Talk:Age of Earth/Archive 5

Notice
Yuk Yuk Yec, I am not sure if you are aware of Wikipedia's 3Revert Rule. Do not revert, either in one edit or several, back to substantially the same version more than 3 times within 24 hours, or you can be blocked. See WP:3RR. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Creation science
Egbert changed


 * Today some religious groups continue to accept only theological accounts regarding the age of the earth and reject all scientific evidence.

to


 * This practice continues to this day amongst religious people who reject mainstream scientific research in the field in favor of some combination of theological accounts regarding the age of the earth and creation science, which is rejected by the mainstream scientific community as pseudoscience.

No matter how POV the original may have been, this is inaccurate. Creation science is not the major position among people who reject "mainstream' scientific explanations for the age of the earth. It's a predominantly American / Christian phenomenon.  Guettarda 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * American phenomenon not good enough eh? :D Homestarmy 02:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to be also somewhat common among haredim and a surprisingly large fraction of Orthodox jews in the US in general, but still agree. JoshuaZ 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not ;)
 * I probably wasn't abundantly clear in what I was trying to say. Basically, as written, the revised version suggests that creation science is pretty evenly weighted with rejection of mainstream science.  My guess (and this is just that, a guess) is that most people who accept religious teachings about the age of the earth are not people who have actively rejected the scientific view, but rather, people with limited experience to the scientific view.  Among those who are aware enough of the scientific view to reject it, the proportion of those who embrace alternative science (creation science or one of its kin) are likely to small.  I don't have data to support this, but it feels like common sense to me.  I think that to assert otherwise, that creation science is on par with other reasons for rejection, needs some sort of support.  In addition, are there other science-like explanations embraced by religious people?  How does support for scientology, or UFO-related New Age 'alternatives" compare with support for creation science?  Guettarda 03:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry; that's not what I intended. I put creation science last because to me that makes it look less important and I used "some combination of" to indicate that views can range from "Scripture is right!" to "Scripture is right and (creation) science proves it!" to "(Creation) science shows the Earth is only x years old." Would something more along the lines of "do not hold views of the age of the Earth that are in line with mainstream scientific estimates due to reasons that may include theological accounts of the age of the Earth, simple lack of exposure to such estimates and the research behind them, and creation science" be better?
 * I think creation science deserves some sort of mention from a NPOV, in part because pre-existing religious views aren't the only reason for a YEC perspective, to show that it isn't "science" itself that creationists have a problem with, and because in my experience at least the simplest sorts of creation science have a fair degree of support (but I don't surround myself with YEC material). Ergbert 07:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Re "...pre-existing religious views aren't the only reason for a YEC perspective..." -- what else could they be? There's no science in creation science, and the fact that people believe in creationism is likely due to what Guettarda "guessed" at.  Generally speaking, the less one knows about science, the more likely one is to believe in creationism.  Yes, there are a few exceptions (probably driven by religious zeal), but for the most part, it really is a lack of scienctific knowledge that allows people to accept creation myths. Jim62sch 01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not attributing it to one cause. There are several causes, and they don't all apply to everyone. Some people have religious views that they won't doubt, others have shakier religious views but are reassured by creation science, others don't have a religious background but are swayed by creation science (perhaps more common in kids...I remember a news story from not very long ago that I think mentioned a girl who was getting interested in science but had her education 'intercepted' by creation science, but the article was from long enough ago that it'd take more than just a little digging to find.), et cetera. Ergbert 04:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ergbert, in some cases its simply due to people being poorly educated and/or ignorant and/or stupid also. I think adding the word "generally" should make the statement fine. JoshuaZ 04:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Creation science is a reaction by those in the Church congregation who believe that the only way to fight science is with their own version of science; one which starts with a presupposed notion and seeks evidence to support that presupposed notion. It isn't science, at all. Oh, it uses the tools which science invented, but in the manner you can use a wrench to hammer in a nail. Science explains what is there first and foremost, then explains how it has come to be, with evidence. Creation science first describes how it has come to be, then selects evidence to prove it.

So, how should we portray the alternative non-scientific estimates of the age of the Earth? I think the current sentence is fine. Creation science isn't prescientific, it's antiscientific, as anyone who has read both will soon see. Fannying about with weasel words does nothing but distract us from the whole creation science = religion idea. Rolinator 07:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this?


