Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:06, 7 January 2005

See archives for past discussions:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5
• /Archive 6
• /Archive 7
• /Archive 8 -- October 2003 to August 2004
• /Is Creationism a theory -- August/September 2004
• /What is wrong with the lead section -- September 2004
• /History of Creationism -- September 2004
• /Archive 09 -- August 2004 -- September 2004
• /Selection as a creative force -- October 2004
• /Archive 10 -- September 2004 -- November 2004

The Edwards v. Aguillard quote

First, the link to the wiki entry for Edwards v. Aguillard is right there (and I moved the quote there); second, this is in a section that was supposedly moved to a daughter page; it should be short.

I think we can reach a one or two sentence summary that we can agree upon. How about this:

Most recently, the Supreme Court has held in their ruling of Edwards_v._Aguillard that laws concerning theories of origins (even creationist ones) taught in public schools must have a secular purpose and scientific merit, using the test laid down in Lemon_v._Kurtzman.

-Fleacircus 20:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sounds good ... think you're right about keeping it short ... how about we either cut any reference to evolution or creation (as it is now ... just "a variety"), or list them in parallel (i.e. evolutionistic, creationistic, or any other theory) ... by the way, appreciate the help on weeding out my POV:). Ungtss 21:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you put up is fine with me. I think it's important to note that the SC decision does give special place to evolution; it is the "prevailing scientific theory" in the first sentence. By my reading the quote is pretty much saying that if creationism wants to get into science class, it needs to be presented and presentable as science.

I have POV too of course.. I don't want to overstep into that either. -Fleacircus 21:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that's the way i read it too -- basically, "listen, creationists -- if you want in the game, quit trying to censor the real scientists (by banning evolution) or subsidizing your own beliefs (by requiring equal time regardless of scientific merit) and COME UP WITH SOMETHING WORTH TEACHING:)." sorry:). end pov rant:). Ungtss 21:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The way I see it is belonging on Talk:Creation and evolution in public education. Shall I move this discussion there? CheeseDreams 21:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi CheeseDreams... I think this discussion should be linked to over there, but it needs to stay here, even if copied over there.

I'd like to remind everyone on this discussion that they are dealing with someone alleged to be a 'notorious usenet troll' (see that discussion way up above this post.) and that wrapping up good articles with endless disscussion is one of the goals of trolls on wikipedia. This article needs some sort of disclaiming verbiage. Without it it is crackpottery, with it, it can be handled as NPOV without constant reference to who disagrees wihth the theory.Pedant 22:59, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Cheesdreams: I don't see why you want to move the discussion since it is done. And since we were talking about what should appear on this page, and we reached an agreement, what's the problem? -Fleacircus 18:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Space. CheeseDreams 22:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creation in Australia

I removed:

Creationism remains a minority position within Australia, closely associated with evangelical fundamentalists such as Fred Nile. It has not received anything near the social or legislative prominence accorded to it within the United States.

The first phrase is redundant, the reference to "evangelical fundamentalists" is (what's the term?) perjorative?, it is no more associated with Fred Nile than many other people, I question whether it has any less social prominence than in the U.S.A, and from what I can gather, it hasn't achieved any legislative prominence in the U.S.A. anyway, with most legislative attempts being rejected. Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the fact that there even is regular discussion about legislative aspects of creation means it has a lot more (legislative) prominence than in any other major industrialized country. One thinge we recently hashed out on the Flood geology page is that most Creation science is not so much rejected by scientist, as ignored, since most scientists (and certainly most scientists outside the US) are not even aware of the fact that this is pushed as a serious scientific position. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If "legislative attempts" and similar are factors in "legislative prominence", then I will probably concede that point, notwithstanding that some years ago there was some sort of requirement to give equal time to creation in Queensland, if I understood that situation adequately. Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something went wrong

