27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
== Intro ==
This needs an edit. It's not 'according to evolutionary scientists' it's 'according to geologists', and there should be a citation. However, the edit page doesn't seem to be the same as the article, so I don't want to edit it myself. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 6:30pm 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why does this article even have a section about the YEC views? I know this point has been used elsewhere before, but shouldn't this just be to define what the jurassic period is? It doesn't matter if it's an idea to do with evolution or YEC, it's a defined time period. If you were to talk about the Industrial Age, you wouldn't make a claim that an anti-industrial person doesn't believe it happened. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree, even though some do not believe the evidence does not mean that the terminology should not be presented. The Jurassic period is not a time scale created by evolutionists, it was created by geologists. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:47, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::There's that too. I also noticed CPAdmin1 reverted my edit, so I've asked him to reply as to why. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
You know, a geologist does not have to believe in evolution to believe that the earth is millions of years old. James Hutton, in 1786, presented that the earth was older than what was believed. This is almost 50 years before Darwin published his first work. I think the first line should be replaced for it is false.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:For everyone's information, I did a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jurassic&oldid=120386 different version] of this article, which Conservative reverted. I have been in discussion with him since about having my version reinstated. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:04, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Philip, That looks to be one of the best edits I have seen for this page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. It was probably a bit brief, but it was a start that could have been expanded on. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth? ==
It says that earth is young, but that is because the layers of the earth are constantly changing
Easy, easy, not need to bomb me, but the Carbon-14 tests proves that there are things older than 10000 years, and another "prove": god didn't say that :D [[User:Schwarze|Schwarze]] 20:53, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:Carbon-14 dating is based on the presumption that Biblical history is wrong (it assumes no Flood, therefore assumes not effect on the C14 balance in the atmosphere from the Flood), so cannot be used to disprove the Flood, as the argument assumes what it attempts to prove. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
'''My point'''
I'm not disproving the flood, i saw a good doccumentary explaining it, And the C14 test is based on the level of decay of the Carbon, not on the quantity, but Earth cannot be stable in 6000 years, it's still pretty active geoloically. And that god didn't mentioned the BIG BANG doesn't mean it didn't existed, it means that it was't god's point, God didn't talked about polar bears, atoms, superstring theory and Dolphins, yet they exist, if god wanted to metion every friggin' thing that exists in the universe, the bible wouldn't be finished by now, and the most important: we wouldn't need to do all that helluva effort to arrive here, to nuclear fission, flight and modern medical cures, it would have been just plain easy to just say "God said that, now STFU" and just relax, but God gave us a "starting point": The Bible. It gave us that book saying "the rest is up to you", and he did great. We started questioning the universe and developing new technologies to understand it, some of them were used wisely, some not, but at the end we are here :D [[User:Schwarze|Schwarze]] 20:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
BTW:Where the heck does the bible mention the age of earth? [[User:Schwarze|Schwarze]] 20:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:C14 is based on the C12:C14 ratio, which is determined by measuring the ''quantities'' of each. The quantities are affected by how much decay there has been.
:You are right that God didn't mention the Big Bang doesn't mean it doesn't happen. However, that He ''did'' mention things which are incompatible with the Big Bang ''does'' mean that it didn't happen (assuming you trust God more than man). We started ''studying'' (rather than "questioning") the universe ''because'' we had a Christian worldview that told us that God's creation was worthy and amenable of study.
:For the age of the Earth, see [[Date of Creation]].
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Where does God said something that doesn't coincide with the big bang? {{unsigned|Aknot}}
:For one, the span of time from the start of creation to the appearance of man was under six days. For another, the Earth was created before the stars. I'm sure that you won't agree that this is the way it happened, but hopefully you'll agree that (a) God (or at least the Bible) does say these things, and (b) that these are incompatible with the Big Bang, thus agreeing that my claim that you were questioning is correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Plot hole:''' If earth was created AFTER the stars, the light of stars wouldnt have reached us yet (the only way to make it have sense is with the B theory) and most of the sky would be black. And in 6 days from the Big Bang, most of the elements needed for water, life; the light and all the stuff that's good were already created {{unsigned|Aknot}}
:I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
'''YEC Pwnage:'''
1.light doesn't travel at infinite spped. '''nothing does.''' it travels at 300.000km/second
2.We are f**king far away from stars (=light source)
3.light-year = the quantity of distance the light can travel in a year.