 * This practice continues to this day amongst those religious people who reject mainstream scientific research in the field in favor of theological accounts regarding the age of the earth. They will sometimes refer to "creation science", which is rejected by the mainstream scientific community as pseudoscience, as proof of their beliefs.
 * Jim62sch 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate, though (unless it's my turn to misunderstand :) ). Though creation science may have originated for such reasons (I'm not defending it, so I don't need a lecture about it. Wikipedia articles aren't the place for such judgements, so I will remove them, but that's a totally different issue.), religious beliefs aren't always the cause of these (in same cases, lack of) views on the age of the Earth.
 * Does anyone have any comments on the change I suggested in my initial reply? Ergbert 02:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My contribution:
 * "Modern scientific estimates of the age of the Earth are rejected by those who prefer accounts of the origin of the Earth based in scriptural teachings. Theological beliefs in the age of the Earth are investigated by Creation Science, which seeks to prove canonical statements of the Earth's age by combining controversial interpretations of scientific data plus scriptural teachings."
 * Note; no POV because I am stating that the belief (not the people) is supported by the intitution (creation science) which uses controversial (which is a defensible statement; if it wasn't controversial we wouldn't be kvetching so much) interpretations and science mixed with scripture. No mention of "pseudoscience", which is a hot-button word and will no doubt see everything come up for discussion yet again.
 * Ergbert - our feedback is;
 * We'd prefer not to mention the word pseudoscience
 * We'd prefer not to mention "religious people"
 * We obviously don't support your sentence because we keep coming up with our own ideas.
 * No matter how much you say 'disbelief of scientific age is not always ignorance or religion' we disagree; we seem to believe creation science is a religious institution and religious movement. Sure you don't have to be a Christian to believe it, but it is a Christian phenomenon.
 * Rolinator 03:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My only objection to your suggestion is creation science isn't lowercase. :)
 * I took the pseudoscience part from the creation science article with the hope that existing content would be less objectionable than something I came up with on my own.
 * Okay.
 * I didn't ask if you like it; I asked if you had any comments. We should try to work toward a consensus, not say "No, you're wrong/mine is better!" without providing any reasoning.
 * The belief in creation science has no direct connection to one's religious beliefs, so to say being swayed by creation science is the same as having religious reasons for one's beliefs is not factual.
 * What's with the "you" and "we"? :\ This isn't a case of everyone versus me. Ergbert 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Creation science is not science, it is pseudoscience in that it fails the same criteria that ID does (see Intelligent Design), and it fails a number of Carl Sagan's famed "baloney detection kit" criteria:
 * Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts (i.e., peer-review)
 * Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
 * Quantify, wherever possible.
 * If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
 * "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
 * Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
 * Also, since I had mentioned "in favor of theological accounts", the use of religious as a modifier of people in my proposed version was clearly redundant. Jim62sch 15:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See also: Scientific_method. Jim62sch 16:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Carl Sangan is in charge of the definition of science nowadays then? Homestarmy 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not unless he speaks from beyond the grave. The point being, the man was a highly respected cosmologist and philosopher of science.  His "baloney detection kit" is quoted throughout science curricula in high schools and colleges (especially the later).  If you compare his idea with the Scientific method (with a bit of Philosophy thrown in) they are the same, but his is more accessible to most.
 * So then, since you apparently either aren't sure of Sagan's credibility, or his impact on science, let's go through the requirements of the Scientific method:
 * Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities. -- The assumption of a deity or supernatural agent violates parsimony
 * Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena. -- Only by using the assumption "God made everything look older than it really is" and similar arguments can it explain anything. And given that those arguments violate parsimony, they also violate pertinence
 * Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability. -- The existence of a deity or supernatural entity is not falsifiable as it is outside the realm of science, thus creationism cannot be a science as it includes a non-falsifiable (neither provable nor disprovable) cause
 * Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future. -- There is no predictive element to creation "science"
 * Correctable & dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made. -- The hypothesis has remained the same since it was first proposed, even in light of evidence contradicting the premises put forth by CS.
 * Progressive, achieves all that previous theories have and more -- given that it violates most of the tenets of the Scientific Method, it cannot be progressive as its assumption of a supernatural entity ceases any chance to take the hypothesis further
 * Provisional or tentative. Does not demand absolute certainty. -- Assumes absolute certainty (see Correctable and dynamic).
