Talk:Age of Earth

---

This article lacks information about the actual age of the Earth. That information should be put into the first paragraph. Also, it needs to be linked with the other articles we have about dating methods. AxelBoldt, Monday, April 29, 2002

---

I did a general copyedit and more wikifying, and added some specific things. Since I know someone will ask, my source on Aristotle is a letter to the editor of Science a week or two ago. Also, if we're going to talk about religious ideas, we should probably have something on the Hindu yugas. Vicki Rosenzweig

---

Seems to me that the Age of Earth page should link directly here, instead of a disambiguation page - what do you think? --Spangineer 21:38, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

Why not add a "See Also" with links to Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Gap Creationism, Intelligent Design and whatever other articles there are related to other views on the issue? One doesn't even need to mention their points of view in the main article, just make the links available for those interested. --Spangineer 00:20, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about that.... Why should a science page link to a mythology page? and why those in particulare? Arn't their pages for the greek myths on origns? what about native american? or viking? IreverentReverend 12:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Invitation

Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting.  :) Barnaby dawson 21:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of Radiometric Dating and the "Old" Age of the Earth

Not everyone agrees with what is being said above. For example, there are many reasons to question Radiometric Dating, and whether or not it has any validity at all. For example, many artifacts containing Organic material found buried in supposedly "millions of years old" strata (such as carbonized wood, unfossilized or unmineralized wood -- that can be sawed with a saw or burned in a fire --, unfossilize or unmineralized Dinosaur Bones, etc) have been dated with the Carbon 14 Dating method, and, time and time again, the dates obtained are between about 7,000 years to 40,000 years. However there are many other reasons for questioning this method. For example, all of those "millions of years old" dates are obtained from Volcanic materials; however, there is no way to KNOW for CERTAIN what the original amounts present were. Then there is the problem of Mixing both mother and daughter products together while they are in a molten state. Then there is the problem of Leaching, re-chrystalization, and a host of others. The Links below provide the interested reader with LOTS more information.

• Is the Earth 4.5 Billion Years Old This article takes a closer look at how the 4.5 Billion Year age for the Earth was arrived at, and why it cannot be trusted.

• The Case of the KBS Tuff This modified Letter, examines the well-ducumented Case of the KBS Tuff, and all of the Various methods that were used to "date" it, and also why the final (1.9 m.y.o.) result cannot be trusted any more than the first (220 m.y.o.) One.

• Radiometric Dating This short paper examines the Uranium Lead Method, and provides Tables that show why Radiometric Dating cannot be trusted.

• The Radiometric Dating Game This web site take a much closer look at Radiometric Dating and also explains in much detail why it cannot be trusted.

• More Bad News for Radiometric Dating Just what the title says.

• Stumping Old Age Dogma Examines One of the many instances of Carbon Dating an organic piece of wood that was found in strata that was supposed to be many "millions of years old."

• What About Carbon 14

• Excess Argon... Takes a closer look at Potassium Argon Dating, and why it also cannot be trusted.

• Radiometric Dating: The Numbers Game Another close look at how the Numbers in this game are very often used to favor the Theory of Evolution over empirical science and objective reasoning.

--Truthteller 06:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This section has numerous problems, its pov (no clarifying or rebutal evidence provided), non-specific some places, has your name signed in the article and has far too many external links. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the entire "Article" section is POV, but feel free to rebut anything you like here, or to add any specifics that you feel are missing. As far as my name or external links, this is the "Discussion" page, not the article page. In other words, the statements above and the Links are meant to stimulate discussion of this topic, and hopefully some changes to the Main Article itself. --Truthteller 13:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You included your signature and links in the article initially. As to specifics, any semblance of actually making a decent point would be a good start. Like explaining how these criticisms have been missed and are not understood by experts in the field, and have therefore led to gross errors in radiometric samples that are actually used and relied upon for scientific dating. If on the other hand these failures and numerous anomalies in radiometric dating are understood, and have even been uncovered and examined in detail by said experts; then they only serve to improve the methodologies reliability, rather than undermining it, since they know which samples are reliable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There, I wrote a mediocre new section including some of your points; and as expected it has been sectioned and improved. Now you can't say I never did anything for you. (BTW, thx Vsmith.) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, though I'm sure someone will 'POV' it. Your statement that creationists lack understanding of dating techniques, and your mention of 'accurate results' are disputed by creationists.

To whomever does edit the section, please take a look at 'leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized.' Shouldn't this read something like 'but these are minimised by careful sample preparation procedures.' -- Ec5618 08:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure your right about someone accusing it of being POV, but let's address your points. "Lack understanding", the sentence links it to what scientists say, not me, although I certainly agree with it. (evidence to that effect has been provided by Truthteller above) "Accurate results" is Vsmith's, not mine... but then again he has background in the subject. As to preparation, I believed the point Vsmith wanted to emphasize is how modern preparation has changed from the past... but I do see what you're talking about, since it sounds like they are being lazier. Thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reference section ==> Further reading

An anon. added a list as a Reference section. The list is a good Further reading section, but I doubt these were used directly as references in the writing of the article. Therefore I am re-adding the list as such after I rollback to fix the deletion of info caused by the anons edit. Vsmith 01:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV? Need to clarify zircon evidence

This is not NPOV:

It is clear from zircons that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old.

