Talk:Age of Earth/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

New addition

Controversy and criticism

Some have said that there have been major problems in using radiometric dating. Rocks whose ages were clearly known to be less than 200 years old, for example, from a volcanic eruption in Hawaii during the 19th century, were dated and the ages differed from 1.60 million to 2.96 million years.[1] Other major problems are that many rocks that are dated in billions of years using U235 dating still contain C14 which should have been gone after no more than 100,000 years.

This has thrown into question radioactive dating for rocks. It can give wrong ages for the rocks whose ages we know, and also in many cases, give contradictory results depending on which dating method is used.

While this may be true, is there any evidence that these are unexplained anomalies that put the general dating system into doubt? Without that, it's highly misleading. Guettarda 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a good reason to remove the controversy and criticism section, then please state it. I'm not following your logic and, right now, I can see no good reason to remove it. These are valid questions and the links lead to valid information. This data needs to remain. --Yuk Yuk Yec 03:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a good reason - it's misleading, and thus violates NPOV. And please do not make unwarranted accusations of vandalism. Guettarda 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You said the links were to non-scientific sources and this is incorrect and misleading at best, vandalism at worst. The links are to articles written by scientists who are noteworthy and knowledgeable in their fields. --Yuk Yuk Yec 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the same old POV pushing we've been over before (see the extensive discussions above). The refs provided are not scientific, but simply the same old religious straw-grabbing. Now stop making false accusations of vandalism, those are serious charges not to be thrown around lightly. They amount to a personal attack. Vsmith 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is supposed to include the nonscientific views, except where they are held by an extremely small group (which the views in question aren't), with a tone just as positive and sympathetic as when referring to the scientific views. (Note that using a positive tone does not mean ignoring the evidence against the nonscientific view; for a fully NPOV you need to include such evidence.) Removing these views from Wikipedia, an action contrary to WP:NPOV, could be called POV-pushing. (And before anyone makes any undue accusations of POV-pushing toward me, I'm saying we need to write from a NPOV, not a non- or pseudo-scientific POV.) Ergbert 06:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"You said the links were to non-scientific sources and this is incorrect and misleading at best, vandalism at worst". What is incorrect about that statement?

The links are to rebuttals and scientific findings, by scientists in their fields of study. You cannot call these "non-scientific sources" and be telling the truth. This is just your POV.--Yuk Yuk Yec 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your links were to trueorigins.org, answersingenesis.org, icr.org, and creationism.org - these are the web pages politico-religious advocacy groups, not scientific publications.

This is your POV. Where on their site is this stated? How does this effect the information in the links that attempts to rebut radiometric dating, with scientific information, by scientists in the relevant fields? --Yuk Yuk Yec 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not stated anywhere on their sites. It doesn't need to be stated in eye-destroying fluorescent flasing letters. At least not when you have evidence which directly references the bile used to refute anti-creation and anti-genesis arguments on Answersingenesis.com. That is a very, very partisan position which uses no scientific evidence at all. There's innumberable pages and arguments like that on the site; its all the same. Ergo, it is a political religious site and can't be used to refute science. Oh, wait. They go into the usual stuff here, namely excess Ar giving old dates for young volcanics which are best dated with U-Th. But wait, there's still more. The reviews are done by AiG (answers in genesis) scientists. Who are not at all potentially biased by association with a site chock-full of references such as "I believe the bible is inviolable truth".

* Creationism.org. Need we say more?

* Trueorigins.org. Its a site which in the first sentence says its there to disprove evolution. Not to actually, you know, be impartial. So, again, how trustworthy is the research commissioned by trueorigins.org as to its impartiality? And they go on about how they 'rebut presuppositional bigotry on the flood hypothesis' when the flood hypothesis has no direct evidence which cannot be explained by orthodox geology and which is presupposed t have happened because it is written in the Bible?

So sorry, yuk yuk yek, you do not sway me with your arguments that dividing these biased religious websites and their self-commissioned "scientific" analyses off from the scientific story is POV. Like someone else has said before, there's a link at the top whichdirects people to the creation article. So give it up.Rolinator 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Only one of them cited any scientific papers, and all of them make misleading assertions.

