Revision as of 23:30, January 27, 2012

The statement that "Charles Lyell supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in Principles of Geology" seems inadequate. Did Lyell set forth a scientific theory about an Old Earth in 1830? I'm skeptical.--Aschlafly 12:38, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Lyell was a geologist who created several theories related to the geologic age of the earth, including I believe uniformitarianism, and contained in his book Principles of Geology. Karajou 12:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Here's a copy of "Principles of Geology". The table of Contents is in HTML, but the text in PDF. [1] The first few chapters are about the development of ideas of the age of the earth.--Steve 13:45, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Helium diffusion, polonium halos, C14 dating

All of these methods give ample evidence for a young earth(C14 works best for more recent things). I was wondering if anyone wanted to write about these(If not, I can do some independent research for this article, but I'm in school right now so I can't promise anything).

-- RichardT^Talk 23:26, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

We already briefly discuss these in Young Earth Creationism. Philip J. Rayment 07:53, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Reversion explanation

The article doesn't say that individual scientists haven't been around for billions of years, it says that the scientific community hasn't been around that long. The people of God have been around for six thousand or so years, so have direct, first-hand records of the earliest days of creation. Jcw 15:41, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

The age of the scientific community and what the term "scientific community" means can be debated, and that's the point - this debate and the current debate over which group has the more accurate age of the Earth shouldn't be in the overview section of the article but instead represented in the sections dealing with the controversy over the age of the Earth. --Mike127 17:41, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Atheism and Old Earth Theories

The opening section of this article currently states that “atheists ... insist that Earth is somehow 4.5 billion years old” but it implies that all atheists (or only atheists) believe the Earth is billions of years old. This is incorrect and the section should be clarified: it is the majority scientific community that assert the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of religious orientations of individuals in this community. Simply put, not all atheists believe the Earth is billions of years old and not all Christians or others with religion believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. --Mike127 22:40, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Would you likewise object to a statement that "Republicans oppose Obama's policies"?--Andy Schlafly 23:16, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Yes, it's to general of a statement – conservatives oppose the liberal policies of the Obama administration, or it can be said that the Republican Party (leadership) opposes the Obama administration. Not all Republicans are conservative on all issues (e.g. the Log Cabin Republicans) and not all of Obama's polices are liberal (e.g. keeping Guantanamo Bay's prison open). The statement would be similar to asserting that Republicans agree on all issues (otherwise why would Republicans bother to have a presidential primary) and that the Obama administration is consistently liberal (they've done plenty of flip flopping to try and gain votes in the upcoming election). So bringing this back to the current article, the overview section (or opening section, whatever one would like to call it) should be more explicit on which groups are putting forward the Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth theories. When it comes to Old-Earth theories - "atheists" is to general of a term and insinuates that those of the scientific community that support Old-Earth theories are without religion. --Mike127 23:55, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Your objection would silence many useful observations. Under your view, is it wrong to say that obesity is unhealthy? There may be one case out of a million where the person is actually better off getting fatter. If that case exists, would you object to commenting about the majority?--Andy Schlafly 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Unfortunately, you've missed my point. What I was referring to is the need to avoid over generalizing and casting all old Earth supporters into the ranks of atheists; there is a need to rework the opening section of this article for greater clarity. To say that supporters of an old Earth are atheists is making too big of an assumption, especially if one's religion espouses an old Earth.

And I hardly think your analogy of obesity and health applies to your original loaded question regarding the political persuasions of Americans: I'm sure far more than 1 in a million Democrats oppose Obama and far more than 1 in a million Republicans support Obama's more conservative polices - America's not that black & white, nor is the issue of who are the supporters of old Earth vs. young Earth. --Mike127 22:44, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

6 thousand years old

I was wondering, is there a reason why this number is written in this way? personally I would either say "6,000 years old" or "six thousand years old", but I wanted to ask for your opinions before changing it. --Leo-from-UK 19:42, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

No particular reason. Either of your suggested edits would be fine.--Andy Schlafly 19:48, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, change implemented. Personally I think that little, apparently meaningless details like this improve the perceived quality of an encyclopedia. I chose 6,000 years because it's more "visually immediate" than "six thousand". --Leo-from-UK 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

You're right. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Exact age

I have not been able to find out an exact age. It is always referred to as "about 6,000 y.o". Has anyone found a study calculating the exact age of the Earth ? --ARamis 20:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

No, I haven't, and wouldn't expect to find one. Dates of events far more recent than creation are in dispute.--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Tends to be anywhere from 5-10k years. Depends on if you follow ushers example and dont think there mght be some names missing from the lists of names in genesis and the gospels.--SeanS 22:24, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Why the removal?