4. most of the things we see are a lot farther away than 6000 light-years (i.e.: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool_Galaxy whirlpol galaxy] = 23 millions of light-years away, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_1300 NGC 1300] = 69 light-years away)
5. 1 light year = 9,460,730,472,580.8 kilometers, 5,879,000,000,000 miles
6.the distance from the whirlpool galaxy to here is 274.361.183.704.843.200.000 kilometers (no joke)
7.The light would need 29 million years at 300.000 kilometers per second, (186.000 miles per second) to arrive at the earth.
8.according to you, the earth was created before the stars, and it has 6000 years, in 6000 years, the light from the whirlpool galaxy still would need to travel 274.361.183.704.843.'''194'''.000 more kilometers (a crapload of time and space) to reach our ol' good ball of mud (earth <_<), and thus, we couldn't see it because the LIGHT ITSELF is far away w00t!
9.we can actually see the Wirhlpool galaxy [http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/whirlpool_galaxy.jpg Image taken from the Hubble space telescope]
10.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light wiki article on speed of light]
11.pwned
[[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 17:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Aknot, how about before you post in such a smug way, you actually try learning a bit about the idea that you so readily dismiss? It's not good form to reject something on supposedly reasonable grounds when you have so little understanding of the thing that you are rejecting. For an answer to your objection, please read [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf this]. Then even if you still don't agree, please come back and apologise for being so dismissive. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Philip, how about actually understanding the matieral in the link you give before citing it? It talks about two possibilities (c-decay and time dilation) as solutions to the age problem for YECs. C-decay has never been observed, so that's not a solution. Time dilation is only significant near a massive amount of matter (like in the vicinity of a star) -- that's definitely not the case for light traveling through empty space.--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 00:37, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
That article oly quotes Dr. humprey (who i Dr. humprey?), why it didn't quoted different sources; like stephen hawkings?
Stars never existed? why would God create something useless? that would not be good, in fact, it would be cruelty, humanity has always seen stars millions of light years away and asked if there was something there and spent billions and a lot on effort on that. Also, if light was created on-the-run, why it would still to shine? '''<-''' i like this tehory XD it has comedical value
white holes are doubtful, it violates laws of entropy. (second one) and if it was reduced to nothin, then why it was touching earth? (altough is a lot more convincing than the first), and if it was a hole THAT massive to reduce time THAT much in earth, it would alo have affected stars at milions of light years away in it's "shelter" of time, right? back to the original question
The only solid plot-hole is that earth was not created IN the big bang; even 300.000 years later, all there was was a bunch of hydrogen atoms, even if it was in a distorted time, the atoms in areas were time is shorter would need to form planets and stars, right, and the stars would need to explode in supernovas to make the heavier elements (needed for earth and humans), and to make the gas clouds (nebula) collapse and create more stars, wich would atrcact matter; and after a VERY long explanation, create earth! :D
I was almost convinced.
And why i need to apologize? i never insulted you or YEC (to "pwn" it is not an insult) and censored all swearing (wich wasn't offensive to anyone)
[[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 13:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationist view ==
This section is worthless.
See my comments regarding it in [[Talk:Paleocene]] which apply equally here, as it is the same section which has just been cut and pasted onto every geological time period article. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 15:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationists believe that... ==
''Young earth creationists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error and do not believe in the Jurassic period.''
I would like to suggest removing "evolutionary" from the sentence. As mentioned above the age of the earth being very old was put forward before evolution came on the scientific scene. The geological time scale does not imply evolution. It is possible to read about the [http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/timescale/timescale.html Geologic Time Scale] without seeing the word evolution except in citations (of the two citations that have 'evolution' in the title, only one is about biology). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
== Secular Dating IS a Fact, Philip ==
Until you solve the starlight problem, secular dating is a fact. Get back to me with that. Until then, I have reverted your undo of my changes.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
# Secular dating is ''not'' a fact.
# Starlight has nothing to do with this article.
# The burden of proof is not on creationism in this case as the creationist view is not being claimed as fact, unlike the secular view in your changes.