This is your POV. Keep your POV out of the entry. All of them were written by scientists in a relevant field of study. Therefore, they should be included. --Yuk Yuk Yec 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr Pot! Mr Kettle can keep his black POV out of the article if you'll keep your sooty little POV out of t too. Rolinator 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

None of these have anything to do with science.

You're absolutely wrong. This is your POV. All of these have to do with the entry and with dating. They are all written by scientists who have degrees in these fields. Therefore, they should be included in the entry. Just because you don't agree with them, it doesn't mean they should be silenced. They launch valid criticisms. --Yuk Yuk Yec 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, because you have a head full of bricks or something, they have degrees in science. But tha does not mean that what they do is scientific and meets the criteria of scientific research. You can have a degree in science and go out and do bad science, or pseudoscience. There's nothing stopping people getting degrees in science and using their qualifications to back up their fallacious arguments with a veneer of apparent credibility. Your argument is therefore meaningless as the value of scientific research is usually guaged in the number of times an article is referenced, not whether its author has a PhD. Or even a BSc. Rolinator 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

They are nothing more than propaganda meant to deceive their followers. Guettarda 04:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your POV. This statement has nothing to do with the entry, the scientific analysis by each of the scientists, or the relevancy of said papers. Keep your POV out of this entry. These are valid criticisms from scientists in the relevant fields of study. Therefore, they should be included in this entry. --Yuk Yuk Yec 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Repetition gets your point across. Once again; those creation science websites are biased and their research, by their own staff, sponsored with their own Church donated money or money solicited from believers in Creation or Evolution, is not biased. Hell, they are hardly going to commission a scientist to do research with money donated to their "charity" by old grandmothers, to disprove creation are they? Its against their creed and stated mission and vision. So, again, biased biased biased. Rolinator 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The cite referenced by Yuk Yuk and Sal Sa comes from one of the least scientific sites I have ever encountered. "...stars cannot evolve out of gas", "Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state", "Why the Earth is not millions of years old", and the like are laughable at best, non-scientific, Young-Earth Creationism drivel and hardly worthy of inclusion in a scientific article. In addition, Young Earth creationism, Inteligent Design, Theistic Evolution, etc., have their own articles, which would be where the tripe from Evolution Cruncher belongs. Keep pseudoscience with pseudoscience. Jim62sch 11:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is part of your problem. This isn't a "scientific article", but it's an entry on Wikipedia about the Age of the Earth. One of two things needs to happen. 1) A young earth and an old earth should be represented equally and fairly or 2) the current article should remain with a criticism and controversy section of an old earth, because there is criticism and controversy from other scientists and others.--Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Repetition again. See top of article. Click the blue text. It takes you to the other POV on the age of the Earth. It states, clearly enough for every other retard who browses wikipedia except you to see, that this article discusses the scientific viewpoint. The other viewpoint is on the other article. So stop being a pedantic tard.Rolinator 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the article reporting the Age of the Earth (Scientific) or just information on the Age of the Earth? If there's something good to say in a controversy section, by all means say it, preferably with references, (which that addition seemed to have) yet at the same time, the article should note why people consider the controversy "propaganda", "pseudocience", and whatever words people wish to label it with, if it's so obvious that all controversy really reflects those terms, it shouldn't take long to represent the perspective against said controversy. Homestarmy 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This can and has been done on other articles. A controversy and criticism section and a response to it (and possibly even a response to that response). Deleting this section altogether is absurd and POV. --Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