4.255.42.26 00:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

... and your scientific evidence says ... ? Vsmith 01:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do with a NPOV? "Clear" is a subjective word. If I look at a zircon, will I instantly realize "that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old"? 4.255.40.248 02:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now I see clearly - it's the word clear that you object to. How is that POV? Maybe vague and assumes the reader knows what the clear refers to, but not a POV problem - just a wording problem. I did a search and the zircon evidence doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body of the article, just that bit in the intro. That does need to be addressed as it isn't clear from the body of the article just why it's clear from zircons... But, not tonight, I'm tired. Thanks for pointing that out. Later, Vsmith 03:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Added to the offending sentence. Also added two ext. links as references on zircon dating. Vsmith 15:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

tyvm. 4.255.40.38 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Wisc. edu link

Wisc. Edu. Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago

- this link is broken. Anyone know where a new copy of the article is? --Wiserd 02:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Did a bit of sleuthing - seems the page was renamed - still there w/ diff name. Well maybe it has been revised - don't remember, but the info is there. Vsmith 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

More Creationist-bashing

Some creationist critiques are not problems since they seem to be caused by creationists having gaps in their understanding.

This is an inappropriate and blatantly derogatory comment and has no place in a Wikipedia article. I have removed it. Salva 00:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

POV

The article IS biased, and it is official policy that "all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias" (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Any ideas on how to fix this? Ergbert 05:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What's biased about it? --JPotter 17:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It barely mentions other theories, and when it does it says they're false.

This is what it should do. It reflects the state of knowledge. William M. Connolley 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

("Creationists dispute the accuracy of radioactive dating because it conflicts with their religious beliefs by showing Earth to be billions rather than thousands of years old.", emphasis mine) It also treats the commonly accepted estimate as fact (e.g. "The radiometric age dating evidence from the zircons confirms that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old.", "Ca-Al-rich inclusions - the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites which are formed within the solar system - are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of the Earth."). Ergbert 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Your assertion that "it barely mentions other theories" seems to conflict with the article itself (following are all quotes):
  • "The Han Chinese thought the Earth was created and destroyed in cycles of over 23 million years."
  • "Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh, Ireland, calculated from the Bible"
  • "Aristotle, who thought the Earth and universe had existed from eternity."
  • "the Earth had been created separately from the rest of the universe, several hundred thousands of years before."
  • "created a small globe that resembled the Earth in composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to estimate that the Earth was about 75,000 years old."
  • " John Phillips, later calculated by [analysing layers] that the Earth was about 96 million years old."
  • " naturalists were influenced by Lyell to become "uniformitarians" who believed that changes were constant and uniform."
  • "In 1862, the physicist William Thomson of Glasgow published calculations that fixed the age of the Earth at between 20 million and 400 million years.He assumed that the Earth had been created as a completely molten ball of rock, and determined the amount of time it took for the ball to cool to its present temperature."
  • "The German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz and the American astronomer Simon Newcomb joined in by independently calculating the amount of time it would take for the Sun to condense down to its current diameter and brightness from the nebula of gas and dust from which it was born. They came up with a value of 100 million years, which seemed to set an upper limit on the age of the Earth"
  • " Charles Darwin's son, the astronomer George H. Darwin of the University of Cambridge, proposed that the Earth and Moon had broken apart in their early days when they were both molten."
  • " John Joly of the University of Dublin calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated salt from erosion processes, and determined that the oceans were about 90 million years old."
    • That's 11 theories thus far and I'm only half way down the article. I'm afraid you'll have to criticse it on other grounds. In addition there's a whole HUGE article here, discussing another theory: Young_earth_creationism. Perhaps you can define your criticism in a manner more in accord with the facts before you? --bodnotbod 21:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"I'm afraid you'll have to criticse it on other grounds." Why would I do that? I'm only bothered that it's biased. It doesn't pay much attention to modern alternate theories, and it DOES say they're false. Ergbert 22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Which modern alternate theories do you feel are missing or need to be expanded on? --bodnotbod 22:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Young earth creationism. I know it has a separate article, and I don't think it needs much more than a link, but this page says YEC is wrong and the modern scientific estimates are correct. Whether or not that's true is irrevelant, because it's POV. Ergbert 03:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of the word "theories" here is problematic. YEC has a hypothesis which – as far as I'm aware – is not supported by any physical evidence. Until YEC can come up with more than criticisms of established scientific dating; it will remain an unconfirmed hypothesis put forward by those wishing to push their POV. Hence it is not an alternative "theory" (implying scientific theory), nor does its criticisms put in question accepted dating methods. The article reflects this reality. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I see is the section: Conflict with creationists beliefs which should be deleted. Creationism is already mentioned in Prescientific notions and that is more than adequate. YEC and other creation myths are just that, mythology. We perhaps need a link to Creation mythology (which I see has been moved to origin belief, hmm ...) or Creation myths of primitive peoples. Vsmith 12:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are YOUR PsOV. Wikipedia is not a platform to push your POV, even if it's the correct one. It is official policy that "all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias". Ergbert 17:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV header. We can't have creationists putting it on anything scientific. William M. Connolley 17:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

