikipedia wrote some article about some famous guy and had his name wrong, but it used as a reference some newspaper or something. the newspaper, though, had used wikipedia for a reference. however, the problem is that in the long run, this error got corrected soo... this particular case doesnt prove wikipedia is hopeless, it just proves that wikipedia's "reliable reference" policy has loopholes and errors in it. im sure there are worse examples though if one digs hard enough. the problem though, is that this sort of 'circular reference' error is not something inherent to wikipedia... any media of any form could succumb to this error. for example a radio show might repeat what it heard in a newspaper, a different reporter at another newspaper references the radio story, another reporter at the original newspaper references the second newspaper, etc. sooo another question is this,,, is wikipedia somehow inherently 'more likely' to have a 'circular reference' error than other media outlets? or less likely? and another question.... what makes conservapedia immune from such an error itself? [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:09, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

== Thank you Conservapedia ==

In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias. I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example. The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned. The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ). A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. {{unsigned|Trvl2much}} -- 09:56, 25 April 2010

== Richard Dawkins - contrast Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia soon once more information is added to the Dawkins article ==

Once a significant amount of new information on Richard Dawkins is added to the Richard Dawkins article at Conservapedia I want to highlight the deficiencies of the Wikipedia article and show how their NPOV policy is often a policy in name only. We might even write an open letter to the atheist Mr. Wales and ask him why certain pieces of information is being left out of the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article. Of course, that could be done with the Wikipedia atheism article as well. Since the USA and other countries have such a low estimation of atheism, it might be helpful to point out that the wiki founded by two atheist doesn't adhere to their NPOV policy when it comes to their Richard Dawkins and atheism articles. I had heard that with social media websites around the internet you can help spread a message far and wide. I certainly hope that is true. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Too long! ==

Can this list be split into sublists, perhaps based on topic? It is incredibly long and hard to find information when it is just a list of 200+ items. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 09:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:I'm making this change. My browser just doesn't even load this page. Even the header on the page says it's 200+ KB long, and 32 is the recommended limit. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 18:28, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

== Vladimir Lenin ==

Number 4 on this list states that "Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers." In Conservapedia's article on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (for some as-yet-unknown reason titled simply "Lenin"), Conservapedia mentions that the birth date of Vladimir Lenin coincides with the date of Earth Day. As both Mr. Lenin and Earth Day are objects of dislike among conservatives (Lenin led the October Revolution, bringing in an era of communism; he must be the conservative's rough equivalent to Satan), isn't it sort of hypocritical to accuse Wikipedia of using trivia to bias an article in favor of one person, and then to turn around and do the same thing on Conservapedia? [[User:msirois|msirois]] 11:08, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

:That isn't senseless trivia. Many of the [[communists]] poured into the environmentalist movement, and Earth Day may have been picked for that connection. It's a striking coincidence, and we let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== #12 - Not a good example ==

While there is not doubt Wikipedia is a haven for pro-homosexual thinking, the example of KAPITALIST88 getting blocked is not a good one. I looked into the history of this editor. He used language to attack people that no good person should use. Now, we can forgive his passion in the face of sodomites, but he was challenged about a photograph that he claimed was his own and was then demonstrated to be taken from a website. While others may steal (as with all copyright violation), this editor repeatedly lied about it, thereby breaking the 9th commandment against false witness. I will remove the reference but leave the rest of the text since I believe it's true. But we need o be better than than celebrating sin to advance our cause.[[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:01, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:Sources? Citations? You expect us to just take your word on this? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:09, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::I'm sorry. Here is the section from his talk page history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335552970&oldid=335183331]. Also, here is the section where the other editors discuss his behavior including their concerns about copyvio and what seems to be his repeated efforts to pretend that the photo was his and not taken from a newspaper website [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KAPITALIST88&oldid=335767502#Blocked_3] Thanks. [[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:15, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-08-09T19:33:44Z

LoganBertram: /* Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) */

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::: I call gps a pretty darned useful invention but it doesn't work if you don't take into account relativistic effects. I think that not knowing where relativity is used speaks volumes as to how close minded those trying to disprove relativity, which is different from relativism. (a point completely overlooked by the page) [[User:Gaurdro|Gaurdro]] 12:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:: No. Eating an Apple helps you by giving your body some of the chemical components that constitute the apple. Components which also happen to help you fight off viruses and the like. The same is true for the aspirin. Both are well defined chemical processes that involve no increase or decrease in the amount of matter or energy in the system. Healing (such as Jesus mending the ear of the soldier), would involve the rapid solidification of matter that was not there before (ie. the new ear). This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The point is,if you're going to use miracles or signs to disprove a physical theory, you have to apply the argument to universally. But you don't because attacking the Second Law of Thermodynamics would knock the crutch of misinterpreted Newtonian Physics you have been leaning on out from underneath you.
::[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 3:32 9 August 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::::::Here's a good source: [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf | US Navy]. As for engineers not bothering to learn relativity, I think that's a mite off the mark. I'm an engineer and I had to take a class dealing with the basics of SR, and I'm just an electrical engineer. Aerospace engineers certainly deal with relativity a great deal, as do nuclear engineers. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:26, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

::Sorry, Frank. {{unsigned|PhyllisS}}

:::As far as I can see there is no reason to feel sorry for FrankC: Your article only covers the idea of using the [[Lorentz transformation instead]] of the [[Galileo transformation]] when calculating the position of an object: one could say that it is about the relativistic effects caused by the movement of the GPS receiver, not of the GPS satellites. That's why it's talking about ''fast moving air-planes and satellites''.
:::FrankC (and others) have shown that there are relativistic effects on the satellites which are taken account of:
::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:

::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
::: (From [[Talk:Global Positioning System]])
::: [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:44, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Yill, I recommended the Bible because, as Isaac Newton pointed out, working on translating the Bible increases the quality of one's work in other areas, including science. Sure, I could drop everything else I'm doing and spend all day correcting you about this entry, but if you just picked up a Bible and improved your own work, then I could learn from you instead. I'll correct your misunderstandings below but doubt I will spend much more time responding to you if you're not willing to put in open-minded effort on your own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Reversion was necessary for two reasons: first, to restore material that was improperly censored, and second, to revert an imprecise label put on one of the counterexamples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I won't undo your reversion for now. But I fail to understand your reasoning, so perhaps you could clarify a bit instead of making the one sentence assertions that have made up your discourse so far. There is no censorship here, merely deletion of objectively incorrect statements. Perhaps you could actually bother to respond to my points above, rather than just reverting my edits without justification. In the meantime, I will replace the periods I added at the end of several of the counterexamples for formatting consistency; hopefully you don't consider ''that'' to be "censorship" as well. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 20:48, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::You deleted valid information. Gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. Without GR gravitons would not be expected; with GR people do expect to find them. The wholesale deletion of reference to this is unwarranted, and simply conceals a real flaw in GR.

:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims. Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above. You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make. But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either. On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM? (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be. For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Gravitons were historically proposed in trying to reconcile GR with QM. Other theories of gravity may not require gravitons at all. Does string theory? Gravitons are thereby attributable to GR, not to the more developed and better verified QM. ''Simply look at the name "gravitons" itself''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::Actually, any quantum theory of gravity, whether it reduces to GR at large scales or not, requires gravitons ''by definition''. Do you even understand what a graviton ''is''? ''The quantum of a gravitational field.'' Just as any quantum theory of electromagnetism ''must'' include the photon in its particle spectrum, any quantum theory of gravity ''must'' include the graviton in its particle spectrum. And yes, string theory requires them; the entire reason string theory started being developed as a theory of everything is that gravitons (i.e. massless spin-2 bosons) naturally appear as part of its particle spectrum! [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Yill, do you know what [[action-at-a-distance]] is? It doesn't require the fictional gravitons. Newtonian mechanics doesn't require such imaginary particles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Do you know what ''quantum'' means? Please acknowledge that you do, and that you know Newtonian mechanics is not a quantum theory, and therefore that ''your response does not address my concern.'' [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself. It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution. The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present. Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it. The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here. I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not. (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.) This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy. Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::A ''type'' of inflation is proposed to try to explain the unexpected flatness. But there's no way around the basic problem: GR says that space is curved by matter, and an overall flatness is impossible under such a model. Yet an overall flatness is what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I still don't understand what you're saying. The ''overall'' visible universe ''is'' flat, at scales large enough that it can accurately be modeled as homogeneous and isotropic. (These scales are beyond the sizes of galactic clusters.) But on much smaller scales, where these assumptions obviously break down, matter does indeed curve spacetime; the phenomenon of gravitational lensing is precisely such an example. If you are at all confused by these different notions, I would recommend taking a look at a modern textbook on the subject; Barbara Ryden's ''Introduction to Cosmology'' is a good place to start. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::Dark matter supposedly permeates the universe, and there's no way it would be flat if GR were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Okay, now ''that'' is a total non sequitur. Again, instead of making blanket assertions, perhaps you should learn why, given that they believe dark matter permeates the universe ''and'' that it is flat on large scales, cosmologists still think GR works. Let me enlighten you. If the universe were evenly filled with a uniformly dense substance, the curvature would be flat. Yet there were would be matter in it! And that's it. On large enough scales, that's how the universe appears. Hence there is no contradiction. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

== Proposed page move ==

Can someone rename the article so the R is lowercase in the title? Thanks, [[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:21, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:Why? The term refers to a specific theory, and the many counterexamples to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:31, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::My simple rationale is "relativity" is not a proper noun. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Wikipedia uses the lowecase] and so does [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Wester's], so why not here? --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:36, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:::It's not a traditional proper noun, you're right, but it does satisfy all the conditions underlying why proper nouns are capitalized. It is a unique term-of-art, having a specific meaning other than the general meaning of the word. As used in physics, "Relativity" is different from the generic "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::However, it is my belief, "relativity" in this case should not be treated differently. Look at the Wikipedia article, it uses "relativity" in that sense. Also, the [[theory of relativity|CP article on the subject]] uses the lowercase as well, so I still see no point in capitalizing it here. --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 23:07, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: The word "relativity" dates from the early 1800s. That's not what is being discussed here. If preceded with "theory of" then there is no need to capitalize; if stand-alone, however, it does add clarification to capitalize as is done for other specific concepts that differ from the generic names.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

== Curl of the gravitational field ==

Sorry to get over-technical, but the fundamental law of "fictitious forces" (including gravity) is that the force field (divided by the mass of the test object) is

<math>G^i = - \Gamma^i_{00}</math>

Its curl is

<math>(\nabla \times G)^i = \mathcal{E}^{ijk} g_{km} G^m_{;j}</math>
where the semicolon indicates the covariant gradient.