For abiogenic petroleum origin all it managed to do was turn the article into a confusing spread of verbal diarrhoea from a million uninformed fools. It took a severe rewrite by me to sort it out, and I was the first in over 18 months to actually put any evidence up for the For position. So i doubt having a bullet-point pissfest on the article page will help the cause of either Creation or Geology. Rolinator 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, YYY, you seem to have an awful lot of knowledge of Wikipedia -- one might say too much for a new user. In fact, I noticed that Arbustoo asked you about this on your user talk page twice (3/15 and 3/17), and you've yet to answer. Now, I suppose you could be a fast learner, but it just seems a mite peculiar. I also notice that there's a very specific POV to your edits, and all of your edits pertain to the same basic subject -- religion primarily as it applied to YEC. Curious. Jim62sch 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am highly unconvinced that YYY is a sockpuppet of anyone, see his edits on the John Morris page for example, which while POVy were overall ok(of course, I seem to have a track record of being too generous about this sort of thing). Jim, if you think he is a sockpuppet/replacement of someone, who do you think he is? JoshuaZ 22:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he was a sock puppet per se, rather that I doubt this is the first he's been here. Arbustoo has noted the same. They were overall OK? You reverted two of the six. Jim62sch 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess my standard of what constitues overall ok are lower than yours. YYY, you know it would be helpful if you clarified this a bit. Have you been editing wikipedia prior to using your current account? Thanks, Josh Z JoshuaZ 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

See Guettarda's comments below. Find valid sources and we'll talk. Slop from a political activist websites have no place here. Jim62sch 17:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

YYY's debate

• YYY's first point - "The links are to rebuttals and scientific findings, by scientists in their fields of study"
  • If that is the case, then reference their actual scientific publications, not their their pieces on political activist websites. Rebuttals of science by scientists are published in peer-reviewed journals, or in letters to such journals.
• YYY's second point - that it is my POV that these are not scientific publications
  • I think it's self-evident that these websites are not scientific publications. I am amazed that anyone would argue otherwise.
• In response to the statement that only one of them cited any scientific publications, YYY responded "This is your POV".
  • Again, it's self-evident from looking at the articles - most of them cite no references at all, one cites references to a creationist magazine (not peer-reviewed science) and one cites a real journal, but still does so in a misleading manner.
• To my assertion that these have nothing to do with science, YYY replied "They are all written by scientists who have degrees in these fields. Therefore, they should be included in the entry."
  • These are two very separate assertions. For one, having a degree in science does not make you a scientist - it requires that you are active in research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. If these people are active in science, then by all means, their publications are relevant, but only if they are taken in context - i.e., how were they received and critiqued by their peers. The scond part is the assertion that, because these people have degrees, their opinions should be included in the article, is nonsense. Wikipedia articles are not avenues for crackpottery - by degreed or non-degreed people.

The material asserts that, in certain cases, dates are wrong (which is no surprise to anyone) and then uses this assertion to question all dating. There are known sets of conditions in which you will get misleading dates - just like there are known areas in which you will get misleading compass readings (anywhere near the poles, for example, since true north and magnetic north do not coincide). It is misleading to take these known exceptions and use them to dispute all dating (much like it would be to use the issues with compass readings to question that Montreal is north of Miami). It's just silly, and it definitely does not belong in this article. Guettarda 14:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• YYY's first point - "The links are to rebuttals and scientific findings, by scientists in their fields of study"
  • If that is the case, then reference their actual scientific publications, not their their pieces on political activist websites. Rebuttals of science by scientists are published in peer-reviewed journals, or in letters to such journals.
    • You have yet to show that they are political activist web sites. It's sad that you and Jim are so concerned with the web site and the organization that you will not consider that the author is a scientist whose POV should be represented in this article. --Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• YYY's second point - that it is my POV that these are not scientific publications
  • I think it's self-evident that these websites are not scientific publications. I am amazed that anyone would argue otherwise.
    • You being amazed isn't proof and isn't an argument. These are scientists writing about dating methods, who have degrees and research in these fields of study, who write in peer-reviewed journals. Their input about the controversy should be included and not deleted. --Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• In response to the statement that only one of them cited any scientific publications, YYY responded "This is your POV".
  • Again, it's self-evident from looking at the articles - most of them cite no references at all, one cites references to a creationist magazine (not peer-reviewed science) and one cites a real journal, but still does so in a misleading manner.
    • How was this done in a misleading manner? --Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• To my assertion that these have nothing to do with science, YYY replied "They are all written by scientists who have degrees in these fields. Therefore, they should be included in the entry."
  • These are two very separate assertions. For one, having a degree in science does not make you a scientist - it requires that you are active in research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. If these people are active in science, then by all means, their publications are relevant, but only if they are taken in context - i.e., how were they received and critiqued by their peers. The scond part is the assertion that, because these people have degrees, their opinions should be included in the article, is nonsense. Wikipedia articles are not avenues for crackpottery - by degreed or non-degreed people.
    • These men are active in research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Since they are active in science, their publications are relevant and should be included in this entry. --Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter, if it has anything to do with anything saying that the age of the earth is not billions of years old, it doesn't matter. It's not about being scientific, it's about the evidence conforming to the "Old Earth" presuppositions. --Goldendroplets 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of presuppositions try every piece of evidence one can validate conforms to an old Earth and universe. Curiosities which at first glance don't follow that can and have been explained by scientists. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, the problem with this material isn't that it's outside of the mainstream. Non-mainstream material is fine in Wikipedia, so long as it is identified as such. The problem is that this was presented as "problems with the science", but what is being presented is a very selective presentation of information.

