Talk:Age of Earth

Absolute Nonsense

After reading the first paragraph, I nearly threw up. Since when where Creationist views on the age of the earth un-scientific? There exists boatloads of real evidence pointing to a much younger earth. Someone should go read the definition of science. 216.198.139.84 (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! I'm having a hard time catching my breath! bravo :) Nefariousski (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The scarey thing is, I have heard hard-core young-earthers making exactly the same argument: that real science -- ie, their concept of science -- proves that the Earth is 6,000 years old and everyone else is part of a vast anti-God conspiracy. Are you sure that this person is writing satire? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, good 'ole Poe's Law. Ben (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that sentiment before, in various forms, but I wasn't aware that it had been systematized. Alas, it is all too accurate: certain segments of society write their own self-satire. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer your questions a little more seriously:

"Since when where Creationist views on the age of the earth un-scientific?"

Since forever. Literally since the beginning of anything resembling current scientific practice. If it requires the existence of a higher power, it's not science.

"There exists boatloads of real evidence pointing to a much younger earth."

There exists nothing of the kind. You have to deliberately ignore several dozen branches of science, and assume that carbon dating constants are totally different (with no, zero, nada evidence), to even approach this view. --King Öomie 15:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, this one caught me off guard, I didn't actually think this the IP editor was serious. In that case please let me change my official stance to the initial statement from laughter to , Nefariousski (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Laughter may be more appropriate and more useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When did carbon dating suddenly become able to date things older than about 80,000 years? And please name the so-called evidence you are ignoring when you believe in a young earth. How do you explain red-blood cells in dinosaur bones? Or that Mt. St. Helen's eruption caused many changes in hours, that people thought took millions of years. (Like canyons forming, etc.)? 72.25.192.4 (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A) 80,000 is significantly longer than 6,000, so what's your point, also, read the article, that's not what it says, B) Evolution, geology, astronomy, basically anything ending in -ogy or -omy, C) Completely made-up, D) Completely made up. That's how. --King Öomie 20:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Specific links for A, C and D- [1][2][3]. --King Öomie 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to the article on radiometric dating, particularly the entries for uranium-lead dating and potassium-argon dating. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more specific about radiometric dating - I was referring to Carbon-14 dating. But let's not forget that all dating methods are based on assumptions. (Certain processes take a set time, etc.) As for the sources, here are a couple http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm and http://answersingenesis.org/docs2/4305news5-17-2000.asp 72.25.192.4 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dating methods have assumptions - so what? So does medicine. Your first source gives part of the same explanation on T rex as this one and the arguments on Mt St Helens in your second source are refuted here, as referred to above. Babakathy (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, assmptions on what? Rates of decay? Halflife? We can objectively measure halflives (even really long ones) by measuring the number of atoms in a given mass of said radioactive material that decay over a period of time and then using that ratio determine how long it would take for half of that mass to decay. Rates of Decay are assumed stable because there's no reason to assume that they would significantly vary and no credible scientific evidence supports such a claim not to mention science isn't in the business of proving a negative for further reading feel free to look at the following sites that explain the basic concept. As for your articles the BBC article nothing in that article supports any inaccuracy of carbon dating even though it was snatched up and misconstrued by other sources, please see Tyrannosaurus#Soft_tissue for scientific explanations. And not to be snarky but I take something by Ken Ham the banana man regarding science just about as seriously as I take my 5 year old daughters explanation of what rainbows are made of. Nefariousski (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that those assumptions are wrong (in regards to the dating methods) but rather simply that they exist. No one was there at the time in question - all we can do is observe what we have now and extrapolate backwards. (Or you could just believe Someone who was there - but that's what we're discussing.) There are plenty of other observations that suggest a young earth: the magnetic field of the earth[4], the rate of salt accumulating in the oceans[5], and the origins of race[6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.21.253 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this stuff only appears to point to a young earth if you have a layman's perspective of the relevant scientific field. None of that stuff holds any weight in the face of actual evidence. And please don't link to AIG as a source for anything scientific. Nef's daughter has more scientific chops than they do. All you get from an AIG article is hyperbole, exaggeration, conjecture, and insistence that "evolution has been rocked to its core". Everything they do is colored by their acceptance of the Bible as a scientific text. --King Öomie 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to back up your claims. Stand behind what you say. Don't just say "None of that stuff holds any weight," you need to explain why. (And sorry for forgetting to sign my last comment.) 207.102.21.253 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to. I'm off finding links. --King Öomie 01:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We can indeed measure the decay rate of many radioactive isotopes by looking at the afterglow of distant supernovae. And those confirm that they have remained stable over long periods of time. The magnetic field has flipped many times, as can be seen by the magnetization of rocks at e.g. the mid-atlantic ridge. And the "salt" argument is nonsensical - it ignores processes that remove salt, and if applied to other chemical compounds, indicates vastly different ages, including about 100 years of age for aluminium. A good source with pointers into the primary literature is here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic field, Salt. --King Öomie 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering. The point I am trying to make has more to do with highlighting a young earth as a valid conclusion and not so much with disproving an older earth. Since there is some evidence suggesting a young earth (and none that explicitly contradicts it - please comment otherwise), it is a valid conclusion and for that reason, I think the first paragraph needs to be reworded. 64.141.83.253 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No. There is no evidence that can be scientifically interpretted as suggesting a young earth and plenty of evidence (starting with the whole of radiometric dating that explicitly contradicts the idea of a young earth. Babakathy (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because young earth creationists may use scientific terms does not make their conclusions, theories or ideas scientific. To be scientific you must strictly abide by the Scientific Method. Asserting a bunch of convoluted explanations with the use of scientific terms in order to fit a pre-established hypothesis is the opposite of scientific. Which is exactly what young earth creationists are constantly doing. The controversy arises out of the unfortunate need to clarify what they're doing wrong, which seems to be in vain, because really... where and how do you start trying to explain a scientific idea to someone who has already made up their mind? - Reaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.194.53 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This. If, when your evidence is discredited, your first thought is "Well there must be SOME way to prove <pre-established conclusion>" you're not performing science. The evidence leads you to a conclusion. Nothing good (or accurate) comes from starting at point Z and working backwards. They look at the evidence and tweak the numbers, stopping when it hits "6000", regardless of where it makes the most sense to stop according to the actual methodology they're using. And any OTHER science that gets in the way gets trampled or ignored. It's shameful. --King Öomie 15:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the 6000 year nonsense was refuted pre-Darwin, pre-radiometric dating, pre-dendrochronology, pre-ice core analysis, pre-seafloor-spreading, pre-plate-tektonics, pre-stellar-astronomical-distance-measurements ... by early scientiests brought up in the Christian tradition, simply by looking at the evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, can we move on now? Title of this section sadly sums much of the discussion up... Can't believe such things still need refuting in this day and age. Babakathy (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A compromise