When you work this out, it involves derivatives of the <math>\Gamma\,</math> quantities. In general relativity, the results are zero by symmetries of Riemann's tensor.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 21:33, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

: Perhaps so, but the "twin paradox" in Relativity states that the age of each twin is dependent on his path of travel. For a conservative field, all physical parameters are path independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Simeon, your mathematical work is rigorous and correct. However, the twin paradox example is interesting to study here. I am aware that the twin paradox is solved by the non-inertial turn-around of the ship when it is going back home. However, in this solution, it is still noted that there is an age difference between the twins. [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm Wikipedia affirms this] and so do [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm other sites]. Such an age difference in twins shows that there is some sort of path dependence. I understand that traveling at near-c speeds in space is not the same thing as moving from point A to B in a gravitational field, but the concept does seem to be a bit similar. Could you maybe explain this for us a bit? Thanks. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 00:52, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

OK, I think I understand. I assumed that the "conservative field" / "curl is zero" stuff referred to the gravitational force field. If it refers to the passage of time, that's different. It isn't true that "all physical parameters are path independent". An extremely important one that isn't path independent is the arc length of the path or arc. You can draw a short straight line from A to B, or a long loopy line that starts at A, wanders around, and eventually gets to B. Why is this relevant to the twin paradox? Because, in relativity, an observer's own elapsed time ("local time") is really just the arc length of his "world line" in Minkowski space. Minkowski was an extremely smart guy, by the way. The twin that stays home takes a direct route from point A (their birth) to point B (the moment they compare ages and see that one has gray hair and wrinkled skin.) The other twin takes a very roundabout route, getting in a rocket and going to Alpha Centauri and back. Their path lengths are their local times, which are different. (Why is the length of the roundabout path actually shorter, so that that twin ages less? Because, in Minkowski space, using the "timelike convention" that all the best people use :-), motion in space subtracts from the elapsed time. That's just the way it works.)

Now I assume that there is no dispute about the facts of relativistic time dilation. In addition to being predicted exactly by the Lorentz transform, it has been observed in practice in cosmic ray muon decays, as well as countless observations in particle accelerators. The "twin paradox" is just an extreme consequence of this. It has of course never been observed in that form, just as we don't know whether Schrodinger's cat is alive.

The "twin paradox" is a consequence of special relativity, not general, and hence does not relate to gravity. I hate to be the umpteenth person to tell you that general relativity is too hard to explain, but it's kind of true. I barely understand the most rudimentary basics. (When Eddington made his comment about only 3 people in the world who understand gen. rel., I wasn't the third! :-) But I can say that you don't need to worry about general relativity to understand the "twin paradox". You can finesse the Minkowski-space curvature of the path during the turnaround at Alpha Centauri, and just say that the twin went there and came back. So was something physically different, that the twins could observe? You bet. The "younger" twin will remember having experienced 6 months of horrendous acceleration in the ionic-drive rocket, followed by a year of horrendous turnaround, and another 6 months of horrendous deceleration at the end. She will have soft, smooth skin, but at a great cost. :-)

Sorry to be so long-winded. In quick summary, the thing that's different about the paths is their length, and that is exactly the local elapsed time. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:07, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, time dilation occurs under the Theory of General Relativity also, so your analysis above is not persuasive in resolving this example of a non-conservative effect. Moreover, your repeated claims about how supposedly only geniuses can understand this are getting tiresome. That approach is a recipe for mistaken reliance on unjustified authority.

: If you don't feel this is understandable, then simply say so and stop there; please do not imply that people should just accept what someone of undisclosed political views claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

I give up.
*The only scientists I mentioned were Minkowski and Eddington, and the latter just as a joke. I never said anything about their, or anyone else's, politics.
*Time dilation does indeed occur under both general and special relativity. The point I was trying to make is that general relativity is simply not needed to understand the twin paradox. It only takes special relativity, which is much better understood. I'm sorry to hear that, by not analyzing the twin paradox in terms of general relativity, my persuasiveness suffered.
*I apologize if I "talked down" to you and Phyllis with my comments about GR being too complicated. I assume that both of you have heard, many times, that GR is exceedingly complicated. I was simply trying to soften the blow by pointing out that you ''don't need'' GR. And cracking that joke about how Eddington could not have been referring to me.
*In fact, I know a fair amount about GR. I ''could'' analyze the twin paradox in terms of the gravitation of Earth and Alpha Centauri. But there is simply no need to.
*This "non-conservative effect" business simply makes no sense. If the integration of a vector field along different paths gets different final results, then that field is non-conservative. You seem to be saying that the ''passage of time'' is some kind of vector field, and that the final results of "integrations" (the two different values of local time at the end of the experiment) are supposed to be the same, and that the difference shows that this "vector field" is not conservative, and that that is a counterexample to relativity. The passage of time is not a vector field. The different values of time, as seen by different observers, is not a ''counterexample'' to relativity, it is ''one of the principal effects'' of relativity. It's really what the word "relativity" means when discussing the scientific Theory of Relativity.
*If you really think that the non-globality and non-absoluteness of time is a counterexample to relativity, then so be it.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:13, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, if you "give up," then that is your own choice. You have not disproved the counterexample. Instead, you first described the twin paradox as being only about special relativity, and when I pointed out that it exists under general relativity too, you then agree yet do not fully address the substantive issue presented by the paradox. For example, the amount of acceleration undertaken by the twin in his journey will affect his age independent of his time spent away. His subsequent age is ''not'' path independent even in time-space coordinates.

: It's easy to search for "general relativity" and "conservative field" on the internet and see how little has been written about this. That is telling in itself. I'm happy to continue to discuss this here with you or anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Could you clarify what the ages (and path dependence thereof) in the twin paradox have to do with conservative fields? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:04, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Age is scalar physical attribute. It should not be path dependent in a [[conservative field]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes, but which [[conservative field]] in particular are you talking about here (that implies age is not path dependent)? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:37, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Gravity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Well, in Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is indeed conservative -- it's the negative gradient of the gravitational potential! But what this means is that gravitational potential energy is path-independent: it doesn't say anything about path-independence any other quantities, and in particular it's not the reason for the path-independence of age. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:00, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: You take a narrow view of the significance of a "conservative field." Independent physical attributes should remain path-independent as well for the field to be conservative. In Newtonian mechanics and most other physical force fields, they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: By a conservative field, I mean a vector field on space for which there exists a scalar function V with the gradient of V given by that vector field. This doesn't imply the path-independence of any physical quantities other than V itself. If you this view as too narrow, can you tell me what you take to be the definition of a conservative field? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:57, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: Your definition is too narrow when discussing the theory of relativity, which describes the framework in which the force operates. To be meaningful, the definition must be broader. It must ensure the path independence of the scalar, as well as other scalars independent of that scalar.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::: Can you tell me what the correct definition is, then? I have pretty good background in this stuff, no need to dumb it down, just be precise. Certainly no field at all is going to conserve every scalar function, so I'd like to know which ones you want. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 18:20, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::: Kyle, I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this, and don't see a precise definition anywhere that would be meaningful with respect to the theory of relativity. It's striking how relativists avoid this issue, and even stop discussing it when it is brought up.

::::::::::: I can propose a definition that you may be able to improve. How about: a conservative theory of motion is one whereby scalar values of a particle are independent of its path of motion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:36, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

That's an interesting proposal, and I too have an open mind about this. Can you give an example of such a ''conservative theory of motion''? One such would greatly help in devising the correct definition. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 19:29, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Newtonian mechanics would be an obvious example. By the way, how do you explain the general lack of discussion and papers about whether the theory of relativity is conservative, including the abrupt departure of User:Simeon from this discussion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Some scalar values in Newtonian mechanics are conserved because there exist associated conservative fields (or more generally [[Noether's Theorem|symmetries of the Lagrangian]]). What is an example of a scalar value in the Newtonian mechanics that is not of this type, which makes this a conservative theory of motion while relativity is not?
::I don't know why relativity's defenders won't confront this. Maybe that could be the topic of the debate page -- I'm interested using this discussion to sharpen counterexample 21. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 23:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: This is a really interesting discussion. I think I made a gross mistake in my first post. The theory of relativity urges us to think of the three space coordinates (x, y, and z) and the time coordinate (t) as four coordinates of space-time - that is, that space and time are pretty much the same. I extrapolated from this that since there can be a (conservative) gravitational field in space coordinates, there can also be some sort of conservative field depending on the time coordinate. I then extrapolated this notion to special relativity, and the twin paradox; I postulated that maybe time dilation effects were the work of a non-conservative field that was dependent on the t-coordinate. Now I see that this was all somewhat foolish. However, I wanted to ask you all: can you have a conservative or non-conservative field with respect to time? If not, I think time should '''not''' be considered as almost the same thing as x, y, z space. I feel that the ability for a dimension to have a field (conservative or not) is integral to its being considered a space-like dimension.

::: Aschlafly, the fact that the twin paradox exists in general relativity is '''irrelevant'''. Yes, sure, the twin paradox occurs within space where general relativity is working, but there are no effects acting on the twins that influences the twin paradox in any way. Likewise, User:Simeon 's departure is also '''irrelevant'''.

::: What about black holes, though? Surely their gravitational fields aren't conservative, since once an object passes the event horizon, you can't retrieve it. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 01:24, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Phyllis:

You seem to be very curious about this topic. I'm going to try to give an intuitive, but nevertheless scientifically correct, explanation of what is going on with relativity, the "twin paradox", and vector fields, potential functions, and path integrals. This explanation will probably seem long and tedious, for which I apologize in advance. I also apologize if it seems that I am being too "folksy", or talking down to you. Please bear with me, and please pay close attention.

We have a parking lot, and two twins, who are fitness enthusiasts and always wear pedometers wherever they go. There are two spots, "X" and "Y", painted on the parking lot. Both people stand on spot "X", set their pedometers to zero, and start walking. Twin A simply walks directly to spot Y. Twin B, being more into fitness, walks all over the place, eventually arriving at B.

Now there are quite a number of things we can say. First, the temperatures vary all over the place. They are a ''scalar field''. That means that they are associated with ''location on the parking lot'', not with any particular observer. They are objective measurements that everyone agrees on, because they are aspects of space itself. Our fitness enthusiasts are also amateur meteorologists, and carry thermometers around with them.

::Twin A: "When I was at the green Toyota, I noticed that the temperature was 67 degrees Fahrenheit."
::Twin B: "By coincidence, I also wandered past the green Toyota, and got the same reading."

By the way, since temperature is a scalar field, it has a gradient, which is a vector field. That field is conservative, according to the theorem of mathematical physics that says that curl grad Φ = 0 always. This gradient is a ''vector field''. Like the scalar of temperature, it is a property of the ''space (parking lot) itself''. If the twins had been measuring this gradient (perhaps they carry around fancy "differential thermometers"), they would have gotten the same vector at the green Toyota.