No, it was presented as "Controversy and criticism". Feel free to try and rewrite the section if you wish. There certainly should be a section, though.--Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The material asserts that, in certain cases, dates are wrong (which is no surprise to anyone) and then uses this assertion to question all dating. There are known sets of conditions in which you will get misleading dates - just like there are known areas in which you will get misleading compass readings (anywhere near the poles, for example, since true north and magnetic north do not coincide). It is misleading to take these known exceptions and use them to dispute all dating (much like it would be to use the issues with compass readings to question that Montreal is north of Miami). It's just silly, and it definitely does not belong in this article.

This is a straw man argument (logical fallacy). This example was never used. Making a straw man is just as bad as blindly attacking these organizations (without any proof, I might add) instead of actually considering that these men are scientists with science degrees talking about their relevant field of study, making their research and findings very relevant and even essential for this entry on Wikipedia. --Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To expand on Guettarda's points, all of which are valid and accurate. Yes, there are known cases where initial dating was incorrct, but ask this, how do we know that? Because in science we test and retest, and if we find a mistake we correct it and publish the results. That's the beauty of science -- unlike pseudoscience and mythology-based "theories", science has the chutzpah to admit and error, rather than persist in it, or dress it up as some allegedly "new theory". Jim62sch 18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: The "problem dates" in question are not really problem dates at all in the way that Jim62sch describes. Although Yuk Yuk has not provided us with a reference to the appropriate analytical data (as would be required for admission to a wikipedia article) I can suggest with a high degree of certainty that the authors of the original works did not actually suggest that the 19th century rocks were millions of years old. Young rocks dated using the decay of K to Ar (likely the method in question) are highly susceptible to problems associated with the inheritance of "old" radiogenic Ar which, to the ignorant or uninitiated, can result in spurriously old "dates". My point is that radiometric dating is a very complex process, and a great many "numbers with units of years" can be calculated from isotopic data. The original workers did not suggest that any of these "numbers with units of years" reflected a real event in the past and therefore there was no "incorrect date" published. It is the creation scientists who are reinterpreting the data. Deciding which (if any) of these "numbers with units of years" reflects an actual event in the past is a difficult and challenging processes...and is why it is (mostly) done by persons who have invested significantly in education and training. This is not to say that there are no "incorrect dates" published, but that these instances probably do not include any of them. Rickert 18:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of the dating method, but I don't see that we disagree here. Jim62sch 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we do. Your statements imply that the "dates" that have been cited above are somehow "bad-data". There is important information contained within the argon isotopic systematics of fresh, young, volcanic rock that do not include the "date" of eruption. Please tread carefully when referring to actual science, particularly when the primary literature is not available, as you risk making statements that are incorrect. That is not meant as an insult to your intelligence, just a plea to make this discussion smoother. Rickert 22:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you read too much into what I wrote. There have been instances where the dating has been adjusted as new data have come in, although the adjustment is usually that the item is older than first thought. Besides, there is rarely "bad data", more often there is bad interpretation of the data. And that is one of the areas the YECs have significant problems in. Jim62sch 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (to all points). Rickert 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Given the background you note on your user page, it seems logical to ask you to field the geology questions (physics, cosmology and linguistics are more my thing). BTW, I'm intrigued by the article you mention re Uranium-Lead geochronology -- is this a steady decay, or are does uranium decay to radon and then radon to polonium or astatine then to lead? I'm curious because it seems like such a leap over 2 groups and 7 periods. (Not that this has much to do with this article, so if you're so inclined, you could respond on my user talk page) Jim62sch 23:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to show that they are political activist web sites. It's sad that you and Jim are so concerned with the web site and the organization that you will not consider that the author is a scientist whose POV should be represented in this article.