Creationist, eh? Please do not remove POV warnings because you agree with the POV. Please do not mark major edits as minor. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. Ergbert 03:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I just made another POV-reducing edit that I hope will be more popular with the Wikipedia community. Please don't remove the POV warning before we fix up the article. Thank you. Ergbert 04:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Those last two edits were me. I keep getting automatically logged out today for some reason...Again, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Biased article content is in violation of official Wikipedia policy.Ergbert 20:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I clarified that most of the scientific community doesn't support YEC, so it should be obvious it's not YEC POV. Is the article okay now? Ergbert 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Also, instead of reverting, please change particular sections you object to. I also fixed problems with the article irrelevant to this discussion. 68.82.110.147 22:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Redid a bit. Now that it is stated right up front that it is the scientific view, we don't need multiple caveats to YECs etc. Also referred to origin beliefs in the disambig header to avoid leaning toward a specific YEC POV. Vsmith 00:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

IMO a few more changes need to be made.

• I think the first sentence should be changed because the article starts out with "prescientific notions" and because I think it sounds better this way: "This article describes the historical development of the estimation of the "age of the Earth" including modern scientific dating methods."

The article is about the historical development of scientific attempts to date the Earth.

Is it? It shouldn't be! The current state of science should come first. History second. William M. Connolley 19:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

Read it. The intro states the age, then the bulk of the article is the historical development up through 1920 something. Then there is the brief paragraph about modern ... (this was added by me back in June) which needs expanding with a lot more detail about the scientific evidence and current state of the science. I agree the article needs a major re-organization to emphasize the current state of the science before the history. Vsmith 20:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The "prescientific notions" section is there as a bit of background only. I presume you are referring to the disambig. sentence - rather than the first sentence of the article. Vsmith 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And yet, it's the beginning of the main article. Do you have any objections to that change? Ergbert 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think the second sentence should be changed because it still sounds biased to me. How about this? It presents the POV of most of (not all of) the scientific community without taking a stance on the issue and adds a comma. "For views rejected by most of the scientific community, see..."

most? What other scientists are you referring to here? Published in what peer reviewed journals? Vsmith 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't offer names, but it is DEFINITELY not true that every scientist has rejected YEC. Ergbert 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• IMO the origin beliefs link should be changed to Young Earth creationism because this article is about the age of the Earth, not how it was created, and there are several different YEC ideas from more than one religion. Is there an article out there that lists the various ideas on how old the Earth is?

YECs are a group with an origin belief therefore they fit there. That they may focus more on a fictitous young Earth than other mythologies doesn't separate them from the group. Vsmith 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

An origin belief with an estimated age for the Earth. The origin beliefs article is about ideas on HOW the Earth was created, not WHEN. It's completely irrelevant to this article, which is about when. Ergbert 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think "The age of the Earth is estimated to be 4.55 billion (4.55 × 10⁹) years, based on detailed scientific evidence." should be "The age of the Earth has been scientifically estimated to be 4.55 billion (4.55 × 10⁹) years." for NPOV and verb tense reasons.

What on Earth is the problem with scientific evidence - what is POV about that in a science article? Vsmith 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no problem with that. The problem is "is estimated". That implies it's the best estimation, which we're not supposed to be doing here. Ergbert 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have a better estimation, tells us, and provide the rigorous evidence. Otherwise the current estimate is indeed the best. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

So provide the estimate and the evidence and let the reader come to that conclusion. Ergbert 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We could do that if this wasn't an encyclopedia. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it unencyclopedic to provide the major views, state which views are held by which groups, and why? Ergbert 03:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Because an encyclopedia tries its best to relate facts and verifiable evidence for educational and reference purposes. If there was a reason to think major religious views were relevant to the actual Age of the Earth, then they would be included in this article. They are not. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Facts such as who believes what. Adding info on different views enhances the article. Ergbert 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those facts are welcome to an encyclopedia, but do not necessarily belong in this article. Adding info can indeed enhance an article, it can also confuse readers, bloat the article and be repetitious if that information is already detailed elsewhere. This dialogue can continue below. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think "further confirms" should be changed to something like "further indicates" because the former is biased, even if it's true. Ergbert 04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The zircon evidence does further confirm the age. As we get older and more detailed reliable age dates on older materials it narrows the uncertainty in the age and confirms the estimates from other fields. Vsmith 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We're not supposed to be taking a stance on controversial issues here. We're supposed to "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view", NOT "represent the majority (scientific) view as the truth and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as garbage". Ergbert 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Since its not controversial, we aren't. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • The suggestion that the truth is biased is brilliantly revealing. --Wetman 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! Vsmith 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It reveals that I've actually read the rules here. If you don't want to read all of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, at least read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Pseudoscience. Ergbert 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Reading the rules and applying them are two different things; especially when one has a POV; a POV that those very rules keep in check. For example... what is "controversial" about the age of the Earth, and/or the current established estimates thereof? I appreciate your request for a sympathetic tone (I've advocated that several times, specifically for the Creationism2 template), but sympathy can be taken only so far when one wants to reflect the reality (current status) of a subject. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