There is also a theorem of mathematical physics, sort of the opposite of the theorem above, that says that, if a vector field V has a curl of zero:
*You can make a scalar field <math>\Phi\,</math> (a property of the space itself, not tied to any particular observer) that it is the gradient of. That scalar field is called the "potential" for the (conservative) vector field. (By the way, this is very closely related to "exact differential equations" that you wrote about! Do you see the connection?)
*If you integrate that vector field along any path between two points A and B (that is, you calculate
:::<math>\int_A^B \vec{V} \cdot dl</math>
for that path, where "dl" is the "line element" along the path), you will get <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math>.
*Since <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math> is a property of the scalar field itself (and the points A and B), it follows that that path integral is the same for all paths. And if the path ends on the same point it started on, the integral is zero.

::Twin A: "I was measuring the gradient of the temperature as I walked, and calculating its path integral as I went. I got an answer of 4 degrees."
::Twin B: "I was doing the same. My integral was much harder to calculate, because I was going all over the place. But I also got 4 degrees. Hey, wait a minute! The temperature at the start point was 68 degrees, and at the end point it was 72 degrees. That explains it."

Now someone at the edge of the parking lot was running a Van deGraff generator, so there were electric fields all over the place. The twins are also physics students, and carry electroscopes wherever they go. They measured the electric field, and calculated its path integrals. The electric field is conservative (in the absence of varying magnetic fields), so they got the same integral. That integral was 600 volts (it's only static electricity, so it isn't dangerous). Since the electric field is conservative, there is, by the previous theorem, a potential function. That function was 600 volts higher at point B than at point A.

Now here's the kicker:

::Twin A: "I walked directly from A to B. My pedometer says 150 feet."
::Twin B: "I took a long route all over the place. I walked half a mile."

The pedometer readings ''are not a scalar field''. They are not a property of the space itself. They are properties of the observers. Even though they, in some sense, measure an aspect of the parking lot (how many molecules of asphalt one passes), they are artifacts of the twins' actions.

The twins could have been integrating their motion vectors; that's sort of what pedometers do. But those vectors are not a vector field on the space itself. It makes no sense to ask whether that "vector field" is conservative, because it isn't a vector field. A vector (or scalar, or tensor) field has to be a property ''of the space itself''. These "pedometer vectors" are just things that the twins make up as they walk.

Now for the "twin paradox". The parking lot is replaced by "Minkowski space", also called "4-dimensional space-time". "Points" in this space are now "events", complete with a time. Events A and B are now the act of the twins saying goodbye as one of them got into the rocket, and the act of them re-uniting after B returns. Twin A took a direct route (called her "world line") from A to B. She used a coordinate system in which the spatial coordinates of A and B were the same (Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, etc.) and the time coordinate differed by 30 years (2010 to 2040.) B went to Alpha Centauri and back. When she returned, they were both using the same coordinate system (location is Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, time is 2040.) But she looks at her watch, and only 5 years have elapsed! What the watch shows is ''not a scalar field on spacetime''. It was ''not the path integral of a vector field on spacetime''. What she integrated was the ticking of her watch, nothing more.

The path that A took is called a geodesic. It is the Minkowski-space equivalent of a "straight line". But, because of the peculiarities of relativity, it shows the ''longest'' elapsed time (30 years) of all paths, rather than the shortest. By going to Alpha Centauri, twin B took a shorter path, in terms of the way path length is measured in Minkowski space.

Very interesting fact: The path length in Minkowski space, that is, the sum of the tiny distances as measured by the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, ''is the same as the local time''. That is (assuming you are using the "spacelike convention"), everyone's wristwatch measures path length along their own world line. The twins simply followed paths of different lengths. That's all there is to the "twin paradox". (That is, that's all there is to it, if you analyze it correctly, as I have described above. Most introductory treatments of relativity don't do it this way. They just throw the Lorentz transform at you.)

Now there are a few points about the "twin paradox" that people find confusing.

First, aren't the laws of physics supposed to be the same for everyone? What made twin B's watch run slower? Well, she ''knew'' she was traveling at high speed. She brought an accelerometer with her in the rocket. Just as twin B in the parking lot knew she was walking all over the place, turning around and such, twin B in space knew that her world-line was turning, and therefore wasn't a straight line (geodesic). How did she know? It takes force to make you deviate from a geodesic (this is really pretty much the same as Newton's laws of motion), and she felt the force.

Second, how can we analyze the curvature of B's world line? Here's where general relativity has to come in. As soon as world lines start to curve, you have to measure their curvature, that is "geodesic curvature". You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!), and curved spacetime, and so on. And you get into the <math>\Gamma\,</math> symbols, which measure the deviation from a geodesic, and hence the "fictitious forces" that you feel. This is why general relativity is related to the "twin paradox", in that the space ship followed a curved trajectory and experienced acceleration. But, to analyze the plain facts of the "twin paradox", all you really need to know is that twin B followed a crooked line. Place your ruler on a diagonal on the graph of Minkowski space, draw the line out to Alpha Centauri. Turn the ruler, draw the returning line. Ignore the impossibly sharp corners. Use special relativity to analyze the Lorentz transform for each section of B's world line.

Oh, and to try to answer some of your specific questions, the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero. If it weren't, conservation of energy would be violated, and we could make a perpetual motion machine by having a planet run around in circles picking up energy. The "curl=0" aspect of gravity under general relativity is more complicated, because true vector fields have to be on Minkowski space, but it still conserves energy. When Mercury orbits the Sun, its perihelion precesses because of relativistic effects, but its energy is conserved.

I'll try to think some more about your black hole question and get back to you.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:00, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon, thanks so much for your long explanation! All of that made sense to me, and cleared up the issue of field as property of space vs. path specific to person vs. curved spacetime. Also, yes, I noticed the similarity between exact differential equations and deriving potential functions from vector fields - the former I studied in Differential Equations and the latter I studied in Multivariable Calculus.

:So, if I understand you properly, gravity both (a) curves spacetime and (b) creates a conservative field. (I derived (a) from your point: "You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!)", and (b) from your point: "the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero.") However, you're saying that if you are in an accelerating reference frame (such as a quickly-spinning merry-go-round) only (a) occurs; there is no field. Is this correct? If so, why is there this discrepancy between the two? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:54, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, gravity curves spacetime. It looks as though you're ready to go to the next level. It has to do with curved ''coordinate systems'' vs. curved ''spacetime''. This is why GR is so complicated. But here goes.

First, we have to recognize that, at some level, we could say that energy is *not* conserved. Spacecraft use "slingshot maneuvers" around one planet to gain extra energy on their way to another planet. I assume you've heard of this. Cassini used three such maneuvers, twice around Venus and once around Earth. So what was going on? If you look at a coordinate system centered on Venus, you would see Cassini come in and go out again, with complete conservation of energy. But, in a coordinate system fixed around the solar system, Venus was moving, so Cassini came in at low speed and went out at high speed. We "stole" some energy out of Venus's orbit. So, to be ''really'' correct, we have to say that gravity is a conservative field in the absence of '''moving''' gravitating bodies.

But, in the larger sense, energy is conserved. Always. Newtonian or relativistic. (But in relativity, the mass figures into the equation. Let's not worry about that just now.)

Now we get to the really cool stuff. Your comment above suggests that you are ready for it.

You will feel a "fictitious force" whenever you are in a "curved spacetime coordinate system". A curved coordinate system would include things like polar coordinates on the plane, or spherical coordinates in 3 dimensions. But this is 4-dimensional spacetime. So I'd like you to take my word for this. On a rotating merry-go-round, your 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system is curved. (This doesn't require relativity, special or general, to formulate this.) The 3-dimensional slice of it is flat, but, when you bring in time, and the spatial coordinates are accelerating, the overall coordinate system is curved. This creates fictitious forces. In the case of the merry-go-round, the forces are the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force. There are also the fictitious "acceleration G forces" in a rocket. But '''the spacetime itself isn't curved'''. It's like polar coordinates on the plane. Yes, the coordinate system is curved, but the plane isn't. There are Cartesian coordinates on the plane also. Similarly, an observer on the ground is in a flat coordinate system, and doesn't see any fictitious forces. He just sees the mechanism of the ride pushing you inward as you go around. Your recoil against that acceleration is what you perceive as the centrifugal force.

So the moral of the story would seem to be: you can choose a flat coordinate system that exposes the fictitious force for what it is. It's a perception from the curved spacetime coordinate system that the observer is operating in.

But how about gravity? In the case of gravity, '''spacetime itself is curved'''. If spacetime (properly called a "manifold") is curved, every coordinate system is curved, and the fictitious force which is gravity is inescapable.

So your statement "gravity curves spacetime", is exactly correct, but you have to distinguish "curving spacetime" and "curving some particular coordinate system". The actual curvature involves things called "Riemann's tensor" and "Ricci's tensor".

The number of people that understand this is way more than the 3 that Arthur Eddington claimed (it was more than 3 but probably less than 10 at the time), but it's still a pretty complicated subject.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:03, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon: Ah, that does make a lot of sense now. Thanks so much for explaining this to me. Hmm, that really is an elegant concept -- wow. Cool! [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 13:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Misleading Reference ==

The counterexample #18 has as an reference:

''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''

That's wrong: From the very beginning of the program, some relativistic effects were taken into account. As Conservapedia states at its article on [[GPS]] the Naval Research Lab in Washington published its report on the ''Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' in 1978 and listed the following GPS objectives that have been achieved to date:
#launch insertion into GPS constellation position
#demonstrated orbit stability and controllability
#first cesium frequency standard in space
#'''verification of relativity theory'''
But not only did the initial experiments bolster the theory, some relativistic effects have to addressed in general use - in the official specification for the GPS project , i.e., the [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995, you find the following:

p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''

It's true that not '''all''' effects are covered yet: as [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|I stated above]], the quoted article of the ''The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy'' addresses effects caused by the fast movement of some of the GPS-receivers - something which will doubtless be included as the number of fast receivers grows.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:03, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-08-09T19:32:47Z

LoganBertram: /* Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) */

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::: I call gps a pretty darned useful invention but it doesn't work if you don't take into account relativistic effects. I think that not knowing where relativity is used speaks volumes as to how close minded those trying to disprove relativity, which is different from relativism. (a point completely overlooked by the page) [[User:Gaurdro|Gaurdro]] 12:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:: No. Eating an Apple helps you by giving your body some of the chemical components that constitute the apple. Components which also happen to help you fight off viruses and the like. The same is true for the aspirin. Both are well defined chemical processes that involve no increase or decrease in the amount of matter or energy in the system. Healing (such as Jesus mending the ear of the soldier), would involve the rapid solidification of matter that was not there before (ie. the new ear). This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The point is,if you're going to use miracles or signs to disprove a physical theory, you have to apply the argument to universally. But you don't because attacking the Second Law of Thermodynamics would knock the crutch of misinterpreted Newtonian Physics you have been leaning on out from underneath you.
[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 3:32 9 August 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::::::Here's a good source: [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf | US Navy]. As for engineers not bothering to learn relativity, I think that's a mite off the mark. I'm an engineer and I had to take a class dealing with the basics of SR, and I'm just an electrical engineer. Aerospace engineers certainly deal with relativity a great deal, as do nuclear engineers. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:26, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