While the fact that these sites are religio-political activist sites is common knowledge, that fact is catually beside the point - they are not scientific publications. As for the assertion that the author is a scientist whose POV should be represented in the article - Why? Why should a fringe POV which is an intentional distortion of the literature be included? If anything it might belong in an article about radiometric dating, but it doesn't belong here.

And because they aren't scientific publications, even if they present scientific evidence, why aren't you people refuting the specific claims of them, not just using ad hominem attacks to discredit people who might question the "Old Age" of the earth? --Goldendroplets 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Others already have as Guettarda carefully pointed out, these anomalies not unexplained/unexplainable. And they aren't questioning/refining old Earth, because it would be nifty if that's their motivation, rather they presume young Earth and seek/nit pick anything (even things they don't understand) to validate it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You being amazed isn't proof and isn't an argument. These are scientists writing about dating methods, who have degrees and research in these fields of study, who write in peer-reviewed journals. Their input about the controversy should be included and not deleted.

If they publish in peer-reviewed journals, then do cite review articles that reference their works (we should not be dealing with primary source documents, obviously). Where are they published? Where is their work cited? I am amazed by your (false) claim that these are scientific publications. Are they ISI-indexed? No, because they are not scientific publications.

It's probably because all the "scientific publications" don't want to publish some scientific evidence that refutes the sacred cow of Evolution.

"How was this done in a misleading manner? It's misleading because material is taken out of context (as I said below)

These men are active in research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Since they are active in science, their publications are relevant and should be included in this entry. --Yuk Yuk Yec 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, the problem with this material isn't that it's outside of the mainstream. Non-mainstream material is fine in Wikipedia, so long as it is identified as such. The problem is that this was presented as "problems with the science", but what is being presented is a very selective presentation of information.

If they are active in research, and publication, cite respectable works, not activist websites.

This is a straw man argument (logical fallacy). This example was never used. Making a straw man is just as bad as blindly attacking these organizations (without any proof, I might add) instead of actually considering that these men are scientists with science degrees talking about their relevant field of study, making their research and findings very relevant and even essential for this entry on Wikipedia.

What is a straw-man fallacy? What example are you talking about? My analogies? D'uh. Of course it wasn't used, I used it as an analogy. But then, I suppose it's no more silly than your claim that these websites are scientific publications. Guettarda 19:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, they don't get published because of a systemic bias against those who present scientific evidence for a Young Earth.

There is an alternative explaination, that they wouldn't pass peer review because it isn't scientific evidence, rather its a lack of expertise leading to misintepretation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scorpionman's debate

If you knew anything about Ken Ham at all, you would know that he recieved degrees from the Queensland Institute of Technology and University of Queensland, among others. And you don't know whether or not what he writes is unscientific! And you don't want to admit that radiocarbon dating does have problems, simply because the problems were addressed by "nonscientific organizations". Give me some proof that those organizations are unscientific. Scorpionman 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientific method •Jim62sch• 01:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If Ken Ham is the guy I think he is, there's a backstory you're ignoring. You see, I went to UQ and QUT too, and I got degrees there. There was someone, who I don't know by name as people were too polite to mention it to me, who as a practising Christian enrolled in geology at the age of 40 expressly to learn the science so he could debunk it in order to defend the ideals and teachings of Creationism. He got his undergraduate degrees, that much is true, because the majority of the degree is learning what sediments are, and what igneous rocks are, etcetera, which does not rely on arguments about the age of the Earth. The way I heard the story, this fellow even managed to pass isotopic geochemistry subjects, which isn't hard to do if you do the maths right and parrot the right answers.