 * Any better Homes? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the scientific method was observation, hypothesis, experiment, data, conclusion :/. Homestarmy 13:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have noted that they were the demarcation criteria needed to achieve the scientific method. I was, unfortunately, in a rush and shorthanded it. Nonetheless, "creation science" does not match the demarcation criteria.  Besides, the hypothesis came before the observations (what few there were), and it's supporters claim that it is "correct, period, and there is to be no arguing".  That isn't how a true hypothesis, or theory, works.  Also, there has been very little real experimentation, mostly there has been a lot of gainsaying of other people experiments because they do not fit in with the theory of CS, which as I said, is "correct, period, and there is to be no arguing".  Finally, no matter what the data may show, CS throws out everything that doesn't fit the theory because the theory is "correct, period, and there is to be no arguing", the making the conclusion a foregone conclusion (pun intended).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so tell us something we DON'T know abou CS. I also don't know where you cooked up your own baloney about me crediting C.S. with bein a science. I said it used scientific data. Not that it collects it itself or anything. It's bullshit,I totally agree, in fact its an insult against all that human society has achieved, from paper clips to space shuttles. But that's not the point I was making. The wiki aricle should not throw shots across the bow of the Creation Science people by calling it for what it is; tha way we'll be reverting edits by christian fundamentalists every week. But we don't, with parsmonious and pernicious grammar, have to actually credit it with any respect either. I thought my effort was a fairly economical way of maintaining a neutral tone without resorting to "pseudoscience" and "religious people". Not like I care too much, I'm watching this page mainly to keep C.S. loonies under check, not actually, you know, bring better grammar and skills in English to bear. Rolinator 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"you" who? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a second here, are you telling me observation means if we can't measure it, it isn't scientific? Homestarmy 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Other non-scientific views
If we are going to keep in comments on non-scientific views of the age of the earth, we may want to add in one or two prominent less Western examples, such as Vedic creationism. The extremist hindus have the opposite problem with science as the Young Earth Creationists, namely they need a very old earth(on the order of at minimum 10^10 years, in some interpretations even higher orders of magnitude and they need humans to have been around and largely civilized for most of that time). It would seem highly US-centric to me to only include the young creationism here. JoshuaZ 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But, it's already there. Vsmith 14:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, ok that was embarassing, I need to learn to read articles more carefully before making dumb comments and not edit as first thing when I wake up. I'm just going to go slowly slip away now and hope no one notices me... JoshuaZ 14:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Too late. ;) Aw hell, we've all done that.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting
Please explain and avoid reverts. When you don't provide any reasons for reversion, you're leaving that up to my imagination. :) Ergbert 02:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (following edit conflict:-) Er... you're last edit summary: rv: It states the estimate as fact and thus violates WP:NPOV. However, you are the one putting estimate in the paragraph, you are arguing with yourself. Based on abundant scientific evidence the age is 4.55 billion. That is factual per the scientific research it is bases on as stated. How is that POV? It doesn't state that the age is ... beyond any doubt, uncertainty is always a part of science. Do we need to put in the uncertainty range? The fact as stated is valid and it is adequately qualified. Rewrote to clarify better. Vsmith 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's not so much that I'm putting it in as you're taking it out -- you removed "estimate" 28 March and I'm trying to put it back (because it is an estimate and because of WP:NPOV). I've tried different wording again -- I haven't put "estimate" back in, but I've made it clear that the estimate is that of scientists, not everyone. I'd prefer to replace "evidence" with "research" because the former has an implied POV to me, but I'll leave that as it is for now. I removed "scientific" because IMO it looks bad to have it followed so closely by "scientists". I'm all for providing the evidence and what scientists think of it, but to state your preferred conclusion as fact is to violate WP:NPOV.
 * Quoting WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Ergbert 21:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, an estimate by scientists -- based on empirical data. As opposed say to the Ussher estimates based on...?  I really don't see your edits as a quest for NPOV, but rather as a way of inserting POV.  BTW, I also removed estimate as unnecessary given that the word "around" is in the sentence.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I read official policies and guidelines, and I do as they say. WP:NPOV clearly forbids SPOV language. Are you going to address that, or just make accusations? Ergbert 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you read WP:SPOV. SPOV is not forbidden as you say.  In any case, I restored the word "scientific" but replaced "scientists" with "geologists" as that is more accurate. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you noticed, but I've already linked to WP:SPOV in this debate; I have actually read it more than once. WP:SPOV says that SPOV and NPOV are not the same thing, so if you're going by it, writing from a SPOV violates WP:NPOV. I'd suggest one not put too much faith in WP:SPOV, though, as it is neither guideline nor policy.
 * I'm not completely happy with the current status of the sentence, but it's good enough for me to leave alone to avoid an edit war. Ergbert 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't notice, I apparently missed it. Funny that Wiki should have an SPOV problem -- other modern encyclopedias don't.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, Ergbert's last revert (estimates are not a fact) is correct. We cnnot say the Earth is 4.5Ga, we can only make an estimate. Even if people quote estimates as fact (see George Bush 'estimating' WMD's in Iraq, for instance) the truth is, in science, just as in Wikipedia, it is incorrect to state things as fact unless it is defensible. While it is fact that the Earth is older than 7,000 years, it is an estimate that it is 4.55 +/- 0.01 Ga. Note that quoting error means you are interpreting the age based on a certain degree of uncertainty in your measurements.