::Sorry, Frank. {{unsigned|PhyllisS}}

:::As far as I can see there is no reason to feel sorry for FrankC: Your article only covers the idea of using the [[Lorentz transformation instead]] of the [[Galileo transformation]] when calculating the position of an object: one could say that it is about the relativistic effects caused by the movement of the GPS receiver, not of the GPS satellites. That's why it's talking about ''fast moving air-planes and satellites''.
:::FrankC (and others) have shown that there are relativistic effects on the satellites which are taken account of:
::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:

::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
::: (From [[Talk:Global Positioning System]])
::: [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:44, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Yill, I recommended the Bible because, as Isaac Newton pointed out, working on translating the Bible increases the quality of one's work in other areas, including science. Sure, I could drop everything else I'm doing and spend all day correcting you about this entry, but if you just picked up a Bible and improved your own work, then I could learn from you instead. I'll correct your misunderstandings below but doubt I will spend much more time responding to you if you're not willing to put in open-minded effort on your own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Reversion was necessary for two reasons: first, to restore material that was improperly censored, and second, to revert an imprecise label put on one of the counterexamples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I won't undo your reversion for now. But I fail to understand your reasoning, so perhaps you could clarify a bit instead of making the one sentence assertions that have made up your discourse so far. There is no censorship here, merely deletion of objectively incorrect statements. Perhaps you could actually bother to respond to my points above, rather than just reverting my edits without justification. In the meantime, I will replace the periods I added at the end of several of the counterexamples for formatting consistency; hopefully you don't consider ''that'' to be "censorship" as well. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 20:48, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::You deleted valid information. Gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. Without GR gravitons would not be expected; with GR people do expect to find them. The wholesale deletion of reference to this is unwarranted, and simply conceals a real flaw in GR.

:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims. Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above. You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make. But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either. On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM? (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be. For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Gravitons were historically proposed in trying to reconcile GR with QM. Other theories of gravity may not require gravitons at all. Does string theory? Gravitons are thereby attributable to GR, not to the more developed and better verified QM. ''Simply look at the name "gravitons" itself''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::Actually, any quantum theory of gravity, whether it reduces to GR at large scales or not, requires gravitons ''by definition''. Do you even understand what a graviton ''is''? ''The quantum of a gravitational field.'' Just as any quantum theory of electromagnetism ''must'' include the photon in its particle spectrum, any quantum theory of gravity ''must'' include the graviton in its particle spectrum. And yes, string theory requires them; the entire reason string theory started being developed as a theory of everything is that gravitons (i.e. massless spin-2 bosons) naturally appear as part of its particle spectrum! [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Yill, do you know what [[action-at-a-distance]] is? It doesn't require the fictional gravitons. Newtonian mechanics doesn't require such imaginary particles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Do you know what ''quantum'' means? Please acknowledge that you do, and that you know Newtonian mechanics is not a quantum theory, and therefore that ''your response does not address my concern.'' [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself. It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution. The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present. Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it. The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here. I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not. (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.) This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy. Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::A ''type'' of inflation is proposed to try to explain the unexpected flatness. But there's no way around the basic problem: GR says that space is curved by matter, and an overall flatness is impossible under such a model. Yet an overall flatness is what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I still don't understand what you're saying. The ''overall'' visible universe ''is'' flat, at scales large enough that it can accurately be modeled as homogeneous and isotropic. (These scales are beyond the sizes of galactic clusters.) But on much smaller scales, where these assumptions obviously break down, matter does indeed curve spacetime; the phenomenon of gravitational lensing is precisely such an example. If you are at all confused by these different notions, I would recommend taking a look at a modern textbook on the subject; Barbara Ryden's ''Introduction to Cosmology'' is a good place to start. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::Dark matter supposedly permeates the universe, and there's no way it would be flat if GR were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Okay, now ''that'' is a total non sequitur. Again, instead of making blanket assertions, perhaps you should learn why, given that they believe dark matter permeates the universe ''and'' that it is flat on large scales, cosmologists still think GR works. Let me enlighten you. If the universe were evenly filled with a uniformly dense substance, the curvature would be flat. Yet there were would be matter in it! And that's it. On large enough scales, that's how the universe appears. Hence there is no contradiction. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

== Proposed page move ==

Can someone rename the article so the R is lowercase in the title? Thanks, [[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:21, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:Why? The term refers to a specific theory, and the many counterexamples to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:31, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::My simple rationale is "relativity" is not a proper noun. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Wikipedia uses the lowecase] and so does [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Wester's], so why not here? --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:36, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:::It's not a traditional proper noun, you're right, but it does satisfy all the conditions underlying why proper nouns are capitalized. It is a unique term-of-art, having a specific meaning other than the general meaning of the word. As used in physics, "Relativity" is different from the generic "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::However, it is my belief, "relativity" in this case should not be treated differently. Look at the Wikipedia article, it uses "relativity" in that sense. Also, the [[theory of relativity|CP article on the subject]] uses the lowercase as well, so I still see no point in capitalizing it here. --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 23:07, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: The word "relativity" dates from the early 1800s. That's not what is being discussed here. If preceded with "theory of" then there is no need to capitalize; if stand-alone, however, it does add clarification to capitalize as is done for other specific concepts that differ from the generic names.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

== Curl of the gravitational field ==

Sorry to get over-technical, but the fundamental law of "fictitious forces" (including gravity) is that the force field (divided by the mass of the test object) is

<math>G^i = - \Gamma^i_{00}</math>

Its curl is

<math>(\nabla \times G)^i = \mathcal{E}^{ijk} g_{km} G^m_{;j}</math>
where the semicolon indicates the covariant gradient.

When you work this out, it involves derivatives of the <math>\Gamma\,</math> quantities. In general relativity, the results are zero by symmetries of Riemann's tensor.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 21:33, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

: Perhaps so, but the "twin paradox" in Relativity states that the age of each twin is dependent on his path of travel. For a conservative field, all physical parameters are path independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Simeon, your mathematical work is rigorous and correct. However, the twin paradox example is interesting to study here. I am aware that the twin paradox is solved by the non-inertial turn-around of the ship when it is going back home. However, in this solution, it is still noted that there is an age difference between the twins. [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm Wikipedia affirms this] and so do [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm other sites]. Such an age difference in twins shows that there is some sort of path dependence. I understand that traveling at near-c speeds in space is not the same thing as moving from point A to B in a gravitational field, but the concept does seem to be a bit similar. Could you maybe explain this for us a bit? Thanks. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 00:52, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

OK, I think I understand. I assumed that the "conservative field" / "curl is zero" stuff referred to the gravitational force field. If it refers to the passage of time, that's different. It isn't true that "all physical parameters are path independent". An extremely important one that isn't path independent is the arc length of the path or arc. You can draw a short straight line from A to B, or a long loopy line that starts at A, wanders around, and eventually gets to B. Why is this relevant to the twin paradox? Because, in relativity, an observer's own elapsed time ("local time") is really just the arc length of his "world line" in Minkowski space. Minkowski was an extremely smart guy, by the way. The twin that stays home takes a direct route from point A (their birth) to point B (the moment they compare ages and see that one has gray hair and wrinkled skin.) The other twin takes a very roundabout route, getting in a rocket and going to Alpha Centauri and back. Their path lengths are their local times, which are different. (Why is the length of the roundabout path actually shorter, so that that twin ages less? Because, in Minkowski space, using the "timelike convention" that all the best people use :-), motion in space subtracts from the elapsed time. That's just the way it works.)

Now I assume that there is no dispute about the facts of relativistic time dilation. In addition to being predicted exactly by the Lorentz transform, it has been observed in practice in cosmic ray muon decays, as well as countless observations in particle accelerators. The "twin paradox" is just an extreme consequence of this. It has of course never been observed in that form, just as we don't know whether Schrodinger's cat is alive.

The "twin paradox" is a consequence of special relativity, not general, and hence does not relate to gravity. I hate to be the umpteenth person to tell you that general relativity is too hard to explain, but it's kind of true. I barely understand the most rudimentary basics. (When Eddington made his comment about only 3 people in the world who understand gen. rel., I wasn't the third! :-) But I can say that you don't need to worry about general relativity to understand the "twin paradox". You can finesse the Minkowski-space curvature of the path during the turnaround at Alpha Centauri, and just say that the twin went there and came back. So was something physically different, that the twins could observe? You bet. The "younger" twin will remember having experienced 6 months of horrendous acceleration in the ionic-drive rocket, followed by a year of horrendous turnaround, and another 6 months of horrendous deceleration at the end. She will have soft, smooth skin, but at a great cost. :-)

Sorry to be so long-winded. In quick summary, the thing that's different about the paths is their length, and that is exactly the local elapsed time. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:07, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, time dilation occurs under the Theory of General Relativity also, so your analysis above is not persuasive in resolving this example of a non-conservative effect. Moreover, your repeated claims about how supposedly only geniuses can understand this are getting tiresome. That approach is a recipe for mistaken reliance on unjustified authority.

: If you don't feel this is understandable, then simply say so and stop there; please do not imply that people should just accept what someone of undisclosed political views claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

I give up.
*The only scientists I mentioned were Minkowski and Eddington, and the latter just as a joke. I never said anything about their, or anyone else's, politics.
*Time dilation does indeed occur under both general and special relativity. The point I was trying to make is that general relativity is simply not needed to understand the twin paradox. It only takes special relativity, which is much better understood. I'm sorry to hear that, by not analyzing the twin paradox in terms of general relativity, my persuasiveness suffered.
*I apologize if I "talked down" to you and Phyllis with my comments about GR being too complicated. I assume that both of you have heard, many times, that GR is exceedingly complicated. I was simply trying to soften the blow by pointing out that you ''don't need'' GR. And cracking that joke about how Eddington could not have been referring to me.
*In fact, I know a fair amount about GR. I ''could'' analyze the twin paradox in terms of the gravitation of Earth and Alpha Centauri. But there is simply no need to.
*This "non-conservative effect" business simply makes no sense. If the integration of a vector field along different paths gets different final results, then that field is non-conservative. You seem to be saying that the ''passage of time'' is some kind of vector field, and that the final results of "integrations" (the two different values of local time at the end of the experiment) are supposed to be the same, and that the difference shows that this "vector field" is not conservative, and that that is a counterexample to relativity. The passage of time is not a vector field. The different values of time, as seen by different observers, is not a ''counterexample'' to relativity, it is ''one of the principal effects'' of relativity. It's really what the word "relativity" means when discussing the scientific Theory of Relativity.
*If you really think that the non-globality and non-absoluteness of time is a counterexample to relativity, then so be it.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:13, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, if you "give up," then that is your own choice. You have not disproved the counterexample. Instead, you first described the twin paradox as being only about special relativity, and when I pointed out that it exists under general relativity too, you then agree yet do not fully address the substantive issue presented by the paradox. For example, the amount of acceleration undertaken by the twin in his journey will affect his age independent of his time spent away. His subsequent age is ''not'' path independent even in time-space coordinates.

