Talk:Age of Earth/Archive 1

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 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.

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


 * 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" (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 Neutral point of view.  Please read 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 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 &times; 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 &times; 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 Neutral point of view, at least read Neutral point of view. 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).