 * And no, I am not advocating we say the Earth is 7001 years old. I'm just being pedantic about clipping the words "estimated" and "assumed" out. Any thetans out there who've been around since the time they got thrown into the volcano by aliens are free to correct me at any time. They oughtta know.Rolinator 02:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, but the age is given as based on existing scientific evidence - seems adequate without throwing in all sorts of fudgy estimates. Perhaps the +/- 0.01 needs to be included - I'm for it (or whatever the published range is, in case that was off the top of your head). Vsmith 03:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the .01 came straight from the cavernous recesses of my voluminous ass ;) But yeah...geez, that would be revolutionary for our most prolific combatants...uh, editors on this page, wouldn't it? Who checks facts these days, when we can be all involved in petty semantics. Rolinator 12:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you consider me part of that group, but my interest in editing this article is purely in relation to WP:NPOV, so I'm just fixing up POV stuff other people write; I was hoping to quickly find something on Wikipedia, got here after a few links, noticed a WP:NPOV-violating sentence, fixed it, and was surprised when I checked back in and found my edit had been reverted. On another topic, it would be helpful if people would indent replies; this probably should've gone on the bottom, but w/o indentation it would look like I was replying to something other than that which I am. Ergbert 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As a linguistic I object to the simplistic, populist use of the word semantics... ;P  Anyway, the 4.55 billion years needed no verification (yes, I usually round it up to 4.6).
 * Oh, thanks for correcting my egregious typo on "scientific". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As a geologist I object in principle to linguists naffing around with science. But only when they are having a catfight without checking facts. Not that I have dug up any references on this, my butt supplying me with enough .01's to suffice, but that's because I'm a busy boy. Rolinator 00:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow I think you managed to read way too much into this or else not enough -- how something is said is every bit as important as what is said. As for not checking facts, I wish I knew what you were on about -- if we want to bitch about verification, I could point out that 4.54 Ga may actually be more accurate (which would thus make the margin of error meaningful).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So update the entry with an uncertainty number and link down to a reference in the bibliography. since you know how much more accurate 4.54 is than 4.55. ~