Is it ok if I change it from "The age of the Earth is..." to "The age of the Earth is thought to be around 4.54 billion years or around 10,000 years old (depending on what you believe)... or "The age of the earth is thought to be around 4.54 billion..." Because I do not think this page has a neutral point of view. Thanks Parker1297 ( Talk to me please! · Sign my autograph page.) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. The scientific consensus is that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, plus-or-minus 1 percent, or about 45 million years. To say otherwise is to give undue weight to fringe theories. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"The earth is either an approximate sphere or a flat disk depending on what you believe."--Louiedog (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Depending on what you believe"? No, empirical facts are not subject to beliefs. If you 'believe' the earth to be 6,000-10,000 years old, you are incorrect, and it would in irresponsible to claim otherwise. --King Öomie 13:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I still do not the article is in a neutral point of view Parker1297 ( Talk to me please! · Sign my autograph page.) 20:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Come on now. You need to do a little more book learnin' about science v. creation beliefs, young man. Do you really think we should fill this article up with speculations about how old the turtle is upon which the Earth is built (the Iroquoi belief)?--Milowent (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Relevant policy for you to read is wp:weight - neutral point of view does not mean giving every single viewpoint equal weight at all. Babakathy (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• And as young-earth theories are widely discredited, and make up a tiny minority or relevant experts, it can be safely excluded from this article under that policy. Parker was advocating a violation of WP:GEVAL, actually- mentioning a scientific estimate and a religious guess in the same sentence, as though they were comparable. --King Öomie 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)