In the edit of 20:20, 24 Nov 2004, something went wrong. Can somebody figure it out and fix it? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's ok now; I changed the Links section from <h4> to ====. Now the sections seem to work. ---Ben Standeven 02:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I formatted the Creationism page in the standard Main Article summary and layout that is used, for example, in the Evolution and Human pages as has been discussed on this TalkPage for over a year. Please refer to the Creationism archives and subsequent discussions if you have any questions. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summaries of other articles shouldnt be here because it's redundant and can cause inconsistency when one of the pages covering the same subject changes while the other remains unchanged. Grice 10:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Summaries of "Main articles" are the Misplaced Pages standard, as you can see in the Evolution and Human pages, just for two examples. Can you give me a Misplaced Pages example of a page where "Summaries of 'Main articles'" was considered by the Misplaced Pages community to be "redundant and causing inconsistency"? ---Rednblu | Talk 15:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creationism and philosophical naturalism section

I've corrected sentence introducing Phillip E. Johnson to reflect that Phillip Johnson's claims are not general, but highly particular.--FeloniousMonk 06:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, it would be in the article's interest to add some context around the Phillip E. Johnson bit with some of the opposing viewpoints for balance.--FeloniousMonk 06:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i agree ... in fact, i think that we would do well to make a daughter article that covers this topic in detail with a number of arguments on all sides -- because it really is the heart of the debate, i think. what do you think? Ungtss 14:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody else think this page needs a major reworking?

It seems to me that this page is really poor. There isn't a well-defined use of the term "creationist". The opening paragraph seems to indicate that a creationist is someone who believes in Genesis creation. However, later on there are references to a 1997 Gallup poll that was completely neutral to whether the respondent was a believer in a Judeo-Christian formulation or some other formulation of theism. Furthermore, there are "creationists" who believe such things as the Earth and even the universe was "created" by aliens, for example. Is this a form of creationism? If not, then we should really define what exactly we are talking about. 67.172.158.8 17:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

defining yec

you can't place yec as a straw-man in opposition to science -- that's one pov. the yec folks believe that science SUPPORTS a young earth. to set YEC in "opposition" to science in the first paragraph is pov ... and an especially damaging pov on a page like this. as to the "scientific consensus," it was Karl Popper who said, "I don't believe that success proves anything." Ungtss 00:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the UK certainly most people use the term YEC to describe those that assert that the scientific method would back up their beliefs. I'm sure there are those that take the belief without believing in the scientific method but are they common enough to warrant discussion? I reverted to Ungtss' version. Barnaby dawson 16:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are definitely people who are YECs that use evidence other than that from science to back up their assertions. As such, the statement is too narrow to be correct. 67.172.158.8 18:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be some clamoring for a removal of the statement that most YECs are fundamentalists. This is surprising, because it is definitely one of the primary perspectives of every YEC I've ever met. 67.172.158.8 16:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist" carries connotations and meanings that many if not most YECs disagree with, even if the use of the word is technically correct. Also, many sceptics appear to consider YECs fundamentalist by definition, in which case saying that a YEC is also a fundamentalist is redundant. Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to meet a YEC who, when asked, didn't admit to being a fundamentalist. Can you point in the direction of any that are. The only reason that the line was included was to distinguish between those creationists who are not fundamentalists. I will change the term to "biblical literalist"

I won't admit to it, at least not until it is defined. What I said was that it "carries connotations and meaning that ... YECs disagree with". "Fundamentalist" originally meant someone who believed the fundamental truths of the Bible. I have also heard it use to mean a literalist. In popular and media use these days it means a religious extremist, sometimes bordering on a terrorist. Now do you understand why YECs don't like the term applied to them? Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i'm pretty much yec and definitely not fundamentalist. i don't believe in inerrancy, i don't believe that only christians get to heaven (in fact, i don't even necessarily believe in heaven), i don't believe God's omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, and I haven't been to church in 3 years because i think, on the whole, the church is a crock and has been since a generation or two after Jesus. yet i still find genesis to be the most reasonable explanation of our origins, and the teachings of Jesus to be the truest we've ever been blessed with. Ungtss 03:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect to user Ungtss, if he is as he claims then he is in a definite minority with respect to the YEC population. I wonder that user Ungtss is a YEC yet claims that he doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. What evidence from astronomy, for example, do you disbelieve so strongly that Genesis seems to be a more scientific text than an intro astronomy text? Do you actually evaluate the claims of geology, astronomy, chemistry, nuclear physics, etc. and find them wanting? What references do you use to support your claims? Do any of the writers of these references (or anybody else you've met) hold a similar position to your own?