YEC versus the majority of the scientific community is a VERY controversial subject, as the American news has recently shown. Any topic involving telling someone his/her religion in wrong is very controversial. Ergbert 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat this because I'm sure I saw it above somewhere, to even present YEC as a real alternative is dishonest (not encyclopedic and not NPOV), and is itself "controversial" (or rather silly and preposterous) because it tells other religions they are wrong by implying YEC is the only and/or leading alternative. Furthermore we don't look to American news (who are concerned with viewership as much as they are about journalism) as a standard of objectivity, and neither should you. Most importantly, science indicates certain interpretations of a religion are likely wrong... it does not seek to, nor does it prove any religion or philosophy "wrong" per se (unless one wishes to maintain only their interpretation of a given religion is Correct). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "other religions"? Other than the ones that incorporate some form of YEC? If they have their own estimates for the age of the Earth, then they should be mentioned, too. If not, then they're irrelevant to this article. I don't understand what you're saying about American news...I don't see how it's relevant to what I wrote. There is a lot of controversiality, and the American news reported on it. I agree with your last sentence. This article should reflect those indications, but in its current state it (indirectly) says YEC of all forms and religions is wrong. Ergbert 03:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Other religions, go ahead and do the research and you tell me. But I advise that you don't spend much time on it, as it is not relevant to this article and would take a significant amount of space. Also, this would need to be done for every scientific article on Wikipedia. Hopefully this clarifies for you the enormity and fallacy of your position. Should the fact there are other views be mentioned, certainly... detailed, given equal uncritical weight; uh... no.
• American news, what I'm getting at is they will do stories/shows on what they think will attract viewership; not because there is actually a general controversy (don't forget the sensationalist dynamic of mainstream media nowadays). While I would acknowledge a controversy over educational philosophy; I find it misleading to say there is controversy over the actual Age of the Earth. It's important to restrain the "controversy" to what is actually contentious.
• I also agree with my last sentence. It means science does not seek to prove religious interpretations wrong, but if it happens to do so; it should not translate in an encyclopedia saying there is "controversy" or we need to let people "reach their own conclusions". That is intellectually dishonest and as detailed above unworkable.

Could you imagine detailing every religious belief (LET ALONE alternative crackpot/outdated scientific theories) for every aspect of scientific inquiry. It would be bedlam of historical proportions. You need to understand this isn't just about the validity of your beliefs, but using reasonable standards of evidence and notability to write an educational encyclopedia. Without them you would have to contend with an Islamic, Buddhist, Anarchist, Church of Christ (etc.) interpretation of subjects. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Hopefully this clarifies for you the enormity and fallacy of your position. Should the fact there are other views be mentioned, certainly... detailed, given equal uncritical weight; uh... no." Huh? All I'm trying to do is edit this article so it doesn't say "X is WRONG!!!" and links to the relevant other articles. If it were a creationist article bashing radiometric dating I'd be doing the same thing.

"I find it misleading to say there is controversy over the actual Age of the Earth." There certainly is controversy, just not much amongst scientists.

"Without them you would have to contend with an Islamic, Buddhist, Anarchist, Church of Christ (etc.) interpretation of subjects." And we should mention all of those interpretations. It's unencyclopedic to say "(most, but lets ignore the minority) scientists agree on X" and to ignore all POVs you disagree with. Ergbert 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• But there isn't creation bashing in this article... is there?
• I don't consider political/religious controversy terribly relevant to the actual age of the earth; but perhaps its notable enough to mention.
• Other POV's aren't being ignored, at worst they are marginalized (since they do not directly address the age of the earth, but a more general Creation) and they are detailed in their own article(s). I could see a need for a "beliefs" section if there was specific/exotic beliefs on the age of the earth not covered by origins/creation articles. Like the beliefs of native americans or others which speak to the age of the earth, not creation.

- RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I made some more changes to the disambiguation text. To avoid edit conflict I didn't make any of my proposed changes that the ongoing discussion is about. Ergbert 03:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Vsmith, please don't make baseless accusations. In particular, please don't accuse me of POV pushing when you're reverting my POV-reducing edits to more biased versions. Ergbert 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Made another edit...Again, if you object to specific changes, please don't revert everything, and talk about it here so we can resolve this. Ergbert 21:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the Royboy/Vsmith version. Your current version isn't outrageous, though, and having stuffed up radioactive/metric (I prefer active, but it looks like metric is correct) I'll listen for a bit. I did take the rant out though. William M. Connolley 21:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

Nov 2005

This talk page section has become so messy and difficult to read. :\

RoyBoy:

"But there isn't creation bashing in this article... is there?"