Anecdotally, my prof told me this guy was a pain in the ass because, at every field exposure, out would come vigorous criticisms with a creationist angle. Turbidites, he said, weren't proof of uniformitarisnism and the law of superposition, etcetera. The typical inchoate ramblings of someone pushing an agenda uphill against reasonable scientific evidence.

Then he enrolled in UQ for his Honours and did his work on some Holocene volcanics around the Cairns region, which are only a few thousand years old. It was a thesis which involved directly dating the volcanics, by argon-argon I believe, or if not, by K-Ar. The end result was that he invented some mechanism by which pressure variations within the magma chamber, which he intensively modelled and came up with a swag of maths for, changed the isotopic composition of the argon gas and the potassium within the ablite crystals and gave an artificially old age. The real age of these volcanic rocks? 6,000 years according to his maths.

I was told he'd been failed, because although ou can come up with any number of explanations to derive the age you wanted, the fact is that there was no evidence of this guy's "pressure variation" mechanism at work within the magma chamber and, taking his isotopic measurements without them, the age of 42,000 years was obtained according to conventional science, which matched with fossil assemblages trapped within the interflow sediments.

So, if that guy I've heard about is this Ken Ham...who gives a toss about what he says backed up with his BSc in geology? Its not scienctific when you twist the data to fit your model and preconceptions about isotopic decay as much as it isn't science to claim you've cloned humans when you haven't. Rolinator 05:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Take your complaints to Answers in Genesis. Tell them all this "information" about Ken Ham. By the way, you got this from the Queensland Institute? Who all said this? Your biased-toward-evolutionism professor? I wouldn't trust that. Scorpionman 17:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not scienctific when you twist the data to fit your model and preconceptions.

But it is scientific if it conforms with an Old Earth hypothesis. --Goldendroplets 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask again for some proof that these organizations are unscientific. The scientific method is not proof against them. Explain why. And you don't want to admit the problems with radiocarbon dating, do you? There are problems with it as there are with every dating method. If you don't think there are problems with it then you are not being scientific, you are being dogmatic. A true scientist will admit the problems with his methods. Scorpionman 02:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally scientific organizations don't have... oh I don't know... statements of faith? And btw, carbon dating is highly irrelevant to dating the age of the earth. JoshuaZ 02:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, never mind carbon dating. The problem is with radiometric dating. Every method is going to have faults. However, nobody here seems to want to admit that radiometric dating has problems. Scorpionman 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating, and there are about 30 (at least) different types of radiometric dating. Do you want to be more specifci? JoshuaZ 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't really have to be. If carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating, which is what's used to determine the earth's age, then it's relevant to the age of the earth, unlike what you said above. Scorpionman 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it really isn't relevant because its pretty different from other forms of radioactive dating in almost all respects and only works up to about 50,000 years, so it has almost no bearing on the age of the earth whatsoever.

P.S. So you're discriminating against AiG because they have a statement of faith? You're going to have to do better than that. Go to [2] for a long list of scientists and professionals who are associated with AiG. Scorpionman 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not disciminating against them, but saying that it makes what they are doing not science. Does for example the Smithsonian make scientists sign a statement of faith? JoshuaZ 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S Take a look at Project_Steve. Lets have none of this again. This article is about science, not faith pretending to be science. ;) Jefffire 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even go to the link, did you? Or don't you want to admit that there are a good number of scientists believing YEC? And the "faith pretending to be science" is evolution. I'm not going to get into a big debate on evolution, but I can say that the numerous gaps in the fossil record as well as the fact that speciation can't be observed makes evolution unscientific. Bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics; that's not speciation, nor is it really evolution. People being born that are different from their parents aren't evolving; they're still humans, they still have the same organs and facial features, they just don't look exactly the same as their parents. If you want to counter this, you'd better take it to my talk page otherwise we'll clutter up this talk page. Scorpionman 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speciation has been observed, see CB910. —Gabbe 00:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you always can find some scientists that believe something. That does not make it science. If you have good scientific articles about it, bring them on, otherwise, let believe be believe. KimvdLinde 18:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So the fact that "most" scientists believe evolution doesn't make it true, does it? And scientific articles about what? What do you want to see scientific articles about?