I submit that unless user Ungtss can provide evidence that he is not alone in his opinions and that there is a substantial portion of the YEC community like him, the edit he is promoting is a vanity edit and strictly not permitted in Misplaced Pages. I will wait three days before changing the edit back to hear from user Ungtss for the evidence. I submit that the vast majority of YECs are believers in biblical literalism if not Christian fundamentalism. 67.172.158.8 17:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<I submit that unless user Ungtss can provide evidence that he is not alone in his opinions and that there is a substantial portion of the YEC community like him, the edit he is promoting is a vanity edit and strictly not permitted in Misplaced Pages.>>

first of all, it is not a vanity edit when i refuse to allow you to associate a belief with a certain people group without citation, especially when i personally do not fit the association, and the association uses politically and religiously charged terms such as "fundamentalist." you are attempting to assert something as fact which i know not to be fact. if you'd like to present a cited, quoted poll showing what percentage of YECs are fundamentalists, go ahead. as it stands, it's just your word against mine. and i won't allow you to state things as fact that i know not to be fact. i am not a fundamentalist, my roommates are not fundamentalist, many personal friends of mine in africa and the middle east are not fundamentalist ... yet somehow we're still YEC. don't tell us we're something we're not. it's strawman, namecalling bs. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you both. "Fundamentalist" is a pejorative word, plain and simple. And I don't think any of my YEC friends would appreciate being called one. Samboy 10:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentalist is not pejorative in its definition, though it may have pejorative connotations. We can call them "biblical literalists" if you like. 67.172.158.8 17:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<What evidence from astronomy, for example, do you disbelieve so strongly that Genesis seems to be a more scientific text than an intro astronomy text?>>

first, if you take a look at the genesis account, it doesn't claim that God created the universe in 6 days -- in fact, before God created ANYTHING, his "spirit moved over the waters." To my reading, there was something on Earth before God did anything to the Earth, and the days of creation are just God's preparation of a preexisting earth for life. so your "age of the universe models" are irrelevent to my opinion of the date when God did everything he claimed to do to the earth.

This is strictly a different opinion from YEC. Afterall, it doesn't follow from the Ussher-Lighfoot calendar. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and who said Ussher was the authority in YEC, any more than Darwin was the authority on evolution? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

secondly, i find the genesis interpretation (although not necessarily literally 1 day) to be much more reasonable than star and planetary formation models in your "introductory astronomy text," which fail to explain how hydrogen clouds were able to violate the laws of gas in a vaccuum long enough to begin fusion

If you want to know about interstellar gas dynamics, shouldn't you research it? I have been an astronomer for some time and have yet to see a convincing argument that hydrogen clouds "violate" the laws of gas dynamics. By the way, "laws of gas in a vacuum" makes no sense.67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the laws of gas in a vaccuum simply means "How the Gas laws cause gas to behave in a vaccuum. what's hard about that plain english? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

without the intervention of an outside force,

There is an outside force -- a lot of them. Sometimes shockwaves cause star formation. Cooling functions allow for clouds to collapse. I'm not sure where the myth of an intractable problem came from.67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i would greatly appreciate some reference to back up your conclusion -- preferably something that explains, blow by blow, exactly what those shockwaves are composed of, and how the nebula failed to obey the Gas laws prior to the explosion long enough to be close enough to explode. consensus from my coursework and research is, "nobody has a friggin' clue." Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how the disks began to rotate,