# Revert it again and I will block you (and you will be the first block I've done to someone who is not a vandal).
:See also my comments above about my opinion on this article.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Starlight has a lot to do with the issue; it proves the old age of the universe, and thus disproves the entire young earth creationist dating schema. If you choose to ignore this falsifying evidence, you prove once & for all that your views are un-scientific. As a rule, remember, in science the burden of proof is on the new theory, and certainly on the theory making the most outrageous claims. YEC-"theory" is both; thus the burden is on you. Your threat is noted: per your warning I did not undo any changes, but added a sentence & citation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Starlight has as much to do with the Jurassic as the entire creation/evolution/uniformitarian argument has to do with it. Yes, it is not totally unrelated, but it is not something specific to this article. I am only ignoring the starlight issue ''as far as this article is concerned''. I do not ignore is otherwise, but I disagree that it is falsifying evidence. If the burden of proof is on the "new" theory, then the burden of proof should have been on the old-Earth theory when [[James Hutton]] simply ''pronounced'' that uniformitarianism was the way to go. Personally, I think that it is the uniformitarians who are making the outrageous claims, so that comment doesn't carry much weight either. I don't fully agree with your edit, but certainly it was not what I warned you against.
:By the way, my previous post here was written in a hurry. I should have explained that blocking you for would have been for edit warring or for disobeying a direction of an administrator, not for posting an ideological view.
:You haven't commented on my alternative version of this article (see further up this page). I still hope to have my version reinstated, and now have an additional argument to do so (not anything discussed here).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:20, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jurassic&oldid=120386 Your version] is so much better! Wow. Why don't you put it back up? I'll support you for what it's worth. It's a fair treatment of the issue, giving the "equal time" that CP demands. I'll discuss the starlight claim later, but I hope you put it back.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::Phil, I'm tired of fighting Conservative on this. You should revert to your version.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
== Could we get this article to actually say something? ==
There is far too much pointless quibbling going on, about the phrasing within the sections which we do not agree with (''"It is claimed", "According to", "supposedly"'', etc), which is getting us nowhere with this (and similar articles),
It would surely be more constructive to write the individual sections of the article, as clear and ''uninterrupted'' statements of the believed facts according to that viewpoint, and clearly titling the sections "Young Earth Creationist viewpoint", "Scientific viewpoint" (and any other viewpoints that people may wish to put forward). --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
== Reinstatement 28th April 2007 ==
Just for the sake of properly documenting matters, my reinstatement of my earlier version of this article follows extensive discussion on my talk page, [[user talk:Philip J. Rayment#why do you want to gut creationists objection to those evolutionists time periods?|here]]. — [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
== Merge? ==
I think we should merge all of the secular time periods into one article, they all give alot of the same info and it would make more sense to have them in one article. [[Secular geological timescale]] maybe? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:That would make for a very large article and Conservapedia has a goal of keeping the articles smaller. I think it will be okay with separate articles.
:It already links to [[Geologic system]], which was intended to be a neutral name for what you are calling [[Secular geological timescale]]. Have you looked at [[Geologic system]]?
:There should be a table showing the geologic system components such as Jurassic, even with the secular dates, but I was wondering if that should be in its own article (i.e ''just'' the table and an introduction) to avoid making [[Geologic system]] too large. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Does one need to put 'secular' in front of each word that doesn't match the YEC interpretation? Could we get [[Secular theory of evolution]]? Putting secular in front of it makes it harder to find and adds nothing of value to it. One would assume that geologic timescale would be just as reasonable of a name. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:As I've just said above, in this case I don't see the need, but otherwise, yes, one does often need to put "secular" (or some equivalent), because not all geology (etc.) is done from a secular point of view. But in saying that, I'm referring to the text of articles; hopefully with article titles we can avoid that with neutral terms, such as I did with [[Geologic system]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think that that 1 article would not be too long, and it would eliminate the need for
:::"The Jurassic is preceded by Permian era and followed by the Cretaceous era."