Why was the mention of Old Earth removed? The fact of the matter is, the majority of the scientific community has accepted radiometric dating as true, and that the Earth is in fact 4 billion years old. Also, why does it matter what historic figures felt the age of the Earth to be. Isn't this an appeal to tradition? Our ancestors also believed that, prior to Christianity, the Sun and Moon were Gods. Should their opinions be held to be correct as well? JohnPaulJonesRevWar 08:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

First, must? Second, secularist/deistic fashions among scientists don't carry a lot of weight. Conservative 08:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

So if they disagree with you they are automatically inferior and their opinion matters less? That's dancing awfully close to censorship isn't it? JohnPaulJonesRevWar 09:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't see in his reply anywhere that he stated he disagreed with those ideas, and whether or not anyone does is irrelevant. Passing scientific fads never carry much weight, regardless of our personal views on the matter. (Conservative, please correct me if I misstate your views). Thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 12:40, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Passing scientific fads? The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So dismissing them is either a willful dismissal for several of the key theories that make up our understanding of the universe, how it works, and how it came into being out of hand; or simply a dismissal of these as contrary to what the author wishes to believe. It seems Conservative is saying it is the latter, as they are wrong simply because they are secular. JohnPaulJonesRevWar 12:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

So you're saying the author should not believe in God at all? We have to believe in these scientific theories without question or criticism? We have to accept them as fact, regardless of conflicting evidence? Karajou 15:49, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

No, but you need to state where the majority of the scientific community lies and what evidence they place stock in. Most of those who are not members of the YEC (which is a minority) do not hold to the idea that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old. JohnPaulJonesRevWar 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

JohnPaul, you wrote: "The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years." You are either not being truthful or you are seriously deceived. Any cursory review of the history of science shows the scientific opinion about the age of the earth has changed multiple times and all the while this was occurring there was plenty of scientific progress which was going on. Plus, there is plenty of science that occurs where the age of the earth is irrelevant to the investigation at hand. In addition, you seriously need a better understanding between mere opinion and fact. For example, it is fact that scientific opinion has changed multiple times about the age of the earth. Now you may say that now it is "near fact" about the age of the earth being whatever age is fashionable now among some errant scientific circle, but given your previously illogical pronouncement please don't expect people to kowtow to your pronouncement. Conservative 17:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

As I said, since the advent of radiometric dating, the consistent concensus has been that the tests of radiometric dating have all stated that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. If you wish to question radiometric dating then fine, but you should at least mention it as a major stubmling block towards YEC. JohnPaulJonesRevWar 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Decay rates

I don't think this article should say that the assumption that decay rates have stayed constant is "implausible," for the simple reason that it isn't. I don't for a minute think it's a CORRECT assumption, but for it to be an IMPLAUSIBLE one there would have to be a reason why they COULDN'T have remained constant; there is no more reason why they couldn't have remained constant than there is one why they couldn't have changed. Unless someone can give a reason why decay rates MUST change the word "implausible" is not appropriate. --ArtWellesley 22:01, 30 December 2011 (EST)

It is obviously "implausible" because the universe is cooling over time, which would cause decay rates to change. It's no more possible for decay rates to remain constant than it would be for a sun to remain constant in energy.--Andy Schlafly 22:43, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Decay rates, again

Do we discuss anything here or is everything too scared of the 90/10 rule to bother? In changing "unreliable" to "imprecise", I took the time to try to explain in the edit summary why I was doing so yet it seems others can't actually be bothered to explain why they disagree with the change. Once it's simply "Unnecessary Edit" and now you can apparently just indicate you agree with someone else by stating "Consensus". It would be nice to at least have the opportunity of trying to understand the objections to the change. I do wonder if I'd be wasting my time expanding on my reasoning. Adambro 18:32, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Since your reasoning is flawed, yes, it would be a waste of your time to expand on it. By the way, nitpicking individual words in a post doesn't count towards your 90/10 count, so focus on creating content, instead of pushing some nonsensical agenda against certain words. Does the word unreliable offend you, or is it that we don't treat evolutionists with kid gloves and euphemisms?

TonyPark 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)

I wouldn't accept that it is nitpicking. When I looked up info on some of the variations in decay rate that have been identified, none of them would make a significant difference to the magnitude of the time periods involved. None of them would explain the gap between 6,000-10,000 years old and the billions of years at the other end of the scale. They impact on the precision, not the reliability. That isn't to say there aren't other problems in assuming decay rate is a good way of determining the age of the earth but the possibility of variation in decay rate identified don't support the suggestion that what is known about decay is so wrong that the the figures calculated from it could be millions of times out. The facts as to the known variation of radioactive decay just don't support that. Adambro 18:58, 10 January 2012 (EST)

So you admit that radioactive dating is wrong, but you won't admit that the results are wrong. I find your arguments to be non-sensical. TypicL liberal claptrap. TonyPark 19:36, 10 January 2012 (EST)

No, I don't accept that radiometric dating is wrong or that the results are wrong, at least not to the degree you are alluding. I accept that some variations in decay rate have been identified which can affect the precision to which the method can date samples but what I cannot accept is that those undermine the fundamental principles behind radiometric dating. It seems you're trying to use these variations to suggest that the method must be so wrong that there could be scope for samples thought to be billions of years old actually being 6,000-10,000 years old but I just don't see how the facts as to what is known about those variations supports that. What we have here is a criticism of an assumption that the rate of radioactive decay is a constant followed by what is effectively simply an opposite assumption, that the rate of radioactive decay is completely not a constant. That despite the fact that there is no evidence to back up that assumption. If it is unwise to assume the rate is constant then surely it is just as unwise to assume the rate isn't constant. Adambro 08:16, 11 January 2012 (EST)