| Line 515: |
Line 515: |
| | ::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT) | | ::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| − | == Articles like these make it hard for people to take Conservapedia seriously == | + | == Weak attempt to disprove the counterexamples == |
| | | | |
| | I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about. | | I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about. |
| Line 675: |
Line 675: |
| | | | |
| | On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute. | | On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute. |
| | + | |
| | + | == Rebuttal == |
| | + | |
| | + | Rebuttal is indented below: |
| | + | |
| | + | 1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today. |
| | + | |
| | + | The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it). |
| | + | |
| | + | :The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly. |
| | + | |
| | + | 2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe. |
| | + | |
| | + | Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet. |
| | + | |
| | + | :In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science. |
| | + | |
| | + | 3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4] |
| | + | |
| | + | The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here. |
| | + | |
| | + | :"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely. |
| | + | |
| | + | 4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5] |
| | + | |
| | + | Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale. |
| | + | |
| | + | :No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic". |
| | + | |
| | + | 5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed] |
| | + | |
| | + | The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”. |
| | + | |
| | + | :Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | :I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT) |