The inclusion criteria for Wikipedia isn't "truth". As the truth is very elusive, we settle for providing the viewpoint of the significant majority of scholars on the subject. See WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Wikipedia doesn't affirm the validity of Evolution, it merely asserts that it is the majority viewpoint among biologists. —Gabbe 08:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just how radical was this "speciation"? For instance, the sticklebacks split into different species. They're still fish, and they're still sticklebacks! Scorpionman 01:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So lets be explicit here, you agree speciation occurs now? By the way, AiG agrees speciaton occurs. JoshuaZ 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What kind of speciation? A fish changing into a frog, or a species of fish changing to a slightly different species of fish? Scorpionman 17:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The normal stuff, not the impossible stuff you ask. Speciation goes fro one slosely related form to the next, and over many specialion events, you can go from a fish to a frog. KimvdLinde 17:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Scorp, if you want fish to frog, or elephant to lizard read Metamorphoses by Ovid (hey, one myth deserves another). •Jim62sch• 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, one good evolution myth deserves another. Can you prove that lizards evolved into elephants, like you suggested? That would take more years than you say the earth is old. Scorpionman 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Scorpion, please read a basic textbook on evolution and genetics, and a basic geology textbook. Your background in these topic is clearly so poor that continuing these discussions on these pages is meaningless. Furthermore, whether or not evolution occured has little to do with how old the earth is. Even if evolution had not occured, the world would still be 4.5 billion years old and the evidence for that is completely independent of evolution. JoshuaZ 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Err, technically speaking, as I understand the phylogenetic tree, it wasn't lizards going into elephants, it was like some tiny weird thing that just evolved into both supposedly. Homestarmy 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's standard for including criticism/controversy section

Don't think, imply, or say that we must link only scientific journals in a section about controversy and criticism. This isn't the standard on Wikipedia. Here are some examples.

• Chuck Missler's section has links to several, personal web sites that criticize him.[3]

• Kent Hovind's section has links from answersingenesis.org[4]

• ICR's section has no source at all[5]

• Young earth creationism's section has very little sourcing, and certainly no links to peer-reviewed journals.[6]

Need I go on? The entry for Age of the Earth needs to follow suit. Insisting that it must have only citations from peer-reviewed journals is absurd and it contradicts the way Wikipedia has been doing things. --Yuk Yuk Yec 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

1. No one is saying that criticisms should only be from peer-reviewed sciences
2. The criticism is of the science, so it makes no sense if it comes from non-scientific sources. If the souces have scientific credibility, why do they not reference their science on the activist websites to which you have linked? Guettarda 20:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to weigh in and agree, in principle, with Yuk Yuk. The disagreement between what I would call the "scientific" age of the earth and the age preferred by "Young Earth Scientists" should be in this article. The current criticism section is, however, unacceptable because it deals with perceived problems with radiometric dating (not strictly the Age of the Earth) and should be placed in the article on Radiometric Dating (where Guettarda's comments will still be relevant). It is too far removed from the subject of this article to remain as-is. I suggest that Yuk Yuk rewrite his criticism to focus on the perceived controversy, rather than his beef with radioactive dating, put it in the talk page, and solicit consensus. Rickert 20:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, I mean, this is supposed to be about the age of the earth and all.... Homestarmy 20:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a that note at the top of the page:

This article describes the historical development of the estimation of the "age of the Earth", including modern scientific dating methods. For other views, see origin belief or Dating Creation.