Currently it says the scientific majority view is fact and that other views are non-scientific. IMO softening the language (but not adding creationism content to this article) would significantly improve the article.

"I don't consider political/religious controversy terribly relevant to the actual age of the earth; but perhaps its notable enough to mention."

The article isn't titled "The Actual Age of the Earth", though...Shouldn't all "Age of the Earth"-related content go here, unless something is significant enough to get a separate article?

William M. Connolley:

"I did take the rant out though."

Okay. I'd actually considered removing that myself. (I didn't add it, in case anyone thought I did.) Ergbert 03:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It is messy, so I just created a sub-section.

• Other views are unscientific because the scientific evidence points unambiguously in the direction the article expands upon.
• Well unfortunately I'm sounding like a broken record; but its understood an article with the title "Age of the Earth" in an encyclopedia would focus on... the (actual) age of the earth.

More to the point, not all related content should go into an article, that is what links (sub-articles) are for. Could you imagine all the abortion related material going into abortion. It would be a very large and even more difficult article to manage. Since various religions speak to the age of the earth they are mentioned prominently in this article as alternatives to scientific inquiry. I will seriously consider your proposal to remove "non-scientific", and pose the question to other administrators. However, I doubt it will gain much traction, as it is firmly established (by the scientific community) that creation related science is pseudoscientific. But, within the specific context of a redirect message, it may be appropriate to remove it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote "unless something is significant enough to get a separate article". This article would not become too large if we described religious and minority scientific views that could be described in, say, no more than a paragraph, and linked to the relevant articles on views that need more detail. If there are too many of the former, then we could create a new article, link to it in the disambiguation text, and make it clear this article is for the views of the majority (again, not the whole) of the scientific community. The majority may feel 'creation science' is pseudoscientific, but they are not Wikipedia.

There are two article in the disambig and Dating creation does give religious origin date estimates. Seems most do not distinguish the age of the Earth from their creation myths, no additional article or section here is needed. The majority bit. Name a few from your imagined minority (with refs please). Vsmith 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, one of them does. For the final sentence, please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Ergbert 00:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Since various religions speak to the age of the earth they are mentioned prominently in this article as alternatives to scientific inquiry."

No, they aren't. The links at the top are for views on how the Earth was created, not when, which is what this article is about.

See above response - does dating creation ring a bell? Vsmith 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it alright to change "The radiometric age dating evidence from the zircons further confirms that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old." to "[...]indicates[...]" and "Ca-Al-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites which are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of the Earth." to [...]have been estimated to be[...]"? These changes will not make people think "Creationism is right!", will reduce the POV, and the latter uses a more proper verb tense. Ergbert 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No. You may want to make the science appear weak and more uncertain than it is - for you religious POV or whatever. I'd suggest the article needs to be made stronger with much more detail on the scientific evidence (and uncertainty ranges) behind the dates. Your indicates and have been estimated to be... won't cut it. We need, as I said, more detail about the certainty & reliability of the scientific evidence. More evidence reported with sufficient clarity for the ordinary reader to grasp. Vsmith 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I don't want to do that. I want to bring this article into compliance with official Wikipedia policy and for you to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV?. Also, when reverting my edits, please provide explanations. Ergbert 00:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the issue of the redirect (having just come from the note in village pump) I find I have some sympathy with the idea of softening it a little. I think some readers would read the phrase "non-scientific views" as having a slightly derogatory overtone, whereas I am sure what is intended is just that the other views are the views without the backing of the scientific evidence. Could a form of words like "This article describes the historical development of the scientific estimation of the "age of the Earth", including modern dating methods. For other views..." be a compromise that would upset less readers but still not make the "science appear weak"? IanBailey 01:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply marvelous. Bravo to everyone, especially me!') - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

For other views ... Wow! Ain't this fun :-) Vsmith 04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article starts out with non-scientific history and that is still judging creationism (and any other non-creationism alternate views). What's the problem with saying the majority of scientists disagree with creationism? IMO it's clear that's what official policy supports...Is it just my particular choice of words? Ergbert 05:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. This isn't just a matter of scientists disagreeing; but of creation(ism) simply not relying/requiring and adhering to scientific methodology. Modern attempts to do so are in dispute as to their validity; and do not change the non-scientific historical context of creationism. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops...Did what I wrote sound like "the article starts out with non-scientific history, which is judging creationism"? I meant the suggested new wording isn't perfect because it's still judging creationism and the article isn't completely about scientific estimation. Ergbert 21:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little tired right now, but I'll, or someone more awake than I can get back to you on that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

About to head up north so might be a while till I get back. The article indeed isn't just about scientific estimation; but the non-science is put in a historical context.

As to the intro "judging creationism"; I think it neutrally points out that creationism is not in line with "modern scientific dating methods"; and as such it is an "other view". I think that's entirely accurate. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What Vsmith changed it to is fine with me from an NPOV standpoint, although after looking at Dating Creation more carefully, it appears to be about the Age of the universe.