::And the like. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
This needs an edit. It's not 'according to evolutionary scientists' it's 'according to geologists', and there should be a citation. However, the edit page doesn't seem to be the same as the article, so I don't want to edit it myself. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 6:30pm 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why does this article even have a section about the YEC views? I know this point has been used elsewhere before, but shouldn't this just be to define what the jurassic period is? It doesn't matter if it's an idea to do with evolution or YEC, it's a defined time period. If you were to talk about the Industrial Age, you wouldn't make a claim that an anti-industrial person doesn't believe it happened. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree, even though some do not believe the evidence does not mean that the terminology should not be presented. The Jurassic period is not a time scale created by evolutionists, it was created by geologists. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:47, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::There's that too. I also noticed CPAdmin1 reverted my edit, so I've asked him to reply as to why. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
You know, a geologist does not have to believe in evolution to believe that the earth is millions of years old. James Hutton, in 1786, presented that the earth was older than what was believed. This is almost 50 years before Darwin published his first work. I think the first line should be replaced for it is false.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:For everyone's information, I did a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jurassic&oldid=120386 different version] of this article, which Conservative reverted. I have been in discussion with him since about having my version reinstated. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:04, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Philip, That looks to be one of the best edits I have seen for this page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. It was probably a bit brief, but it was a start that could have been expanded on. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth? ==
It says that earth is young, but that is because the layers of the earth are constantly changing
Easy, easy, not need to bomb me, but the Carbon-14 tests proves that there are things older than 10000 years, and another "prove": god didn't say that :D [[User:Schwarze|Schwarze]] 20:53, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:Carbon-14 dating is based on the presumption that Biblical history is wrong (it assumes no Flood, therefore assumes not effect on the C14 balance in the atmosphere from the Flood), so cannot be used to disprove the Flood, as the argument assumes what it attempts to prove. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
'''My point'''
I'm not disproving the flood, i saw a good doccumentary explaining it, And the C14 test is based on the level of decay of the Carbon, not on the quantity, but Earth cannot be stable in 6000 years, it's still pretty active geoloically. And that god didn't mentioned the BIG BANG doesn't mean it didn't existed, it means that it was't god's point, God didn't talked about polar bears, atoms, superstring theory and Dolphins, yet they exist, if god wanted to metion every friggin' thing that exists in the universe, the bible wouldn't be finished by now, and the most important: we wouldn't need to do all that helluva effort to arrive here, to nuclear fission, flight and modern medical cures, it would have been just plain easy to just say "God said that, now STFU" and just relax, but God gave us a "starting point": The Bible. It gave us that book saying "the rest is up to you", and he did great. We started questioning the universe and developing new technologies to understand it, some of them were used wisely, some not, but at the end we are here :D [[User:Schwarze|Schwarze]] 20:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
BTW:Where the heck does the bible mention the age of earth? [[User:Schwarze|Schwarze]] 20:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:C14 is based on the C12:C14 ratio, which is determined by measuring the ''quantities'' of each. The quantities are affected by how much decay there has been.
:You are right that God didn't mention the Big Bang doesn't mean it doesn't happen. However, that He ''did'' mention things which are incompatible with the Big Bang ''does'' mean that it didn't happen (assuming you trust God more than man). We started ''studying'' (rather than "questioning") the universe ''because'' we had a Christian worldview that told us that God's creation was worthy and amenable of study.
:For the age of the Earth, see [[Date of Creation]].
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Where does God said something that doesn't coincide with the big bang? {{unsigned|Aknot}}
:For one, the span of time from the start of creation to the appearance of man was under six days. For another, the Earth was created before the stars. I'm sure that you won't agree that this is the way it happened, but hopefully you'll agree that (a) God (or at least the Bible) does say these things, and (b) that these are incompatible with the Big Bang, thus agreeing that my claim that you were questioning is correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Plot hole:''' If earth was created AFTER the stars, the light of stars wouldnt have reached us yet (the only way to make it have sense is with the B theory) and most of the sky would be black. And in 6 days from the Big Bang, most of the elements needed for water, life; the light and all the stuff that's good were already created {{unsigned|Aknot}}
:I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
'''YEC Pwnage:'''
1.light doesn't travel at infinite spped. '''nothing does.''' it travels at 300.000km/second
2.We are f**king far away from stars (=light source)
3.light-year = the quantity of distance the light can travel in a year.