: It's easy to search for "general relativity" and "conservative field" on the internet and see how little has been written about this. That is telling in itself. I'm happy to continue to discuss this here with you or anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Could you clarify what the ages (and path dependence thereof) in the twin paradox have to do with conservative fields? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:04, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Age is scalar physical attribute. It should not be path dependent in a [[conservative field]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes, but which [[conservative field]] in particular are you talking about here (that implies age is not path dependent)? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:37, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Gravity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Well, in Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is indeed conservative -- it's the negative gradient of the gravitational potential! But what this means is that gravitational potential energy is path-independent: it doesn't say anything about path-independence any other quantities, and in particular it's not the reason for the path-independence of age. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:00, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: You take a narrow view of the significance of a "conservative field." Independent physical attributes should remain path-independent as well for the field to be conservative. In Newtonian mechanics and most other physical force fields, they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: By a conservative field, I mean a vector field on space for which there exists a scalar function V with the gradient of V given by that vector field. This doesn't imply the path-independence of any physical quantities other than V itself. If you this view as too narrow, can you tell me what you take to be the definition of a conservative field? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:57, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: Your definition is too narrow when discussing the theory of relativity, which describes the framework in which the force operates. To be meaningful, the definition must be broader. It must ensure the path independence of the scalar, as well as other scalars independent of that scalar.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::: Can you tell me what the correct definition is, then? I have pretty good background in this stuff, no need to dumb it down, just be precise. Certainly no field at all is going to conserve every scalar function, so I'd like to know which ones you want. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 18:20, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::: Kyle, I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this, and don't see a precise definition anywhere that would be meaningful with respect to the theory of relativity. It's striking how relativists avoid this issue, and even stop discussing it when it is brought up.

::::::::::: I can propose a definition that you may be able to improve. How about: a conservative theory of motion is one whereby scalar values of a particle are independent of its path of motion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:36, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

That's an interesting proposal, and I too have an open mind about this. Can you give an example of such a ''conservative theory of motion''? One such would greatly help in devising the correct definition. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 19:29, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Newtonian mechanics would be an obvious example. By the way, how do you explain the general lack of discussion and papers about whether the theory of relativity is conservative, including the abrupt departure of User:Simeon from this discussion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Some scalar values in Newtonian mechanics are conserved because there exist associated conservative fields (or more generally [[Noether's Theorem|symmetries of the Lagrangian]]). What is an example of a scalar value in the Newtonian mechanics that is not of this type, which makes this a conservative theory of motion while relativity is not?
::I don't know why relativity's defenders won't confront this. Maybe that could be the topic of the debate page -- I'm interested using this discussion to sharpen counterexample 21. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 23:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: This is a really interesting discussion. I think I made a gross mistake in my first post. The theory of relativity urges us to think of the three space coordinates (x, y, and z) and the time coordinate (t) as four coordinates of space-time - that is, that space and time are pretty much the same. I extrapolated from this that since there can be a (conservative) gravitational field in space coordinates, there can also be some sort of conservative field depending on the time coordinate. I then extrapolated this notion to special relativity, and the twin paradox; I postulated that maybe time dilation effects were the work of a non-conservative field that was dependent on the t-coordinate. Now I see that this was all somewhat foolish. However, I wanted to ask you all: can you have a conservative or non-conservative field with respect to time? If not, I think time should '''not''' be considered as almost the same thing as x, y, z space. I feel that the ability for a dimension to have a field (conservative or not) is integral to its being considered a space-like dimension.

::: Aschlafly, the fact that the twin paradox exists in general relativity is '''irrelevant'''. Yes, sure, the twin paradox occurs within space where general relativity is working, but there are no effects acting on the twins that influences the twin paradox in any way. Likewise, User:Simeon 's departure is also '''irrelevant'''.

::: What about black holes, though? Surely their gravitational fields aren't conservative, since once an object passes the event horizon, you can't retrieve it. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 01:24, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Phyllis:

You seem to be very curious about this topic. I'm going to try to give an intuitive, but nevertheless scientifically correct, explanation of what is going on with relativity, the "twin paradox", and vector fields, potential functions, and path integrals. This explanation will probably seem long and tedious, for which I apologize in advance. I also apologize if it seems that I am being too "folksy", or talking down to you. Please bear with me, and please pay close attention.

We have a parking lot, and two twins, who are fitness enthusiasts and always wear pedometers wherever they go. There are two spots, "X" and "Y", painted on the parking lot. Both people stand on spot "X", set their pedometers to zero, and start walking. Twin A simply walks directly to spot Y. Twin B, being more into fitness, walks all over the place, eventually arriving at B.

Now there are quite a number of things we can say. First, the temperatures vary all over the place. They are a ''scalar field''. That means that they are associated with ''location on the parking lot'', not with any particular observer. They are objective measurements that everyone agrees on, because they are aspects of space itself. Our fitness enthusiasts are also amateur meteorologists, and carry thermometers around with them.

::Twin A: "When I was at the green Toyota, I noticed that the temperature was 67 degrees Fahrenheit."
::Twin B: "By coincidence, I also wandered past the green Toyota, and got the same reading."

By the way, since temperature is a scalar field, it has a gradient, which is a vector field. That field is conservative, according to the theorem of mathematical physics that says that curl grad Φ = 0 always. This gradient is a ''vector field''. Like the scalar of temperature, it is a property of the ''space (parking lot) itself''. If the twins had been measuring this gradient (perhaps they carry around fancy "differential thermometers"), they would have gotten the same vector at the green Toyota.

There is also a theorem of mathematical physics, sort of the opposite of the theorem above, that says that, if a vector field V has a curl of zero:
*You can make a scalar field <math>\Phi\,</math> (a property of the space itself, not tied to any particular observer) that it is the gradient of. That scalar field is called the "potential" for the (conservative) vector field. (By the way, this is very closely related to "exact differential equations" that you wrote about! Do you see the connection?)
*If you integrate that vector field along any path between two points A and B (that is, you calculate
:::<math>\int_A^B \vec{V} \cdot dl</math>
for that path, where "dl" is the "line element" along the path), you will get <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math>.
*Since <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math> is a property of the scalar field itself (and the points A and B), it follows that that path integral is the same for all paths. And if the path ends on the same point it started on, the integral is zero.

::Twin A: "I was measuring the gradient of the temperature as I walked, and calculating its path integral as I went. I got an answer of 4 degrees."
::Twin B: "I was doing the same. My integral was much harder to calculate, because I was going all over the place. But I also got 4 degrees. Hey, wait a minute! The temperature at the start point was 68 degrees, and at the end point it was 72 degrees. That explains it."

Now someone at the edge of the parking lot was running a Van deGraff generator, so there were electric fields all over the place. The twins are also physics students, and carry electroscopes wherever they go. They measured the electric field, and calculated its path integrals. The electric field is conservative (in the absence of varying magnetic fields), so they got the same integral. That integral was 600 volts (it's only static electricity, so it isn't dangerous). Since the electric field is conservative, there is, by the previous theorem, a potential function. That function was 600 volts higher at point B than at point A.

Now here's the kicker:

::Twin A: "I walked directly from A to B. My pedometer says 150 feet."
::Twin B: "I took a long route all over the place. I walked half a mile."

The pedometer readings ''are not a scalar field''. They are not a property of the space itself. They are properties of the observers. Even though they, in some sense, measure an aspect of the parking lot (how many molecules of asphalt one passes), they are artifacts of the twins' actions.

The twins could have been integrating their motion vectors; that's sort of what pedometers do. But those vectors are not a vector field on the space itself. It makes no sense to ask whether that "vector field" is conservative, because it isn't a vector field. A vector (or scalar, or tensor) field has to be a property ''of the space itself''. These "pedometer vectors" are just things that the twins make up as they walk.

Now for the "twin paradox". The parking lot is replaced by "Minkowski space", also called "4-dimensional space-time". "Points" in this space are now "events", complete with a time. Events A and B are now the act of the twins saying goodbye as one of them got into the rocket, and the act of them re-uniting after B returns. Twin A took a direct route (called her "world line") from A to B. She used a coordinate system in which the spatial coordinates of A and B were the same (Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, etc.) and the time coordinate differed by 30 years (2010 to 2040.) B went to Alpha Centauri and back. When she returned, they were both using the same coordinate system (location is Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, time is 2040.) But she looks at her watch, and only 5 years have elapsed! What the watch shows is ''not a scalar field on spacetime''. It was ''not the path integral of a vector field on spacetime''. What she integrated was the ticking of her watch, nothing more.

The path that A took is called a geodesic. It is the Minkowski-space equivalent of a "straight line". But, because of the peculiarities of relativity, it shows the ''longest'' elapsed time (30 years) of all paths, rather than the shortest. By going to Alpha Centauri, twin B took a shorter path, in terms of the way path length is measured in Minkowski space.

Very interesting fact: The path length in Minkowski space, that is, the sum of the tiny distances as measured by the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, ''is the same as the local time''. That is (assuming you are using the "spacelike convention"), everyone's wristwatch measures path length along their own world line. The twins simply followed paths of different lengths. That's all there is to the "twin paradox". (That is, that's all there is to it, if you analyze it correctly, as I have described above. Most introductory treatments of relativity don't do it this way. They just throw the Lorentz transform at you.)

Now there are a few points about the "twin paradox" that people find confusing.

First, aren't the laws of physics supposed to be the same for everyone? What made twin B's watch run slower? Well, she ''knew'' she was traveling at high speed. She brought an accelerometer with her in the rocket. Just as twin B in the parking lot knew she was walking all over the place, turning around and such, twin B in space knew that her world-line was turning, and therefore wasn't a straight line (geodesic). How did she know? It takes force to make you deviate from a geodesic (this is really pretty much the same as Newton's laws of motion), and she felt the force.

Second, how can we analyze the curvature of B's world line? Here's where general relativity has to come in. As soon as world lines start to curve, you have to measure their curvature, that is "geodesic curvature". You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!), and curved spacetime, and so on. And you get into the <math>\Gamma\,</math> symbols, which measure the deviation from a geodesic, and hence the "fictitious forces" that you feel. This is why general relativity is related to the "twin paradox", in that the space ship followed a curved trajectory and experienced acceleration. But, to analyze the plain facts of the "twin paradox", all you really need to know is that twin B followed a crooked line. Place your ruler on a diagonal on the graph of Minkowski space, draw the line out to Alpha Centauri. Turn the ruler, draw the returning line. Ignore the impossibly sharp corners. Use special relativity to analyze the Lorentz transform for each section of B's world line.