Vsmith objected to my other proposed changes. Does anyone have suggestions for how to better fix those NPOV problems? IIRC one of the policy/guidelines pages says to improve edits, not revert them, if possible...Ergbert 00:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just read the article and it looks perfectly NPOV to me. For reference here is the NPOV policy on "undue weight":

* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article)

If you want YEC to get more than a single link (e.g. flat earth in the earth article) then it seems that you need to cit your prominent adherents. Funkyj 07:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly want the article to mention YEC any more than it currently does. What I want is for the article to not flat-out state that the current majority scientific (Declaring other views unscientific would be biased and inappropriate for Wikipedia, no matter how true.) viewpoints are true. An example: "The radiometric age dating evidence from the zircons further confirms that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old." Yes, it supports that, but to say outright that it confirms it violates NPOV policy. Ergbert 02:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes - further confirms means just that, the new evidence (read the references) add solid data that confirms the previous estimates at least back to the ages of those rocks. You obviously don't understand scientific evidence - it is not some inviolate truth - it is factual evidence based on the most recent and reliable techniques. As researchers press forward new evidence will no doubt push that 4.404 Byr even further back, that is to be seen. At present the available evidence does confirm that age to be accurate, within limits of experimental error. The further confirms is not POV, it is a statement of fact based on current research and is backed up by valid published, peer-reviewd research. The objective is to report what is the current state of our understanding from a scientific basis. And not to water the facts down to accomodate the anti-science bias of certain groups. The religious and mythical viewpoints are covered in the disamb articles listed - that is quite enough. - Vsmith 04:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"You obviously don't understand scientific evidence" Wikipedia:No personal attacks

As for the rest...The article currently states that this evidence is fact. It does not matter if this is so, because it violates Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.". (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) We have to change the article so it does not say one view is correct or incorrect and so it says which view is held to be true by whom and why. Ergbert 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) "and so it says which view is held to be true by whom and why." I don't mean we need all age of the Earth-related content in one article, BTW -- topics that could have an article of their own only need a brief mention here. Ergbert 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got here, but im siding with Ergbert, if we're trying to reach consensus or something. I hardly think evidence that can only produce an estimate can really be called a fact, and besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a majority scientific belief forum. Homestarmy 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical Calcuation: Deletion?

This is my first post and do not want to step on any toes or use inappropriate "wiki-manners", but it would appear that the mathematical calculation at the bottom of this article is flawed and needs to be removed for the following reasons.

1. The present day ²³⁵U/²³⁸U is ~0.007, not 0.07 as suggested in the article. This can be verified by consulting any table of isotopic abundances, googling "isotopic abundances of uranium", or consulting Isotopes of uranium.
2. ²³⁵U/²³⁸U cannot be measured, as suggested in the article. One cannot measure an isotopic ratio in the past, one can only calculate it from a present day ratio. Neither can one "assume" a value of unity at accretion for nucleosynthetic reasons, in fact relative isotopic abundances (as produced via nucleosynthesis) are commonly very different. For verification, consult any table of stable isotopes. I calculate that, in fact, at 4.5 Ga (Ga = 10⁹ years), ²³⁵U/²³⁸U = 0.303.
3. Even using the incorrect value of the present day ²³⁵U/²³⁸U, and the incorrect assumption of "accretion" ²³⁵U/²³⁸U = 1, the calculation listed in the article appears to give an age of 3.2 Ga and not 4.6 Ga.

Anyways, thanks to the person that posted it for injecting a quantitative flavour to the article, the effort is very much appreciated. I apologize for suggesting that it be taken out, but it appears to me to be fatally flawed. The appropriate substituion, perhaps, is what is known to isotope geochemists as the "geochron", or a age calculation based on the ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁴Pb and ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb values of meteorites and the earth (which, by the way, should really be mentioned in the article as this is the method by which the "scientific" age of the earth was first determined). The calculation, however, is both numerically (the equation is transcendental) and conceptually (why use the Pb isotopic composition of meteorites and ocean sediment?) complex and probably unsuitable for a general-knowledge encyclopedia.

If someone could check to make sure that I don't misunderstand the calculation and then delete it, that would be great. As this is my first post I am hesitant to eliminate something that clearly took someone a great deal of effort to produce. Rickert 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you misunderstood the method. I made a typo, putting in 0.07 instead of 0.007, this is all. ati3414

And no, the equations don't have to be transcendental, they are linear, I just showed it. So plug in your favorite isotopes of Pb and you should get the same result. ati3414

If those numbers you've got are correct, then couldn't what you've got here just go inside the article in place of the old information? Homestarmy 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it could except some idiot keeps editing it out. What I am giving here is a METHOD. After correcting my typo everything is copathetic. The short article shows that , contrary to what another guy keeps posting, it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO ASSUME EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF ISOTOPES for U235/U238. I got sick of all this bs and I did my own page, don't dare to erase it. You can keep this one for yourselves.

Sorry, I am not being clear. In addition to the problems that the section faces based on it's two incorrect ²³⁵U/²³⁸U values, it has a more fundamental flaw: You cannot derive the age of the earth from ²³⁵U/²³⁸U systematics.