See conservation of angular momentum. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that doesn't do a thing to explain how the disks began to rotate. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how planets of such radically different substance congealed from the same nebula,

See planetary formation models and differentiation of protoplanetary disks. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i've seen them ... i find them laughable. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how we came to have a moon in such perfectly balanced orbit that is currently RECEDING from the Earth,

Typical psuedoscientific claim: 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm/year. Since the moon is 3.85 * 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old. >>

is that supposed to mean something? i asked how the earth came to have a moon, with the moon so perfectly balanced in orbit, and slowly receding. you gave me a silly conclusory statement that didn't address the issue. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how many planets came to rotate the opposite way of all the other planets, how many moons came to revolve the opposite way of other moons.

67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet-building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons. >>

is that conclusory crap supposed to impress anybody? how did it HAPPEN? "such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons." HOW!? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it most reasonable to believe that a designer or god of some sort arranged our solar system in roughly the order described in Genesis. not necessarily 6 days (although it could well have been), but certainly not the billions of years asserted by these pseudoscientific planetary formation models foisted as fact on an ignorant public by a scientific community bent on supporting its rampant atheistic/agnostic bias against all reason. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your POV as to the motivations behind a community of literally tens of thousands in academe is really quite alarmist. Perhaps you should do a more careful bit of research before getting on a shrill high-horse. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that's good. ad hominem and no rebuttal. i'm getting to like this. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Do you actually evaluate the claims of geology, astronomy, chemistry, nuclear physics, etc. and find them wanting?>>

I find that the empirically observable and verifiable facts of geology, astronomy, chemistry, and nuclear physics (which i have studied at least somewhat, and accept as far as i've studied) show evolutionary models for star, planet, and life formation to be self-contradictory and ridiculous.

But have failed to provide even one example that isn't easily shown to be claptrap. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no sir. you've failed to explain any of these pseudoscientific efforts to explain away reality. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

don't confuse true science with the pseudoscientific speculation of evolutionary origins. i accept the former, and reject the latter. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And don't confuse planetary formation with biological evolution. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the only thing they have in common is a lot of nonsense. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<What references do you use to support your claims?>>

foremost, my personal research and common sense.

Really? Does your personal research encompass actually doing the physics in the models that you claim don't work physically? 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

beyond that, the ever-growing body of creationist literature which is based more and more on science and less and less on dogma, as the creationist community finally "grows up" out of its medeival foolishness. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most creationist literature writers are very upfront about the fact that they are NPOV. Moreso than it seems you are willing to be. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have read Ungtss' comments and remain unimpressed. Here is the Misplaced Pages definition for YEC:

I have responded to the above claims of Ungtss. I just couldn't let the nonsense keep. User Ungtss truly doesn't have a grasp on the science involved in the popular level "debate" of creationism vs. science. I submit that his attempts to paint himself as having the higher ground are nigh on ridiculous. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God a relatively short time ago. The belief is held by the Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a historical account.

There is no account of any claim to science in the first paragraph. I will not take the time to debunk the incorrect science stated by user Ungtss, since he can edit any of the statements in the Misplaced Pages library if he were really to believe this (for example, he could edit the article on the conservation of angular momentum if he believes that there is no way to get rotation in astrophysical gas clouds), but I have edited the definition to my satisfaction. YEC relies either on a faith-based rejection of modern science (as pseudoscience or as naturalism or as secularism) but is not on the whole necessarily scientific.

As to the claim that there are no references to this, the reasonable thing to do is refer to self-described Young Earth Creationists. Polling makes no sense because the term is self-descriptive. I can refer to any number of websites that reject prevailing scientific notions of astronomy, geology, biology, physics, etc. in favor of Young Earth Creationism. As such, they necessarily reject scientific statements. I can also refer to most Young Earth Creationist literature as accepting a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore, I have justified my edits and will continue to maintain the position. 67.172.158.8 02:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<YEC relies either on a faith-based rejection of modern science >>

No, this is a misrepresentation.