Oh, and to try to answer some of your specific questions, the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero. If it weren't, conservation of energy would be violated, and we could make a perpetual motion machine by having a planet run around in circles picking up energy. The "curl=0" aspect of gravity under general relativity is more complicated, because true vector fields have to be on Minkowski space, but it still conserves energy. When Mercury orbits the Sun, its perihelion precesses because of relativistic effects, but its energy is conserved.

I'll try to think some more about your black hole question and get back to you.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:00, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon, thanks so much for your long explanation! All of that made sense to me, and cleared up the issue of field as property of space vs. path specific to person vs. curved spacetime. Also, yes, I noticed the similarity between exact differential equations and deriving potential functions from vector fields - the former I studied in Differential Equations and the latter I studied in Multivariable Calculus.

:So, if I understand you properly, gravity both (a) curves spacetime and (b) creates a conservative field. (I derived (a) from your point: "You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!)", and (b) from your point: "the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero.") However, you're saying that if you are in an accelerating reference frame (such as a quickly-spinning merry-go-round) only (a) occurs; there is no field. Is this correct? If so, why is there this discrepancy between the two? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:54, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, gravity curves spacetime. It looks as though you're ready to go to the next level. It has to do with curved ''coordinate systems'' vs. curved ''spacetime''. This is why GR is so complicated. But here goes.

First, we have to recognize that, at some level, we could say that energy is *not* conserved. Spacecraft use "slingshot maneuvers" around one planet to gain extra energy on their way to another planet. I assume you've heard of this. Cassini used three such maneuvers, twice around Venus and once around Earth. So what was going on? If you look at a coordinate system centered on Venus, you would see Cassini come in and go out again, with complete conservation of energy. But, in a coordinate system fixed around the solar system, Venus was moving, so Cassini came in at low speed and went out at high speed. We "stole" some energy out of Venus's orbit. So, to be ''really'' correct, we have to say that gravity is a conservative field in the absence of '''moving''' gravitating bodies.

But, in the larger sense, energy is conserved. Always. Newtonian or relativistic. (But in relativity, the mass figures into the equation. Let's not worry about that just now.)

Now we get to the really cool stuff. Your comment above suggests that you are ready for it.

You will feel a "fictitious force" whenever you are in a "curved spacetime coordinate system". A curved coordinate system would include things like polar coordinates on the plane, or spherical coordinates in 3 dimensions. But this is 4-dimensional spacetime. So I'd like you to take my word for this. On a rotating merry-go-round, your 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system is curved. (This doesn't require relativity, special or general, to formulate this.) The 3-dimensional slice of it is flat, but, when you bring in time, and the spatial coordinates are accelerating, the overall coordinate system is curved. This creates fictitious forces. In the case of the merry-go-round, the forces are the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force. There are also the fictitious "acceleration G forces" in a rocket. But '''the spacetime itself isn't curved'''. It's like polar coordinates on the plane. Yes, the coordinate system is curved, but the plane isn't. There are Cartesian coordinates on the plane also. Similarly, an observer on the ground is in a flat coordinate system, and doesn't see any fictitious forces. He just sees the mechanism of the ride pushing you inward as you go around. Your recoil against that acceleration is what you perceive as the centrifugal force.

So the moral of the story would seem to be: you can choose a flat coordinate system that exposes the fictitious force for what it is. It's a perception from the curved spacetime coordinate system that the observer is operating in.

But how about gravity? In the case of gravity, '''spacetime itself is curved'''. If spacetime (properly called a "manifold") is curved, every coordinate system is curved, and the fictitious force which is gravity is inescapable.

So your statement "gravity curves spacetime", is exactly correct, but you have to distinguish "curving spacetime" and "curving some particular coordinate system". The actual curvature involves things called "Riemann's tensor" and "Ricci's tensor".

The number of people that understand this is way more than the 3 that Arthur Eddington claimed (it was more than 3 but probably less than 10 at the time), but it's still a pretty complicated subject.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:03, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon: Ah, that does make a lot of sense now. Thanks so much for explaining this to me. Hmm, that really is an elegant concept -- wow. Cool! [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 13:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Misleading Reference ==

The counterexample #18 has as an reference:

''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''

That's wrong: From the very beginning of the program, some relativistic effects were taken into account. As Conservapedia states at its article on [[GPS]] the Naval Research Lab in Washington published its report on the ''Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' in 1978 and listed the following GPS objectives that have been achieved to date:
#launch insertion into GPS constellation position
#demonstrated orbit stability and controllability
#first cesium frequency standard in space
#'''verification of relativity theory'''
But not only did the initial experiments bolster the theory, some relativistic effects have to addressed in general use - in the official specification for the GPS project , i.e., the [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995, you find the following:

p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''

It's true that not '''all''' effects are covered yet: as [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|I stated above]], the quoted article of the ''The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy'' addresses effects caused by the fast movement of some of the GPS-receivers - something which will doubtless be included as the number of fast receivers grows.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:03, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-08-09T19:27:43Z

LoganBertram: /* Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) */

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::: I call gps a pretty darned useful invention but it doesn't work if you don't take into account relativistic effects. I think that not knowing where relativity is used speaks volumes as to how close minded those trying to disprove relativity, which is different from relativism. (a point completely overlooked by the page) [[User:Gaurdro|Gaurdro]] 12:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:: No. Eating an Apple helps you by giving your body some of the chemical components that constitute the apple. Components which also happen to help you fight off viruses and the like. The same is true for the aspirin. Both are well defined chemical processes that involve no increase or decrease in the amount of matter or energy in the system. Healing (such as Jesus mending the ear of the soldier), would involve the rapid solidification of matter that was not there before (ie. the new ear). This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The point is,if you're going to use miracles or signs to disprove a physical theory, you have to apply the argument to universally. But you don't because attacking the Second Law of Thermodynamics would knock the crutch of misinterpreted Newtonian Physics you have been leaning on out from underneath you.

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::::::Here's a good source: [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf | US Navy]. As for engineers not bothering to learn relativity, I think that's a mite off the mark. I'm an engineer and I had to take a class dealing with the basics of SR, and I'm just an electrical engineer. Aerospace engineers certainly deal with relativity a great deal, as do nuclear engineers. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:26, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

::Sorry, Frank. {{unsigned|PhyllisS}}

:::As far as I can see there is no reason to feel sorry for FrankC: Your article only covers the idea of using the [[Lorentz transformation instead]] of the [[Galileo transformation]] when calculating the position of an object: one could say that it is about the relativistic effects caused by the movement of the GPS receiver, not of the GPS satellites. That's why it's talking about ''fast moving air-planes and satellites''.
:::FrankC (and others) have shown that there are relativistic effects on the satellites which are taken account of:
::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:

::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
::: (From [[Talk:Global Positioning System]])
::: [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:44, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Yill, I recommended the Bible because, as Isaac Newton pointed out, working on translating the Bible increases the quality of one's work in other areas, including science. Sure, I could drop everything else I'm doing and spend all day correcting you about this entry, but if you just picked up a Bible and improved your own work, then I could learn from you instead. I'll correct your misunderstandings below but doubt I will spend much more time responding to you if you're not willing to put in open-minded effort on your own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Reversion was necessary for two reasons: first, to restore material that was improperly censored, and second, to revert an imprecise label put on one of the counterexamples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I won't undo your reversion for now. But I fail to understand your reasoning, so perhaps you could clarify a bit instead of making the one sentence assertions that have made up your discourse so far. There is no censorship here, merely deletion of objectively incorrect statements. Perhaps you could actually bother to respond to my points above, rather than just reverting my edits without justification. In the meantime, I will replace the periods I added at the end of several of the counterexamples for formatting consistency; hopefully you don't consider ''that'' to be "censorship" as well. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 20:48, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::You deleted valid information. Gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. Without GR gravitons would not be expected; with GR people do expect to find them. The wholesale deletion of reference to this is unwarranted, and simply conceals a real flaw in GR.

:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims. Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above. You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make. But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either. On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM? (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be. For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Gravitons were historically proposed in trying to reconcile GR with QM. Other theories of gravity may not require gravitons at all. Does string theory? Gravitons are thereby attributable to GR, not to the more developed and better verified QM. ''Simply look at the name "gravitons" itself''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::Actually, any quantum theory of gravity, whether it reduces to GR at large scales or not, requires gravitons ''by definition''. Do you even understand what a graviton ''is''? ''The quantum of a gravitational field.'' Just as any quantum theory of electromagnetism ''must'' include the photon in its particle spectrum, any quantum theory of gravity ''must'' include the graviton in its particle spectrum. And yes, string theory requires them; the entire reason string theory started being developed as a theory of everything is that gravitons (i.e. massless spin-2 bosons) naturally appear as part of its particle spectrum! [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Yill, do you know what [[action-at-a-distance]] is? It doesn't require the fictional gravitons. Newtonian mechanics doesn't require such imaginary particles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Do you know what ''quantum'' means? Please acknowledge that you do, and that you know Newtonian mechanics is not a quantum theory, and therefore that ''your response does not address my concern.'' [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself. It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution. The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present. Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it. The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here. I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not. (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.) This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy. Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::A ''type'' of inflation is proposed to try to explain the unexpected flatness. But there's no way around the basic problem: GR says that space is curved by matter, and an overall flatness is impossible under such a model. Yet an overall flatness is what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I still don't understand what you're saying. The ''overall'' visible universe ''is'' flat, at scales large enough that it can accurately be modeled as homogeneous and isotropic. (These scales are beyond the sizes of galactic clusters.) But on much smaller scales, where these assumptions obviously break down, matter does indeed curve spacetime; the phenomenon of gravitational lensing is precisely such an example. If you are at all confused by these different notions, I would recommend taking a look at a modern textbook on the subject; Barbara Ryden's ''Introduction to Cosmology'' is a good place to start. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::Dark matter supposedly permeates the universe, and there's no way it would be flat if GR were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Okay, now ''that'' is a total non sequitur. Again, instead of making blanket assertions, perhaps you should learn why, given that they believe dark matter permeates the universe ''and'' that it is flat on large scales, cosmologists still think GR works. Let me enlighten you. If the universe were evenly filled with a uniformly dense substance, the curvature would be flat. Yet there were would be matter in it! And that's it. On large enough scales, that's how the universe appears. Hence there is no contradiction. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

== Proposed page move ==

Can someone rename the article so the R is lowercase in the title? Thanks, [[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:21, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:Why? The term refers to a specific theory, and the many counterexamples to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:31, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::My simple rationale is "relativity" is not a proper noun. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Wikipedia uses the lowecase] and so does [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Wester's], so why not here? --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:36, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:::It's not a traditional proper noun, you're right, but it does satisfy all the conditions underlying why proper nouns are capitalized. It is a unique term-of-art, having a specific meaning other than the general meaning of the word. As used in physics, "Relativity" is different from the generic "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::However, it is my belief, "relativity" in this case should not be treated differently. Look at the Wikipedia article, it uses "relativity" in that sense. Also, the [[theory of relativity|CP article on the subject]] uses the lowercase as well, so I still see no point in capitalizing it here. --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 23:07, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: The word "relativity" dates from the early 1800s. That's not what is being discussed here. If preceded with "theory of" then there is no need to capitalize; if stand-alone, however, it does add clarification to capitalize as is done for other specific concepts that differ from the generic names.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

== Curl of the gravitational field ==

Sorry to get over-technical, but the fundamental law of "fictitious forces" (including gravity) is that the force field (divided by the mass of the test object) is

<math>G^i = - \Gamma^i_{00}</math>

Its curl is

<math>(\nabla \times G)^i = \mathcal{E}^{ijk} g_{km} G^m_{;j}</math>
where the semicolon indicates the covariant gradient.