 * Quite an attitude haven't you, eh? The reference is already on the page...has been for some time.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Article
[300 million or 6,000] &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough, it might not actually be 6,000 years. Maybe 7,000 or so, come on, it's just an approximation. And besides, the example of the guy calling the rock "satanic" and the ranger's counter-response that it didn't prove faith as a path to salvation was, in a way, absolutly correct. Simply calling a rock satanic doesn't justify a thing, nor does voicing an opinion make it right on its own. As a resident of the Bible belt, I am not really surprised he got a whole lot of responses which didn't have much explanation or reason behind them, believe it or don't, but speaking from my personal experiences, a whole bunch of Christian friends I know just plain don't know much about answering the objections of almost anyone, much less atheists or evolutionists. (Some even chalk it up to "Well, maybe the Bible is full of contradictions...well, maybe Genesis is a big old allegory and God was lying....or whatever) And it's not like we object on the ages or whatever of everything to turn the world into a dangerous theocracy of eating rocks or something, just whenever it conflicts with the Bible, which to my knowladge, isn't that often when its outside the age of the earth or evolution. Like Quantum Physics, that's all fine, had a chapter on it myself last semester, very interesting section, seems to fit the data and observations nicely, I see no problems there. What's the big deal about not trusting facts that contradict the Bible? It's not gonna make someone press that red button one day marked "don't press"...... Homestarmy 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No offence Homes, but that was nearly impossible to follow. A chapter on quantum physics?  Reading only a chapter is like watching on half inning of baseball and proclaiming that you understand all the rules of baseball.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I understand all of it, but we had a good chemistry teacher, I certainly know a good bit about it. My point was that the apparent objection that Christianity is dangerous for "not acknolwadging the advancements of mankind" or whatever doesn't really apply much to anything scientific outside of evolution or age of the earth stuff. Christianity wouldn't, say, create a state where everyone ate rocks, worked on how to blow up the ocean, struggled to destroy all nuclear power plants and then play with the waste, or dangerous things like that which would come from "denying the advancements of mankind" in the understand of such things. Denying evolution and the supposed age of the earth will not make the world contract a termimal "stupid disease" or something, although the responses that ranger was getting were really a bit lazy for the subject matter at hand, laziness alone does not make things "dangerous". Homestarmy 12:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they wouldn't be associated with dangerous things like HIV denial and global warming denial (both associated with fellows of the Discovery Institute, global warming denial is also associated with AiG, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson), or deny that condoms will generally stop HIV. All of these occur as denial of science for what are either religious reasons or collateral damage from the religiously motivated denials. Not trusting facts because they don't fit ones preconceived notions is dangerous regardless of motivation (the US has lost two spaceshuttles from that for example). Its a very bad habit no matter where its coming from. JoshuaZ 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But here's where things get messy, you've got to be able to separate the politics from the religion. It's partly why, despite my total fundamentalism, I really don't think I want to get into politics. HIV denial has nothing to do with the Bible, global warming may even technically be supported by end times prophecies since, you know, its bad, as far as I know condoms aren't safe to block HIV an extremely high percent of the time anyway so I don't see why you'd want people to risk it by telling them "Well, you've got good odds of getting away without HIV!", and space shuttle's also aren't really mentioned in the Bible either. All of those things probably have some political motivations behind them, simply because the people participating in such controversies may outwardly seem to be using the Bible or Christianity (perhaps even with gusto) doesn't mean they actually are. This sort of thing goes beyond religion, for instance, elementary school biology books. Im sure you're very familiar with the standard creationist response to evolution as "just a theory, not a fact", which is based pretty much on elementary school biology books, which generally state a theory as some sort of hypothesis which is not a fact. As I understand it, the real definition of a theory is quite a bit more complex than that, so much so that the Evolution article requires an entire section on it, elaborating beyond what people learn in the 1st grade or whatever, because although the elementary school books appear for all intensive purposes to be the modern examples of evolutionary theory, they aren't. So like the people on the right side of politics, the burden of determining whether or not their using Christianity falls upon learning quite a bit more about Christianity than what you see from the political world alone. Furthermore, because of what I have now learned about the evolution vs. creationism debate, I would not trust those elementary school books to tell me about the definition of "theory" anymore because I now have a preconceived notion that whenever someone tells me a theory means "a non-fact", then the book they got that out of was probably lying as to the true nature of what is a theory and what isn't, perhaps for the sake of deceptive simplification. Is this dangerous? Homestarmy 13:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And where, pray tell, did you get this little gem of misinformation, "as far as I know condoms aren't safe to block HIV an extremely high percent of the time anyway..."? see Efficacy and Effectiveness of the Male Latex Condom
 * Oh, your chem teacher taught you about quantum physics? Does the art teacher teach music class?  Sorry, but if you really want to learn about quantum anything, you need to actually study the entire discipline.  Now that we've wandered off topic...  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well my chemistry teacher has multiple degrees, and the chapter was in our chemistry book, so that's what we learned about. I got that little "gem" from my biology teacher during the chapter on human reproduction, but I can't comment on your link until I get home, as our firewall blocked it for "sex education". Homestarmy 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take this discussion elsewhere. It has no relation to this article. Vsmith 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)