This is true. There are those that rely on a faith-based rejection of modern science.

<<I can refer to any number of websites that reject prevailing scientific notions of astronomy, geology, biology, physics, etc. in favor of Young Earth Creationism.>>

As Ungtss said, "don't confuse true science with the pseudoscientific speculation of evolutionary origins". YECs reject the uniformitarian assumptions and their consequences in astronomy, etc. They don't reject true science. Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<I have edited the definition to my satisfaction.>>

this page is not here for your "satisfaction." it is here for npov. Ungtss 03:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I editted it to npov standard. My satisifcation stems from NPOV.

npov is not determined by your satisfaction, but by consensus satisfaction according to the rules of the game. Ungtss 09:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus in science is determined by the rigors of the scientific method, which YEC fails on many accounts. Read the article on science if you don't believe me. 128.138.96.220 20:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

not according the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Scientific consensus is reached by common ideology, and what scientists have been taught and built their reputations on. scientific revolutions come from outsiders who actually have the guts to apply the scientific method. as to whether or not YEC fails, that's one pov among two, both of which deserve representation on this page. Ungtss 21:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While Kuhn makes valid points, he is not the arbiter of science. The Baconian ideal still stands and that's the scientific method. What Kuhn did was characterize the flavor but not the methodology. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what he did was to describe exactly how and why the scientific community consistently fails to live up to its baconian ideals. Ungtss 19:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Kuhn does no such thing. He takes a functionalist approach to the study and describes how, for example, the history of science and science texts are a misrepresentation of science in practice. There is no description of the scientific community failing to live up to Baconian ideals -- indeed, Kuhn advocates the opposite in his forward. If you have a beef with the scientific community, that's fine, but imposing this belief onto authors who don't share it is a little strange. 67.172.158.8 20:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

he said the "history of science" texts are a misrepresentation of the history of science, because they claim that science is an unbroken line of progression (the baconian ideal) while in fact it's a series of huge jumps by outsiders who buck a scientific community unwilling to think outside the box. Ungtss 21:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main bit on which I "don't believe you" is the bit that "YEC fails on many accounts. And the article on science says nothing about that. Philip J. Rayment 14:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take the Age of the Earth article referenced in the definition, if you don't believe me. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<As to the claim that there are no references to this, the reasonable thing to do is refer to self-described Young Earth Creationists.>>

then start describing them as they describe themselves: creation scientists.

Not all Young Earth Creationists are creation scientists. Some are simply proponents of of a literal Genesis.

not all evolutionists are scientists either. some of them just believe in the fictional computer-generated missing links they're shown on the discovery channel. Ungtss 09:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strawman. There isn't any claim in the statement about "evolutionists" being "evolutionary scientists". The statement is about YEC and you claim that they are really "creation scientists". If not all "evolutionists" are scientists that doesn't mean that we can't point out that not all YEC are scientists. 128.138.96.220 20:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

true enough -- but that wasn't what i was trying to argue. i was arguing that you can't put "mainstream scientists" against "biblical literalist fundamentalists." you have to put "mainstream scientists and unemployed discovery-channel watchers" against "creation scientists and snake-handlers." Ungtss 21:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was no pitting. It was a simple statement about what the group of YECs believe in general. They do reject statements about the age of the Earth. I'm surprised that user Philip doesn't think that the article referencing the age of the Earth is scientific. Perhaps he can tell me what it is if it isn't scientific. If he manages to do that, then I'll agree to keep the editorial removal of the term. Otherwise it's going back in. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the pitting comes in lining up "scientists believe this" and "creationists, who are mostly fundamentalists, believe this." as to whether dating methods are scientific, how do scientists know how much radioactive material was in the rock, originally, in order to calculate the age of the rock? Ungtss 19:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the scientific debate here. After all, you can read the Age of the Earth article for yourself where the matter belongs anyway. I'm not lining up any "scientists" believe this, "creationists" believe that. It is a fact that creationists reject scientific statements as to the age of the Earth. 67.172.158.8 20:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it's not a fact that the methods are scientific. it's disputed. the age of the earth article very clearly CALLS them scientific, and then very clearly goes on to explain how a series of failed methods based on silly assumptions (like, "there was no lead in the original rock" by holmes) gave way to still other flawed and unreliable attempts, until it was finally voted on in the 20s by a nearly unanymously atheistic organization,