4. most of the things we see are a lot farther away than 6000 light-years (i.e.: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool_Galaxy whirlpol galaxy] = 23 millions of light-years away, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_1300 NGC 1300] = 69 light-years away)
5. 1 light year = 9,460,730,472,580.8 kilometers, 5,879,000,000,000 miles
6.the distance from the whirlpool galaxy to here is 274.361.183.704.843.200.000 kilometers (no joke)
7.The light would need 29 million years at 300.000 kilometers per second, (186.000 miles per second) to arrive at the earth.
8.according to you, the earth was created before the stars, and it has 6000 years, in 6000 years, the light from the whirlpool galaxy still would need to travel 274.361.183.704.843.'''194'''.000 more kilometers (a crapload of time and space) to reach our ol' good ball of mud (earth <_<), and thus, we couldn't see it because the LIGHT ITSELF is far away w00t!
9.we can actually see the Wirhlpool galaxy [http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/whirlpool_galaxy.jpg Image taken from the Hubble space telescope]
10.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light wiki article on speed of light]
11.pwned
[[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 17:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Aknot, how about before you post in such a smug way, you actually try learning a bit about the idea that you so readily dismiss? It's not good form to reject something on supposedly reasonable grounds when you have so little understanding of the thing that you are rejecting. For an answer to your objection, please read [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf this]. Then even if you still don't agree, please come back and apologise for being so dismissive. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Philip, how about actually understanding the matieral in the link you give before citing it? It talks about two possibilities (c-decay and time dilation) as solutions to the age problem for YECs. C-decay has never been observed, so that's not a solution. Time dilation is only significant near a massive amount of matter (like in the vicinity of a star) -- that's definitely not the case for light traveling through empty space.--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 00:37, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
That article oly quotes Dr. humprey (who i Dr. humprey?), why it didn't quoted different sources; like stephen hawkings?
Stars never existed? why would God create something useless? that would not be good, in fact, it would be cruelty, humanity has always seen stars millions of light years away and asked if there was something there and spent billions and a lot on effort on that. Also, if light was created on-the-run, why it would still to shine? '''<-''' i like this tehory XD it has comedical value
white holes are doubtful, it violates laws of entropy. (second one) and if it was reduced to nothin, then why it was touching earth? (altough is a lot more convincing than the first), and if it was a hole THAT massive to reduce time THAT much in earth, it would alo have affected stars at milions of light years away in it's "shelter" of time, right? back to the original question
The only solid plot-hole is that earth was not created IN the big bang; even 300.000 years later, all there was was a bunch of hydrogen atoms, even if it was in a distorted time, the atoms in areas were time is shorter would need to form planets and stars, right, and the stars would need to explode in supernovas to make the heavier elements (needed for earth and humans), and to make the gas clouds (nebula) collapse and create more stars, wich would atrcact matter; and after a VERY long explanation, create earth! :D
I was almost convinced.
And why i need to apologize? i never insulted you or YEC (to "pwn" it is not an insult) and censored all swearing (wich wasn't offensive to anyone)
[[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 13:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationist view ==
This section is worthless.
See my comments regarding it in [[Talk:Paleocene]] which apply equally here, as it is the same section which has just been cut and pasted onto every geological time period article. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 15:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationists believe that... ==
''Young earth creationists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error and do not believe in the Jurassic period.''
I would like to suggest removing "evolutionary" from the sentence. As mentioned above the age of the earth being very old was put forward before evolution came on the scientific scene. The geological time scale does not imply evolution. It is possible to read about the [http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/timescale/timescale.html Geologic Time Scale] without seeing the word evolution except in citations (of the two citations that have 'evolution' in the title, only one is about biology). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
== Secular Dating IS a Fact, Philip ==
Until you solve the starlight problem, secular dating is a fact. Get back to me with that. Until then, I have reverted your undo of my changes.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
# Secular dating is ''not'' a fact.
# Starlight has nothing to do with this article.
# The burden of proof is not on creationism in this case as the creationist view is not being claimed as fact, unlike the secular view in your changes.