When you work this out, it involves derivatives of the <math>\Gamma\,</math> quantities. In general relativity, the results are zero by symmetries of Riemann's tensor.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 21:33, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

: Perhaps so, but the "twin paradox" in Relativity states that the age of each twin is dependent on his path of travel. For a conservative field, all physical parameters are path independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Simeon, your mathematical work is rigorous and correct. However, the twin paradox example is interesting to study here. I am aware that the twin paradox is solved by the non-inertial turn-around of the ship when it is going back home. However, in this solution, it is still noted that there is an age difference between the twins. [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm Wikipedia affirms this] and so do [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm other sites]. Such an age difference in twins shows that there is some sort of path dependence. I understand that traveling at near-c speeds in space is not the same thing as moving from point A to B in a gravitational field, but the concept does seem to be a bit similar. Could you maybe explain this for us a bit? Thanks. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 00:52, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

OK, I think I understand. I assumed that the "conservative field" / "curl is zero" stuff referred to the gravitational force field. If it refers to the passage of time, that's different. It isn't true that "all physical parameters are path independent". An extremely important one that isn't path independent is the arc length of the path or arc. You can draw a short straight line from A to B, or a long loopy line that starts at A, wanders around, and eventually gets to B. Why is this relevant to the twin paradox? Because, in relativity, an observer's own elapsed time ("local time") is really just the arc length of his "world line" in Minkowski space. Minkowski was an extremely smart guy, by the way. The twin that stays home takes a direct route from point A (their birth) to point B (the moment they compare ages and see that one has gray hair and wrinkled skin.) The other twin takes a very roundabout route, getting in a rocket and going to Alpha Centauri and back. Their path lengths are their local times, which are different. (Why is the length of the roundabout path actually shorter, so that that twin ages less? Because, in Minkowski space, using the "timelike convention" that all the best people use :-), motion in space subtracts from the elapsed time. That's just the way it works.)

Now I assume that there is no dispute about the facts of relativistic time dilation. In addition to being predicted exactly by the Lorentz transform, it has been observed in practice in cosmic ray muon decays, as well as countless observations in particle accelerators. The "twin paradox" is just an extreme consequence of this. It has of course never been observed in that form, just as we don't know whether Schrodinger's cat is alive.

The "twin paradox" is a consequence of special relativity, not general, and hence does not relate to gravity. I hate to be the umpteenth person to tell you that general relativity is too hard to explain, but it's kind of true. I barely understand the most rudimentary basics. (When Eddington made his comment about only 3 people in the world who understand gen. rel., I wasn't the third! :-) But I can say that you don't need to worry about general relativity to understand the "twin paradox". You can finesse the Minkowski-space curvature of the path during the turnaround at Alpha Centauri, and just say that the twin went there and came back. So was something physically different, that the twins could observe? You bet. The "younger" twin will remember having experienced 6 months of horrendous acceleration in the ionic-drive rocket, followed by a year of horrendous turnaround, and another 6 months of horrendous deceleration at the end. She will have soft, smooth skin, but at a great cost. :-)

Sorry to be so long-winded. In quick summary, the thing that's different about the paths is their length, and that is exactly the local elapsed time. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:07, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, time dilation occurs under the Theory of General Relativity also, so your analysis above is not persuasive in resolving this example of a non-conservative effect. Moreover, your repeated claims about how supposedly only geniuses can understand this are getting tiresome. That approach is a recipe for mistaken reliance on unjustified authority.

: If you don't feel this is understandable, then simply say so and stop there; please do not imply that people should just accept what someone of undisclosed political views claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

I give up.
*The only scientists I mentioned were Minkowski and Eddington, and the latter just as a joke. I never said anything about their, or anyone else's, politics.
*Time dilation does indeed occur under both general and special relativity. The point I was trying to make is that general relativity is simply not needed to understand the twin paradox. It only takes special relativity, which is much better understood. I'm sorry to hear that, by not analyzing the twin paradox in terms of general relativity, my persuasiveness suffered.
*I apologize if I "talked down" to you and Phyllis with my comments about GR being too complicated. I assume that both of you have heard, many times, that GR is exceedingly complicated. I was simply trying to soften the blow by pointing out that you ''don't need'' GR. And cracking that joke about how Eddington could not have been referring to me.
*In fact, I know a fair amount about GR. I ''could'' analyze the twin paradox in terms of the gravitation of Earth and Alpha Centauri. But there is simply no need to.
*This "non-conservative effect" business simply makes no sense. If the integration of a vector field along different paths gets different final results, then that field is non-conservative. You seem to be saying that the ''passage of time'' is some kind of vector field, and that the final results of "integrations" (the two different values of local time at the end of the experiment) are supposed to be the same, and that the difference shows that this "vector field" is not conservative, and that that is a counterexample to relativity. The passage of time is not a vector field. The different values of time, as seen by different observers, is not a ''counterexample'' to relativity, it is ''one of the principal effects'' of relativity. It's really what the word "relativity" means when discussing the scientific Theory of Relativity.
*If you really think that the non-globality and non-absoluteness of time is a counterexample to relativity, then so be it.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:13, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, if you "give up," then that is your own choice. You have not disproved the counterexample. Instead, you first described the twin paradox as being only about special relativity, and when I pointed out that it exists under general relativity too, you then agree yet do not fully address the substantive issue presented by the paradox. For example, the amount of acceleration undertaken by the twin in his journey will affect his age independent of his time spent away. His subsequent age is ''not'' path independent even in time-space coordinates.

: It's easy to search for "general relativity" and "conservative field" on the internet and see how little has been written about this. That is telling in itself. I'm happy to continue to discuss this here with you or anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Could you clarify what the ages (and path dependence thereof) in the twin paradox have to do with conservative fields? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:04, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Age is scalar physical attribute. It should not be path dependent in a [[conservative field]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes, but which [[conservative field]] in particular are you talking about here (that implies age is not path dependent)? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:37, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Gravity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Well, in Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is indeed conservative -- it's the negative gradient of the gravitational potential! But what this means is that gravitational potential energy is path-independent: it doesn't say anything about path-independence any other quantities, and in particular it's not the reason for the path-independence of age. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:00, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: You take a narrow view of the significance of a "conservative field." Independent physical attributes should remain path-independent as well for the field to be conservative. In Newtonian mechanics and most other physical force fields, they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: By a conservative field, I mean a vector field on space for which there exists a scalar function V with the gradient of V given by that vector field. This doesn't imply the path-independence of any physical quantities other than V itself. If you this view as too narrow, can you tell me what you take to be the definition of a conservative field? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:57, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: Your definition is too narrow when discussing the theory of relativity, which describes the framework in which the force operates. To be meaningful, the definition must be broader. It must ensure the path independence of the scalar, as well as other scalars independent of that scalar.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::: Can you tell me what the correct definition is, then? I have pretty good background in this stuff, no need to dumb it down, just be precise. Certainly no field at all is going to conserve every scalar function, so I'd like to know which ones you want. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 18:20, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::: Kyle, I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this, and don't see a precise definition anywhere that would be meaningful with respect to the theory of relativity. It's striking how relativists avoid this issue, and even stop discussing it when it is brought up.

::::::::::: I can propose a definition that you may be able to improve. How about: a conservative theory of motion is one whereby scalar values of a particle are independent of its path of motion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:36, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

That's an interesting proposal, and I too have an open mind about this. Can you give an example of such a ''conservative theory of motion''? One such would greatly help in devising the correct definition. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 19:29, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Newtonian mechanics would be an obvious example. By the way, how do you explain the general lack of discussion and papers about whether the theory of relativity is conservative, including the abrupt departure of User:Simeon from this discussion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Some scalar values in Newtonian mechanics are conserved because there exist associated conservative fields (or more generally [[Noether's Theorem|symmetries of the Lagrangian]]). What is an example of a scalar value in the Newtonian mechanics that is not of this type, which makes this a conservative theory of motion while relativity is not?
::I don't know why relativity's defenders won't confront this. Maybe that could be the topic of the debate page -- I'm interested using this discussion to sharpen counterexample 21. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 23:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: This is a really interesting discussion. I think I made a gross mistake in my first post. The theory of relativity urges us to think of the three space coordinates (x, y, and z) and the time coordinate (t) as four coordinates of space-time - that is, that space and time are pretty much the same. I extrapolated from this that since there can be a (conservative) gravitational field in space coordinates, there can also be some sort of conservative field depending on the time coordinate. I then extrapolated this notion to special relativity, and the twin paradox; I postulated that maybe time dilation effects were the work of a non-conservative field that was dependent on the t-coordinate. Now I see that this was all somewhat foolish. However, I wanted to ask you all: can you have a conservative or non-conservative field with respect to time? If not, I think time should '''not''' be considered as almost the same thing as x, y, z space. I feel that the ability for a dimension to have a field (conservative or not) is integral to its being considered a space-like dimension.

::: Aschlafly, the fact that the twin paradox exists in general relativity is '''irrelevant'''. Yes, sure, the twin paradox occurs within space where general relativity is working, but there are no effects acting on the twins that influences the twin paradox in any way. Likewise, User:Simeon 's departure is also '''irrelevant'''.

::: What about black holes, though? Surely their gravitational fields aren't conservative, since once an object passes the event horizon, you can't retrieve it. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 01:24, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Phyllis:

You seem to be very curious about this topic. I'm going to try to give an intuitive, but nevertheless scientifically correct, explanation of what is going on with relativity, the "twin paradox", and vector fields, potential functions, and path integrals. This explanation will probably seem long and tedious, for which I apologize in advance. I also apologize if it seems that I am being too "folksy", or talking down to you. Please bear with me, and please pay close attention.

We have a parking lot, and two twins, who are fitness enthusiasts and always wear pedometers wherever they go. There are two spots, "X" and "Y", painted on the parking lot. Both people stand on spot "X", set their pedometers to zero, and start walking. Twin A simply walks directly to spot Y. Twin B, being more into fitness, walks all over the place, eventually arriving at B.