The premise of the calculation, that one can calculate an age of the earth using only uranium isotopic ratios is incorrect. With the corrected values I presented above, all one can do is calculate the ²³⁵U/²³⁸U of the earth at any time in it's history (or, I suppose, in the future). Although potentially useful, it has no place in an article on the age of the earth. Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity in the previous post.Rickert 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not? take the statement: "If we assume that at the formation of the Earth the isotopes U235 and U238 could be found in equal amounts then the time t represents the time elapsed from the beginning of the Earth. Solving (5) for t we obtain....". What is wrong with it? If we assume that the two isotopes could be found initially in equal amounts and today they are in a much different amount , fully knowing their half lives we should be able to find out at what time in the past they were to be found in equal amounts. ati3414

Thanks for responding quickly, Ati. Please do not take this as an attack on you. You have hit the nail on the head by drawing attention to the statement you have placed in quotation marks. The simple answer is that the assumption is invalid: There is no reason to assume that the isotopes had an equal abundance during the accretion of the earth or at any other time. Nucleosynthetic processes (i.e. stellar processes by which most of the heavy elements in our solar system were created) have no "reason" to create isotopic symmetry by balancing the amounts of one isotope with another. In fact, many processes operate to favour one isotope over another. An example is oxygen (although it is created by a slightly different nucleosynthetic process than uranium) for which ¹⁶O is present in excess of 400 times that of ¹⁸O. Since both isotopes are stable they represent a "primary" (that is, reflecting relative abundances at the accretion of the earth) isotopic signature, and suggest that the assumption of an isotopic "symmetry" is invalid. Similar arguments can be made for stable heavy elements (see some of the lanthanides, for example).

Additionally, with the correct present day ²³⁵U/²³⁸U (listed in my first post) the "time" that is calculated using the (completly valid!) equations in the article (the time at which the two isotopes had equal abundances) is approximately 5.9 Ga: older than the currently accepted age of the solar system (either 4.6 Ga or 4000a, depending on your POV).  :) Rickert 01:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's bs, the number comes out 4.4 and this seems to CONFIRM the equiprobable hypothesis as an interesting side effect of the simple methos that I put forward. I wish you took your first post elswhere because it is dead wrong.

The user who added the calculation was Ati3414. I have left a message on ver talk page in reference to your suggestion. Perhaps displaying any calculation creates the false impression that the calculations that led to the established age of the Earth are easy to explain. -- Ec5618 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand then. Well then, we should at least see if Ati knows about this, if he knows how those numbers work, maybe he has something to say on this. Homestarmy 00:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section here for discussion. It appears to be original research.

==Mathematical Calculation==

We can determine the Earth age by observing the following:

1. the amount of Uranium isotopes U235 and U238 that can be found nowadays is in the ratio N235/N238=0.007

2. the two isotopes of Uranium have a half life of 4.5 billion years for U238 and 0.7 billion years for U235

3. at the formation of Earth the two isotopes were to be found in a proportion of 1:1

A radioactive element decays with time according to the law:

N(t)=N0exp(-a*t) (1)

From (1) we can can calculate the coefficient a if we know the half life.

For example, in the case of U235:

N(0.7)=N0/2 (2)

Therefore :

a235=ln2/0.7 (3)

In the case of U238 we obtain:

a238=ln2/4.5 (4)

Because today’s ratio of U235 to U238 is 0.007 we have:

0.007=exp(-a235*t)/ exp(-a238*t)=exp(a238 - a235)t (5)

If we assume that at the formation of the Earth the isotopes U235 and U238 could be found in equal amounts then the time t represents the time elapsed from the beginning of the Earth. Solving (5) for t we obtain:

1/t=(1/0.7-1/4.5)*ln2/(ln1000-ln7) or approximately t=4.4 billion years

We can verify both the above method and the correctness of the equiprobable distribution by replacing in the above calculations U235 with U234.

U234 has a half life of 2.45x10^5 and N234/N238=0.000055. Therefore:

a234=ln2/0.000245 (6)

and

0.000055=exp(-a234*t)/ exp(-a238*t)=exp(a238 - a234)t (7)

Solving (7) we obtain :

1/t=(1/0.000245-1/4.5)*ln2/(ln1000000-ln55) or approximately t=4.8 billion years

IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE RESULT , AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE METHOD IS GOOD. I GAVE YOU A MATHEMATICAL WAY OF CALCULATING. THERE IS EVERY REASON TO CONSIDER AN EQUIPROBABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ISOTOPES AT THE TIME EARTH WAS FORMED. IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT, PLUG IN YOUR FAVORITE NUMBER. Have at it! ati3414

Discuss below please. Vsmith 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Discuss what? I gave you a reasonable straightforward algorithm, just plug in your favorite numbers and you can get the approximate age of the Earth ASSUMING that there was an equiprobable distribution of isotopes when the earth was created. ati3414

Well, there are two arguments. One is that the calculation has nothing to do with the age of the earth (the assumption is demonstrably wrong). The other is the one that Vsmith just pointed out. If this is a new formulation (correct or not) it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.Rickert 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like ati got the ratio between U isotopes right, and it also says 2.3 billion years not 3.2, im afraid im lost again :/. Though I do understand the part about not knowing what the original ratio was when the earth was supposedly created via big bang theory and stuff, how can we assume that it was equiprobable distribution, or that there were such heavy elements at all?Homestarmy 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is 4.4 after replacing the 0.07 with the correct value of 0.007. I wish you could read more carefully.