If there is an alternative scientific position, then there's nothing wrong with including it, but it needs to meet the standards of science - published, peer-reviewed science. Scientific positions that challenge the mainstream belong here, taking into consideration the NPOV issue of "undue weight". By all means, include scientific opinions. But don't confuse pseudoscience and political activism with science. Guettarda 22:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's going to be hard for some people, Guettarda -- they can't se that they're dabbling in pseudoscience, or political activism, or biblical innerancy, However, I'd like to note that we do discuss these ideas of age variations based on myth and religion in the "Prescientific notions" section of this article. Jim62sch 22:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I read the note at the top of the page carefully before I submitted my post. It does not exclude non-scientific notions, and indeed explicitly includes non-scientific prehistoric notions. Frankly, this article isn't that good that a short paragraph about current creationist notions would destroy it. Rickert 22:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If that kind of thing doesn't work to get the Jesus-Myth sentence out of Jesus, I don't see why it should work here :). Homestarmy 02:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Homes, Huh? Clarity please. I also see there's a partial lock on the Jesus article.

Rickert -- VSmith added a bit on the religious perspectives (and let's be honest, that is exactly what YEC is), and it should resolve the issue. (btw, it's "pre-scientific" notions, there is a big difference). Jim62sch 11:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)\

Well you were there, remember, some people wanted all of that sentence gone as non-notable and extreme minority and ridiculous. Homestarmy 13:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(At this point in time, given that the article should really be renamed Jesus Christ as it has a very strong religious POV, they might as well remove the Jesus Myth sentence. Any claim to being a historical article is gone.)

Nonetheless, back to this article. VSmith's inclusion of a sentence on the issue should be sufficient. In addition, we have the caveat at the top of the article directing people to other articles to discuss creation views or alleged problems with radiometric dating. Jim62sch 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware all religious beliefs come from "scriptures"..... Homestarmy 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Anyway, we're getting off topic (I think), but since I do not understand what you're trying to say, maybe we're not. Jim62sch 15:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha, now I see. I'm still not clear what your point is though. Jim62sch 15:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well for one things its not accurate because many religions have quite different names for their texts than "scriptures", and for 2 things it seems pretty obvious to me its a direct reference to Christianity. It's also very short and looks stuck on, like an abstract afterthought with no elaboration. Homestarmy 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Homes, scriptural just means written. That Christianity and Judaism later co-opted the term doesn't change it's root meaning. And in fact, any "sacred" book is scriptual in the second (sub-def b) definition of the word. I suggest that you actually use reference material like a good dictionary before hopping up and down about the meaning of words, and then alleging a bias that isn't there. Jim62sch 22:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should change scriptural to mythical (that's my pref.). Yes, it is short and the immediate ref was to a certain noise-making christian group. Yes, it is stuck on because it was an afterthought. Needs no elaboration as the elaboration is included in the Origin belief and Dating Creation articles included in the disamb. note at the top and really need no further elaboration here. - Vsmith 16:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sensing some hostility. No, seriously, "scripture" is the wrong word if the sentence is referring to any religion with creationist beliefs because many religions have different words for their books or whatever besides "scripture", what about just ignoring the specifics of that altogether and just say "some prominent religious groups prefer to maintain different beliefs despite this evidence"? Homestarmy 17:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

....Now it sounds like the current religious authorities are enforcing followers beliefs, when often the religious authorities have nothing to do with it. If someone can't come up with a paragraph of good information in the first place, why do we need a sentence there at all? Neither side loses anything if we just forget the sentence! Homestarmy 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to theological accounts. It's accurate and inoffensive. Jim62sch 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, re "why do we need a sentence there at all?" It's called an introductory sentence, pretty much standard stuff for any essay.

Also, try avoiding false dichotomies, and implications of significant conflict that must result in a winner and a loser: "Neither side loses anything if we just forget the sentence!" Jim62sch 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, its just that im pretty used to conflicts on these sort of pages ending in a clear winner or loser POV wise :/. Homestarmy 23:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)