Now there are quite a number of things we can say. First, the temperatures vary all over the place. They are a ''scalar field''. That means that they are associated with ''location on the parking lot'', not with any particular observer. They are objective measurements that everyone agrees on, because they are aspects of space itself. Our fitness enthusiasts are also amateur meteorologists, and carry thermometers around with them.

::Twin A: "When I was at the green Toyota, I noticed that the temperature was 67 degrees Fahrenheit."
::Twin B: "By coincidence, I also wandered past the green Toyota, and got the same reading."

By the way, since temperature is a scalar field, it has a gradient, which is a vector field. That field is conservative, according to the theorem of mathematical physics that says that curl grad Φ = 0 always. This gradient is a ''vector field''. Like the scalar of temperature, it is a property of the ''space (parking lot) itself''. If the twins had been measuring this gradient (perhaps they carry around fancy "differential thermometers"), they would have gotten the same vector at the green Toyota.

There is also a theorem of mathematical physics, sort of the opposite of the theorem above, that says that, if a vector field V has a curl of zero:
*You can make a scalar field <math>\Phi\,</math> (a property of the space itself, not tied to any particular observer) that it is the gradient of. That scalar field is called the "potential" for the (conservative) vector field. (By the way, this is very closely related to "exact differential equations" that you wrote about! Do you see the connection?)
*If you integrate that vector field along any path between two points A and B (that is, you calculate
:::<math>\int_A^B \vec{V} \cdot dl</math>
for that path, where "dl" is the "line element" along the path), you will get <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math>.
*Since <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math> is a property of the scalar field itself (and the points A and B), it follows that that path integral is the same for all paths. And if the path ends on the same point it started on, the integral is zero.

::Twin A: "I was measuring the gradient of the temperature as I walked, and calculating its path integral as I went. I got an answer of 4 degrees."
::Twin B: "I was doing the same. My integral was much harder to calculate, because I was going all over the place. But I also got 4 degrees. Hey, wait a minute! The temperature at the start point was 68 degrees, and at the end point it was 72 degrees. That explains it."

Now someone at the edge of the parking lot was running a Van deGraff generator, so there were electric fields all over the place. The twins are also physics students, and carry electroscopes wherever they go. They measured the electric field, and calculated its path integrals. The electric field is conservative (in the absence of varying magnetic fields), so they got the same integral. That integral was 600 volts (it's only static electricity, so it isn't dangerous). Since the electric field is conservative, there is, by the previous theorem, a potential function. That function was 600 volts higher at point B than at point A.

Now here's the kicker:

::Twin A: "I walked directly from A to B. My pedometer says 150 feet."
::Twin B: "I took a long route all over the place. I walked half a mile."

The pedometer readings ''are not a scalar field''. They are not a property of the space itself. They are properties of the observers. Even though they, in some sense, measure an aspect of the parking lot (how many molecules of asphalt one passes), they are artifacts of the twins' actions.

The twins could have been integrating their motion vectors; that's sort of what pedometers do. But those vectors are not a vector field on the space itself. It makes no sense to ask whether that "vector field" is conservative, because it isn't a vector field. A vector (or scalar, or tensor) field has to be a property ''of the space itself''. These "pedometer vectors" are just things that the twins make up as they walk.

Now for the "twin paradox". The parking lot is replaced by "Minkowski space", also called "4-dimensional space-time". "Points" in this space are now "events", complete with a time. Events A and B are now the act of the twins saying goodbye as one of them got into the rocket, and the act of them re-uniting after B returns. Twin A took a direct route (called her "world line") from A to B. She used a coordinate system in which the spatial coordinates of A and B were the same (Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, etc.) and the time coordinate differed by 30 years (2010 to 2040.) B went to Alpha Centauri and back. When she returned, they were both using the same coordinate system (location is Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, time is 2040.) But she looks at her watch, and only 5 years have elapsed! What the watch shows is ''not a scalar field on spacetime''. It was ''not the path integral of a vector field on spacetime''. What she integrated was the ticking of her watch, nothing more.

The path that A took is called a geodesic. It is the Minkowski-space equivalent of a "straight line". But, because of the peculiarities of relativity, it shows the ''longest'' elapsed time (30 years) of all paths, rather than the shortest. By going to Alpha Centauri, twin B took a shorter path, in terms of the way path length is measured in Minkowski space.

Very interesting fact: The path length in Minkowski space, that is, the sum of the tiny distances as measured by the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, ''is the same as the local time''. That is (assuming you are using the "spacelike convention"), everyone's wristwatch measures path length along their own world line. The twins simply followed paths of different lengths. That's all there is to the "twin paradox". (That is, that's all there is to it, if you analyze it correctly, as I have described above. Most introductory treatments of relativity don't do it this way. They just throw the Lorentz transform at you.)

Now there are a few points about the "twin paradox" that people find confusing.

First, aren't the laws of physics supposed to be the same for everyone? What made twin B's watch run slower? Well, she ''knew'' she was traveling at high speed. She brought an accelerometer with her in the rocket. Just as twin B in the parking lot knew she was walking all over the place, turning around and such, twin B in space knew that her world-line was turning, and therefore wasn't a straight line (geodesic). How did she know? It takes force to make you deviate from a geodesic (this is really pretty much the same as Newton's laws of motion), and she felt the force.

Second, how can we analyze the curvature of B's world line? Here's where general relativity has to come in. As soon as world lines start to curve, you have to measure their curvature, that is "geodesic curvature". You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!), and curved spacetime, and so on. And you get into the <math>\Gamma\,</math> symbols, which measure the deviation from a geodesic, and hence the "fictitious forces" that you feel. This is why general relativity is related to the "twin paradox", in that the space ship followed a curved trajectory and experienced acceleration. But, to analyze the plain facts of the "twin paradox", all you really need to know is that twin B followed a crooked line. Place your ruler on a diagonal on the graph of Minkowski space, draw the line out to Alpha Centauri. Turn the ruler, draw the returning line. Ignore the impossibly sharp corners. Use special relativity to analyze the Lorentz transform for each section of B's world line.

Oh, and to try to answer some of your specific questions, the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero. If it weren't, conservation of energy would be violated, and we could make a perpetual motion machine by having a planet run around in circles picking up energy. The "curl=0" aspect of gravity under general relativity is more complicated, because true vector fields have to be on Minkowski space, but it still conserves energy. When Mercury orbits the Sun, its perihelion precesses because of relativistic effects, but its energy is conserved.

I'll try to think some more about your black hole question and get back to you.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:00, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon, thanks so much for your long explanation! All of that made sense to me, and cleared up the issue of field as property of space vs. path specific to person vs. curved spacetime. Also, yes, I noticed the similarity between exact differential equations and deriving potential functions from vector fields - the former I studied in Differential Equations and the latter I studied in Multivariable Calculus.

:So, if I understand you properly, gravity both (a) curves spacetime and (b) creates a conservative field. (I derived (a) from your point: "You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!)", and (b) from your point: "the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero.") However, you're saying that if you are in an accelerating reference frame (such as a quickly-spinning merry-go-round) only (a) occurs; there is no field. Is this correct? If so, why is there this discrepancy between the two? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:54, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, gravity curves spacetime. It looks as though you're ready to go to the next level. It has to do with curved ''coordinate systems'' vs. curved ''spacetime''. This is why GR is so complicated. But here goes.

First, we have to recognize that, at some level, we could say that energy is *not* conserved. Spacecraft use "slingshot maneuvers" around one planet to gain extra energy on their way to another planet. I assume you've heard of this. Cassini used three such maneuvers, twice around Venus and once around Earth. So what was going on? If you look at a coordinate system centered on Venus, you would see Cassini come in and go out again, with complete conservation of energy. But, in a coordinate system fixed around the solar system, Venus was moving, so Cassini came in at low speed and went out at high speed. We "stole" some energy out of Venus's orbit. So, to be ''really'' correct, we have to say that gravity is a conservative field in the absence of '''moving''' gravitating bodies.

But, in the larger sense, energy is conserved. Always. Newtonian or relativistic. (But in relativity, the mass figures into the equation. Let's not worry about that just now.)

Now we get to the really cool stuff. Your comment above suggests that you are ready for it.

You will feel a "fictitious force" whenever you are in a "curved spacetime coordinate system". A curved coordinate system would include things like polar coordinates on the plane, or spherical coordinates in 3 dimensions. But this is 4-dimensional spacetime. So I'd like you to take my word for this. On a rotating merry-go-round, your 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system is curved. (This doesn't require relativity, special or general, to formulate this.) The 3-dimensional slice of it is flat, but, when you bring in time, and the spatial coordinates are accelerating, the overall coordinate system is curved. This creates fictitious forces. In the case of the merry-go-round, the forces are the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force. There are also the fictitious "acceleration G forces" in a rocket. But '''the spacetime itself isn't curved'''. It's like polar coordinates on the plane. Yes, the coordinate system is curved, but the plane isn't. There are Cartesian coordinates on the plane also. Similarly, an observer on the ground is in a flat coordinate system, and doesn't see any fictitious forces. He just sees the mechanism of the ride pushing you inward as you go around. Your recoil against that acceleration is what you perceive as the centrifugal force.

So the moral of the story would seem to be: you can choose a flat coordinate system that exposes the fictitious force for what it is. It's a perception from the curved spacetime coordinate system that the observer is operating in.

But how about gravity? In the case of gravity, '''spacetime itself is curved'''. If spacetime (properly called a "manifold") is curved, every coordinate system is curved, and the fictitious force which is gravity is inescapable.

So your statement "gravity curves spacetime", is exactly correct, but you have to distinguish "curving spacetime" and "curving some particular coordinate system". The actual curvature involves things called "Riemann's tensor" and "Ricci's tensor".

The number of people that understand this is way more than the 3 that Arthur Eddington claimed (it was more than 3 but probably less than 10 at the time), but it's still a pretty complicated subject.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:03, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon: Ah, that does make a lot of sense now. Thanks so much for explaining this to me. Hmm, that really is an elegant concept -- wow. Cool! [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 13:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Misleading Reference ==

The counterexample #18 has as an reference:

''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''

That's wrong: From the very beginning of the program, some relativistic effects were taken into account. As Conservapedia states at its article on [[GPS]] the Naval Research Lab in Washington published its report on the ''Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' in 1978 and listed the following GPS objectives that have been achieved to date:
#launch insertion into GPS constellation position
#demonstrated orbit stability and controllability
#first cesium frequency standard in space
#'''verification of relativity theory'''
But not only did the initial experiments bolster the theory, some relativistic effects have to addressed in general use - in the official specification for the GPS project , i.e., the [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995, you find the following:

p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''

It's true that not '''all''' effects are covered yet: as [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|I stated above]], the quoted article of the ''The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy'' addresses effects caused by the fast movement of some of the GPS-receivers - something which will doubtless be included as the number of fast receivers grows.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:03, 9 August 2010 (EDT)