This is beside the point. First, the unsubstantiated atheistic claim is merely an ad hominem for you to state, but the last sentence in the Age of the Earth article states it all. Just look into how the work was done and evaluated. It's very meticulous and you've obviously not read it.

look. what i'm saying is very simple, and i'd appreciate a direct response instead of this elephant hurling.

STILL without providing any scientific basis for the assumptions regarding the original level of radiation in the rock.

"Original level of radiation"? You've got to be kidding me. We know what causes radioactivity: it's radionuclei. We know that there are parent and daughter nuclei relationships. None of that is argued. If you are arguing about contamination, you can see this is a silly argument here:

unless you can explain to me how scientists know the relative proportion of radioactive elements in the original rock,

See above.

it is BOGUS for you to call them scientific on a page about people who think they're bs. Ungtss 21:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since I have demonstrated this to be the case, I will revert the edit. 67.172.158.8 21:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God a relatively short time ago. The belief is held by the Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a historical account.>>

i wrote that paragraph, biased fundamentalist that i am. the paragraph contains no reference to science or anti-science, because that is an area of pov dispute -- and this definition was much the same, before you introduced your hackneyed "creationists reject science" pov. if you want that pov in the definition, then you have to allow the creationist pov that they are scientific. if you don't want the creationist pov in the definition, then you've got to cut yours out too. those are the rules of npov. don't address the issue, or address both sides. anything less is bs. Ungtss 03:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to live with the current incarnation. However, I will probably edit the YEC article. 67.172.158.8 04:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<This is beside the point. First, the unsubstantiated atheistic claim is merely an ad hominem for you to state, but the last sentence in the Age of the Earth article states it all. Just look into how the work was done and evaluated. It's very meticulous and you've obviously not read it.>>

look. what i'm saying is very simple, and i'd appreciate a direct response instead of this elephant hurling. you base your conclusion of the age of the rock on the rate of decay (known), the current element proportion (known), and the original element proportion (unknown). how do you know what the original proportion was, in order to calculate how long the elements have been decaying to arrive at their present level? Ungtss 22:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link: ~

i appreciate the link. from a creationist pov, it fails to answer this objection. Ungtss 22:30, 6 Jan 2005

(UTC)

This objection holds no water:

it holds water to my reading. Ungtss 22:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From your site:

Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes.

From my site:

Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known.

In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that you know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)

With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D / D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P / D2 on the x axis and D / D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line which is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D / D2 was not initially the same in all samples, the data points would tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.

For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable.

• Potassium-argon dating, for example, assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. Ar/Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
• The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
• Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of C14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
• Fission-track dating assumes that newly-solidified minerals will not have fission-tracks in them.

The article is untractable and doesn't deal with the simple explanations provided. It is also the reason I reverted. Joshuaschroeder 23:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i understand that. but you've only quoted the intro to my article, without even considering the length of it on isochron dating.

The general theme of the article and its contents are well-refuted in the previous article quoted. Are you asking for a point-by-point clarification?

<<Potassium-argon dating, for example, assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals.>>

that assumes the original level of argon in the crystals. it says it's "usually excluded," but doesn't say under what circumstances it is INCLUDED ... or why the rock could not have been CREATED with the argon intact. i'm not saying creationism is right. i'm just saying it has a pov that needs to be articulated on this page. Ungtss 23:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Argon, being a noble gas, cannot form crystals. The only way to get argon in a rock is for it to cool quickly which will in turn not allow for crystal formation. To deny this fact about argon is to question the measured vapor pressure of argon, the laws of chemistry, etc. Joshuaschroeder 23:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

an article about excess argon. whether the article is well-refuted is a matter of point of view. both povs must be represented here. Ungtss 23:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but ICR is incorrect here. The K-Ar measurements that are believable are only done with slow forming crystals which necessarily have no excess Ar. The only way to get excess Ar in a crystal is to form it above at a pressure equivalent to the vapor pressure of Ar at the temperatures required. The phase diagrams for the interior of the Earth (where crystals form -- not in lava flows as the article harps) doesn't allow for this.