I still can't think of any reason why both uranium isotopes would of come into existance on earth at the same exact time the earth supposedly pullled together or something. Homestarmy 14:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Homestarmy. You are correct. Isotopes of heavy elements like U are produced during supernovae events, and it is common for isotopes of the same element to have markedly different abundances. The following link [1] has a list of the abundances abundances of stable isotopes of each element. With a few very minor caveats, these represent the original abundances of of the isotopes on the earth when it was accreted because they are neither produced nor do they decay. Note the differences in isotopic abundances for each element. Rickert 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ati3414, please stop re-adding the section to the article. There is no evidence for the following:

3. at the formation of Earth the two isotopes were to be found in a proportion of 1:1

 Couldn't you read the fact that I used a different isotope (U234) and i got the SAME RESULT? 

Plus the section is original research, such as it is. I have my students do a quite similar calculation, not to do anything with the age of Earth - but to gain familiarity with the concepts, equations and calculations. The section is not encyclopedaic. Also, please don't create other fork articles with the content as you have already tried. I would also caution you to be civil in your comments here and elswhere. Vsmith 14:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should I be civil when you are uncivil in erasing my contribution?

Hi. A couple of new comments on the new calculation, just to clear things up and make sure no one is confused.

1. The arithmatic given last line appears to give a time of 0.0035 Ga (3.5 Ma), not 4.8 Ga. I do have a bad habit, however of making errors in my own arithmetic, so if anyone else wants to check it that would be great.

Most likely you made an error. The point is that the distributions of isotopes are not exact and the method is used as a means to show the order of magnitude, not the exact age. No wonder the creationists are having a party with this page ....

1. The calculation of ²³⁴U/²³⁸U is different, and much more complex than the calculation of ²³⁵U/²³⁸U because ²³⁴U is an intermediate decay product in the ²³⁸U-decay series (i.e., it is produced by decay of ²³⁸U)). A good online resource for these concepts (and related mathematics) can be found at Bill White's Cornell website. A link to the relevant chapter in his free, online textbook follows [2].

Why don't you read my text carefully, I used an apples to apples replacement of U235 with U234, same type of data.

1. As a note to ati regarding the "transcendental" vs. "linear" nature of the equations. You are correct in that the equations you presented have exact solutions are are not transcendental. The equation that I was referring to is the one in which a Pb-Pb age is determined and has little to do with your calcuation. I apologize for the confusion.

Yeah, I got it. Your remark on stable Pb has nothing to do with what I was trying to show you which is based on radioactive decay. Thank you.

1. The problems with the premise (and the mathematics) notwithstanding, the "No original reseach" issue that was kindly brought up by Vsmith has not been resovled. I agree that if an appropriate reference cannot be produced suggesting that this calculation has been used in this way before, it should be removed from the article.

Thanks everyone. Rickert 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Try "Instant Physics-from Aristotle to Einstein, and Beyond" bu Tony Rothman,page 147. The bit with using two different isotopes and the exact math are mine. OK? ati3414

Firstly, your behavious seems odd and combative. There is no need to yell, for example.

Since the calculation is original research, it will have to removed, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not about shaping knowledge, it is about cataloguing it. On top of that, it appears your calculation is flawed, which is another reason it should be removed. Thank you, but Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this matter. -- Ec5618 16:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Instant Physics-from Aristotle to Einstein, and Beyond" page 147, by Tony Rothman

Try reading. I simply put the text into mathematical formulas. I also used two different methods to arrive to the same result.

I have the book and just re-read that demo bit. Rothman is simply using it as a demo to help students understand - much as I have with my students. He states assume the Earth was formed with equal amounts of these isotopes and then sets out with some simple calculations.

The book and exerpt is for a dummied down intro to physics. The demo as such is not encyclopedaic. Your math playing with the info from the book is original research. The stated assumption is not valid. End of case. Vsmith 17:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. How do you explain that you get a very similar result by replacing U235 with U234? A coincidence? Why are you so hung up agains the equiprobable distribution at the initial point? Seems to work perfectly fine. And if you don't like my approach, why don't you or any of the other critics produce a calculation that would shut down the creationists? There must be one. Adios .

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to calculate Earth's Age. Seems our friend ati3414 is forking the content elsewhere. Vsmith 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to build my own page, I was fed up with the bs on this page.

I'm afraid it isn't this page that you're in conflict with, it's Wikipedia's policy. Please see Wikipedia is not, Civility and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm afraid we simply cannot allow original research on Wikipedia. -- Ec5618 18:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)