# Revert it again and I will block you (and you will be the first block I've done to someone who is not a vandal).
:See also my comments above about my opinion on this article.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Starlight has a lot to do with the issue; it proves the old age of the universe, and thus disproves the entire young earth creationist dating schema. If you choose to ignore this falsifying evidence, you prove once & for all that your views are un-scientific. As a rule, remember, in science the burden of proof is on the new theory, and certainly on the theory making the most outrageous claims. YEC-"theory" is both; thus the burden is on you. Your threat is noted: per your warning I did not undo any changes, but added a sentence & citation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Starlight has as much to do with the Jurassic as the entire creation/evolution/uniformitarian argument has to do with it. Yes, it is not totally unrelated, but it is not something specific to this article. I am only ignoring the starlight issue ''as far as this article is concerned''. I do not ignore is otherwise, but I disagree that it is falsifying evidence. If the burden of proof is on the "new" theory, then the burden of proof should have been on the old-Earth theory when [[James Hutton]] simply ''pronounced'' that uniformitarianism was the way to go. Personally, I think that it is the uniformitarians who are making the outrageous claims, so that comment doesn't carry much weight either. I don't fully agree with your edit, but certainly it was not what I warned you against.
:By the way, my previous post here was written in a hurry. I should have explained that blocking you for would have been for edit warring or for disobeying a direction of an administrator, not for posting an ideological view.
:You haven't commented on my alternative version of this article (see further up this page). I still hope to have my version reinstated, and now have an additional argument to do so (not anything discussed here).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:20, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jurassic&oldid=120386 Your version] is so much better! Wow. Why don't you put it back up? I'll support you for what it's worth. It's a fair treatment of the issue, giving the "equal time" that CP demands. I'll discuss the starlight claim later, but I hope you put it back.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::Phil, I'm tired of fighting Conservative on this. You should revert to your version.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
== Could we get this article to actually say something? ==
There is far too much pointless quibbling going on, about the phrasing within the sections which we do not agree with (''"It is claimed", "According to", "supposedly"'', etc), which is getting us nowhere with this (and similar articles),
It would surely be more constructive to write the individual sections of the article, as clear and ''uninterrupted'' statements of the believed facts according to that viewpoint, and clearly titling the sections "Young Earth Creationist viewpoint", "Scientific viewpoint" (and any other viewpoints that people may wish to put forward). --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
== Reinstatement 28th April 2007 ==
Just for the sake of properly documenting matters, my reinstatement of my earlier version of this article follows extensive discussion on my talk page, [[user talk:Philip J. Rayment#why do you want to gut creationists objection to those evolutionists time periods?|here]]. — [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
== Merge? ==
I think we should merge all of the secular time periods into one article, they all give alot of the same info and it would make more sense to have them in one article. [[Secular geological timescale]] maybe? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:That would make for a very large article and Conservapedia has a goal of keeping the articles smaller. I think it will be okay with separate articles.
:It already links to [[Geologic system]], which was intended to be a neutral name for what you are calling [[Secular geological timescale]]. Have you looked at [[Geologic system]]?
:There should be a table showing the geologic system components such as Jurassic, even with the secular dates, but I was wondering if that should be in its own article (i.e ''just'' the table and an introduction) to avoid making [[Geologic system]] too large. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Does one need to put 'secular' in front of each word that doesn't match the YEC interpretation? Could we get [[Secular theory of evolution]]? Putting secular in front of it makes it harder to find and adds nothing of value to it. One would assume that geologic timescale would be just as reasonable of a name. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:As I've just said above, in this case I don't see the need, but otherwise, yes, one does often need to put "secular" (or some equivalent), because not all geology (etc.) is done from a secular point of view. But in saying that, I'm referring to the text of articles; hopefully with article titles we can avoid that with neutral terms, such as I did with [[Geologic system]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think that that 1 article would not be too long, and it would eliminate the need for
:::"The Jurassic is preceded by Permian era and followed by the Cretaceous era."
::And the like. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)