It's not a matter of POV when a group is incorrect. There is no problem with K-Ar dating when used incorrectly. And that's, of course, not the sum total of radiometric dating. Joshuaschroeder 01:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

perhaps if you'd read the article more thoroughly, you would have noticed this:

Further confirmation comes from diamonds, which form in the mantle and are carried by explosive volcanism into the upper crust and to the surface. When Zashu et al. obtained a K-Ar isochron "age" of 6.0±0.3 Ga for 10 Zaire diamonds, it was obvious excess 40Ar* was responsible, because the diamonds could not be older than the earth itself.14 These same diamonds produced 40Ar/39Ar "age" spectra yielding a ~5.7 Ga isochron.15 It was concluded that the 40Ar is an excess component which has no age significance and is found in tiny inclusions of mantle-derived fluid.

cited to:

S. Zashu, M. Ozima and O. Nitoh, "K-Ar Isochron Dating of Zaire Cubic Diamonds," Nature, 323 (1986): pp. 710-712.

15 M. Ozima, S. Zashu, Y. Takigami and G. Turner, "Origin of the Anomalous 40Ar-36Ar Age of Zaire Cubic Diamonds: Excess 40Ar in Pristine Mantle Fluids," Nature, 337 (1989): pp. 226-229.

Ungtss 01:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an old claim, one that was bantered about by Henry Morris. The talkorigins archive has the following to say about the very article you site (4th response down)

Christ Stassen says this about the particular example you give:

I investigated this some time ago and wrote a response (1998) but could not find it in Google news. When I am home I will check my archives there. I think the answer is mixing in this case, and was demonstrated in a followup paper by Ozima by comparing chlorine ratios. But that is just off the top of my head, and it has been five years since I researched this example.

The incremental heating Ar-Ar method was applied in this case, but essentially no argon was released up to the temperature where the whole diamond disintegrated. The result is a plot with basically one data point, which is no better than a straight K-Ar assessment. The 'standard' test for mixing doesn't work on Ar-Ar because of the correction for atmospheric argon.

The YEC's may be right that the result wouldn't have been viewed with as much skepticism if it hadn't been so obviously wrong, however there are plenty of results in accordance with mainstream geology that have been investigated and stood up to equivalent skepticism. And this one example is a non-issue as far as the reliability of isotope dating goes since mixing was demonstrated.

It is funny that the YEC incredulity is not extended to their own ideas as much as they are extended to a single erroneous argon mixing problem. There is no doubt that a preponderance of the evidence is used in geology, and that this is a legitimate use.

To put it another way, there are cataloged literally tens of thousands of isochron datings that give consistent results. I wouldn't expect a YEC to go through each and every one of them, and they don't. Instead they latch on to the anamolies and cry foul. It's a typical creationist tactic that misses the forest for the trees, so to speak. Joshuaschroeder 02:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

all of which may be well true -- i'm just here to write an npov article:). my question is, if K/Ar dating is only accurate in slow-forming crystals formed in the mantle, then exactly how much of current rock can be dated accurately by K/Ar? Ungtss 03:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some, not all. Of course, any mineral that has a naturally occuring abundance of potassium is going to be a better radiometer, so to speak. The truth is that there are dozens of isochron methods. See radiometric dating for more. Joshuaschroeder 03:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

new revert war

um ... would you care to justify the revert of an edit which added factual information without deleting anything? Ungtss 22:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

great compromise:). thanks for working with me:). Ungtss 02:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists