Talk:Age of the Earth
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Article needs work
This article needs serious work. It is supposed to be about the age of the earth, not a diatribe against young earth creationists. It is too emotional and poorly written. Let's get the science in here, and leave the other (crap) to a different arcticle (creationism, for example). Would an article on geodesy be justified in being primarily a rant against flat-earthers?
- It's true; this article (and it's not alone) does need serious work. I've rearranged a bit to put the creationist stuff after the presentation of the mainstream view (so the article doesn't start out immediately attacking them), but the evidences for the mainstream view should be expanded significantly (or linked to different pages) and the creationist part still needs cleaning up. This is a wiki. Feel free to help out! :) TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 09:34, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
What's with the "mainstream"? Are there any non-mainstream but nevertheless scientific numbers deviating from 4.55E9? If yes, they should be mentioned together with the reasons given. If no, the "mainstream" should be removed. --tk (t) 10:33, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- I'm not sure why you think so. "Mainstream" is a fairly common way to differentiate between the well-tested science on the one hand and fringe science and pseudoscience on the other. The word is already widely used on EvoWiki. Also, I think we've discussed this before: Young Earth Creationism, in it's purest form, is scientific. It's just bad science. That's the reason that so much pseudoscience is going on in the YEC movement. "Mainstream" seems quite appropriate for situations like this. I also find it tends to sound less dogmatic than just saying "science," which I consider to be important when talking with creationists, who generally start with the a priori belief that science is dogmatic. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 22:37, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Stars
I removed this:
- Since Creationist believe that the entire universe was created in synch with earth, the field of Astronomy proves problematic. If the universe is only 12,000 years old, how can we be getting light from stars that was transmitted billions of years ago?
Reason: I don't know a good place in that page for it. It probably does not belong there at all; I think we already have a page for that. In any case, it does not belong under "Footnotes". --tk (t) 11:20, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
Purpose
As I read the first few lines of the EvoWiki, it said: "EvoWiki's goal is to promote general evolution education, and to provide mainstream scientific responses to the arguments of creationism and other antievolutionists." I would say this goal is biased. Why couldn't the theory of creation be treated equal (to start with) on this wiki? If we define everything said by creationist is psudoscience, then what is the point to do any argument on this wiki? If we do, then the nature of this wiki is everything else but scientific. From another point of view, I would assume the "founder" of this wiki (is there such person?) is anti-creation. So, some creationist should set up another EvoWiki or CreateWiki to start a similarly biased theme in that wiki. Then all the anti-crestion people would go there to put on the same arguments. Is that what we like to see? It does not make sense to me.
If we want to argue about evolution vs. creation, then argue about it scientifically and honestly. To set a biased view in the first beginning is certainly NOT scientific or can be truely called pseudoscientific. --Juvenis 03:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- The main problem with this idea is that Creationism Theory does not explain anything. At all. Creationists do no science whatsoever. None, nothing, squat, nix, nein, neyt, mei yo. They claim to be able to explain what Evolutionary Biology can explain, and yet, they not only can not comprehend even the most basic scientific ideas, they have no motivation to learn even the most basic scientific ideas. Out of the millions of Creationists who live in the United States, I'm convinced that there are, perhaps 3 who are aware of what a placoderm is. Treating Creationism as the equal of Evolutionary Biology is akin to barring a surgeon from performing surgery, just to let a faith healer make a dollar, irregardless of whether or not the patient survives or not. Not only do Creationist have a pathological need to remain ignorant about science, they seek to mislead other people about science through lies and malicious misinformation, in spite of religious prohibitions against such tactics.--Mr A. 04:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your comments are very flaming and as a consequence, are not good. Calm down and reason. Otherwise, you will be similar to those creationists (as you see them). Give one example to illustrate that creationist DO think and DO use science: They see fossilized tree trunks stand straight. So they concluded that the tree must be buried alive (scientific enough?). So they think there must be a quick, big flood to kill the tree. So they suggest this was done by the Genesis Flood. OK, you may argue about their logic and hypothesis. But you can not deny they are doing honest and real scientific research. And the data is demanding an explanation (from evolutionist). So, I would suggest you to modify what you wrote on the above paragraph. Otherwise, science people will laugh at you. (if you change it, I will change this one accordingly). --Juvenis 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- What the bloody hell do you mean I'm "flaming"? I'm not flaming, I'm stating a matter of fact. If I were flaming, I'd be calling Creationists soulless hypocritical Pharisees who would gladly sell their own children in the name of "Piety." If you actually go to a Creationist website, do you see discussions of dinosaur behavior, or placoderms? No. You see poorly written and abyssmally researched essays claiming how Evolutionism is the root of all the world's problems, in that it was Darwin who drove a deranged milkman to shoot and rape those 10 Amish girls, or how it was Darwin who inspired who inspired Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to kill all those people they killed, or how Darwin was the inspiration for Osama Bin Ladin to plot the 9/11 catastrophe, or how Steve Irwin is rotting in Hell simply because he never got around to repenting the sin of believing in Evolution. Forgive me if I sound insulting, but, I feel that I have the right not to speak civily towards people who not only think that learing even the most rudimentary scientific trivia is a deadly deadly sin, but also think that they can win an argument by stating that, since I don't agree with them, Jesus is going to send me to Hell.--Mr A. 20:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you refuse to learn what science is, you'll remain confused about most of the articles and discussions here. --RonZ 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just reformatted to enhance readability - this is necessary since I'm going to answer Juvenis' first posting above.
- You "would say this goal is biased". This usage of "biased" is a postmodern cliché: lots of people believe that scientists have to be neutral, have to avoid opinions on every point. This is naive nonsense, see False Compromise.
- Just assume there are three types of people:
- those who claim that 2+2 = 4,
- those who claim that 2+2 = 5,
- those who claim that both other groups are dogmatic, since scientists aren't allowed to just categorically state something, and real scientists must withhold opinion. This is your "scientifically and honestly".
- Now, which of those groups know how to add?
- Creation/evolution is pretty much the same. Those who call themselves "creation scientists" are anything but scientists. Every one of their arguments contains at least one rookie mistake destroying its fundament. General talk like yours is completetly useless. Please name one working creationist argument (you find lots at List of creationist claims) or stop pretending creationism is science. --tk (t) 09:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree very much with you that scientific argument does not have to be neutral. In fact, it can not be neutral in case you think you are right and others are wrong. However, the theme which hosts diverse discussions should be neutral. In your example, the theme should be 2+2 = ?. But all three arguments you listed should be welcome in the discussion.
Regards to the "creation scientist" bias, the answer is very simple by an example. You may assume that I am a creation scientist because I like to pick on details of evolution content. Don't you think my arguments can stand for scientific criticism ? --Juvenis 14:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Age of the Earth. v.2.3
Why version 2.3? Because I think other better versions have existed for a long time. I would leave room to let those versions sit before this one. (Besides, the number 23 is hot recently on movie, TV etc.) In order to estimate the age of the earth, we should not hang ourselves only on the tree of radiometric dating. Here is another one. The earth today has high elevation land such as mountain, plateau, etc. But the surface of the earth is also subject to active erosion all the time. The argument is: if the earth has an age in the order of 10E+9 years, should all the land be eroded flat to the sea level during most time of the earth’s history? (side comment) Issues can be used to argue against the concept of evolution is numerous. They will not prove creationism. But it is more than enough to knock out evolutionism. This one starts from a very low level (easy understanding) content, how deep the argument could go would depend on who is doing the argument. --Juvenis 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- If someone came into this argument completely ignorant of geology, they might be fooled to thinking you have a point. But, of course, the earth is geologically active, and this activity is faster and stronger than erosive forces. --RonZ 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Very good. However, the faster and stronger forces are also very sparse and brief. In comparison, the erosive force, which constantly exists, will have no problem to win. So, since mountains and hills are very common landform, it strongly suggests the earth is young. --Juvenis 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- "the faster and stronger forces are also very sparse and brief" Wrong. They're continuous. Read a geology text. --RonZ 22:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not wrong, but needs interpretation (by the way, this is the key to solve many many quarrels in the online talk environment). The fast and strong force is sort of continous, but is also sparse and brief. How? Very simple, space distribution. Don't forget the earth has a pretty wide surface. The force may work here and there in a continuous way. But it would take a long time, if it ever happen, to re-occur at the same spot. During this period of time, erosion will quickly wipe out the effect. Strictly speaking, the idea of continous strong force may contradict to the general evolution theory. There seems to be some periods of time when there was not such a stong force to create significant change on the surface of earth. --Juvenis 23:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- You fail to realize that volcanism and geological thrust are not the only building forces. Erosion also plays a vital role in building stuff, too. Did you think that when mountains and islands erode, the sediment magically disappears? When rock and sediment erode away from one region, the resulting sediment is then transported and deposited elsewhere, hence little things like the formation of sandbars, and deltas, and the deposition of sediments during floods.--Mr A. 23:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not forget. The build up from the waste is indeed significant. But the limit is the sea level. It won't be built higher than the sea level. --Juvenis 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- What about when sedimentation fills in lakes and other inland bodies, or when the sea level drops, or when sand dunes form at the seashore and move inland?--Mr A. 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This type of build up would never go anywhere. They would either disappeared very quickly by continuous erosion, or they would remain low and close to the sea level. And we are talking about mountain or hills at least 200 feet high above the sea level. --Juvenis 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand now. Juvenis is demonstrating intellectual dishonesty to us. Each of his statments has obmitted basic facts of geology. Each time he is faced with this, he makes new statements, never explaining why he made such obmissions first place. He's always wrong, but never admits it. --RonZ 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but you misinterpret your discovery. This is a way of intellectual education. When a teacher hides details and just presents simplified fact to student, it certainly is not dishonesty. I said it, how far can this issue go depends on how much can the person argue. But the theme, a younger earth, never change. --Juvenis 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- What happened to you presenting yourself as someone here to learn? Obviously you're no teacher. You're not presenting "simplfied facts", you're presenting misrepresentations, outright lies, and deceptions. You're dishonest. You ignore facts when they're presented to you. Stop wasting our time. --RonZ 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Age of the earth v.1.5
Why version 1.5? It came to me that a better version would have a higher number. So, I take a lower one. Why not v. 0.1? Because the content potentially kdeserves v.1.5. Why not v.1.0? Because I know it better than v. 1.0 This argument is only a lead to a bigger issue. But I think it might be enough to begin. It is not a new one. Creationist has been using the formation time of cave as an argument for a young earth. So, I will start from there. Many geologists suggest that a limestone cave would take millions of years to form. But detail calculation suggests it should only take a much shorter time. The fact that there are a lot of (limestone) caves today suggests the earth is younger than the proposed age. --Juvenis 02:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Misrepresented evidences and deceptions
I quote three data from the article: 4.55 Ga from a meteorite; 4.4 Ga from a zircon; and 4.57 Ga from a CAI. Consider the current accepted model on the origin of the moon, these three dates are not likely to be all true. Personally, I do not think the 4.4 Ga date is significant. --Juvenis 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Measurements,like those three, always contain an "error bar". That is, every measurement is accurate only within a certain interval. When you weigh yourself, you can just say "between 80.9 and 81.1 kg", or "80 plus minus 0.1".
- I don't have the time at the moment to look up the error bars of those three measurements, but they are so close together that they very probably have overlapping error bars. --tk (t) 09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not waste your time to look that up. They are orange and apple and can not be treated as measurements from the same group. Also, this is a reason that the zircon age may not be reliable. It is most likely that it is a single measurement, and the error bar is effectively meaningless. --Juvenis 14:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't waste our time. --RonZ 15:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
