Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2013-03-17T21:43:42Z

JasperTech: /* My thoughts in favor of a literal reading */

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Also, could I point out that you can't take one Biblical passage as proof of the truth of another. Nothing is proof of itself - you can't say "The Bible says that The Bible is correct, therefore The Bible is correct." [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 14:51, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner

'''There are multiple creation stories:'''
Genesis 1 has one creation story (with the animals coming before Adam; Genesis 2 has a different story, with Adam coming before the animals (except in 1 English translation among many)

There are alos other creation stories in the Bible with inconsistent details. {{unsigned|Rjwalker}}

There are perfectly rational explanations for any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. I read the creation story allegorically because the Word was communicated through human authors. Because of the human element the creation account can be read as religious instruction for the human working week and Sabbath rest. Whether you read Genesis as literal or not, is not as important as having faith that God exists, that He created the universe, the importance of keeping Sunday special and following His Word. {{unsigned|AdamB}}

If one looks at the real evidence, the evidence being the book of Genesis, and the rest of the bible, the true word, the world is really only about 6000 years old. The Bible talks of many different aspects of history, and in almost all cases has other historical weight behind its claims other to itself. If the Bible can be seen as a valid historical source, providing accurate evidence when it is read literally, it is only logical to read all its aspects with absolute trust. When this is done it works the world to be 6000 years old, therefore the world is about 6000 years old. You can't just pick and choose what to read literally and what not to. The meaning of the bible can't be used by humans like this, otherwise we could make it mean anything. The Bible is an instrument of teaching, as previously mentioned. If a history book for lessons was not to be taken literally, it would not be suitable for real learning, therefore the Bible must be taken literally for it to have any relavence whatsoever! I would argue it is not a matter of personal opinion as mentioned in a revious post by Futsunushi, something is simply written to be taken literally or allegorically, in this case it is literal. You do not read a book that was written to be read literally, in an allegorical fashion, if you took the personal opinion to read it like this you would be being stupid and illogical. End of story. --[[User:Badger15|Badger15]] 13:56, 4 March 2009 (EST)

==Ignorant_Illiteracy==
I don't understand it, therefore it's all rubbish! This tendency towards willing ignorance when pertaining to the Biblical Word of God isn't inconsistent with a person's total rejection of His will for mankind. Learning and understanding the Bible won't come about by the application of your own view of the world. The bashing comments found here aren't made by those that are seeking knowledge. They could've found those on the internet by typing in a few simple search words. Undoubtably there are feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged people who choose to criticise ancient writtings originating thousands of years ago because they are unable to fathom their content. Of course this isn't an American preponderancy for ranting against something not understood by someone. Rather, it is the natural worldly man who engages in such infantile dialogue. Usually just prior to book burnings and massive social rallies against some imagined foe. Finally, there are no inconsistent details except to the willfully ignorant, and illiterate who've already chosen their own foolish intentions. But I have digressed a bit here. There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with you, except that I still think that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God's concept of time is beyond what we can ever know while on earth.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that all science, regardless of it's aim or purpose should be disregarded when the bible speaks otherwise on the same subject. America is really going down the tubes, and not because we have forgotten god as I'm sure you would like to remind me, but because too many Americans put too much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by, for the most part, uneducated men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't take the Illiad or the Odyssey or anything else from Greek mythology as true. It's all allegorical and mythological. However you think the Bible is different simply because it hasn't lost popularity yet and it has 2000 of ignorant followers for you to point to as your backup. If you can show me any compelling evidence why i should believe in the Christian god, or ANY god for that matter I would be more than happy to listen, but I have grown up in all kinds of churches, all with different messages but the same bible, doesn't sound like the One Absolute Truth to me. And please don't label me as one who isn't seeking knowledge or as a "feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged" person. Believe, me I have studied the Bible, from more than one perspective and with ever changing world views. It simply doesn't hold up to rational criticism.--[[User:tehstone|tehstone]] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (PST)

Oh, I am also sorry that you've grown up in all kinds of churches and don't know what the Word of God has, is and will reveal to mankind. My only guess is there are many apostate, man-made creeds that proport to be of the Judeo-Christian venue. Of any compelling evidence that I have seen in the historical record are the Hebrew tribes of Abraham that make up the nation of Israel. That the Father in Heaven has provided almost two thousand years to become heirs in His Sons house of Israel. That that time is almost over and that the final seven years is close at hand as outlined by all of the Prophets written in His book. That everything written has come true, is coming true and is about to come true is evident with every event reported as news. If you hang with people that subvert the Word of God then I wouldn't expect you to believe anything the Bible says either. Maybe you should do some independent studying and Bible studies with those that know something about the subject. I'll say a prayer for you so that you can connect with someone more knowledgable then myself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==In the Spirit==
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from The Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." -I Corinthians 2:14 When you have really studied, read, and understood the words of the Bible and seen how everything from Genesis to Revelations is in accordance with each other, this scripture will hold true. But, to the sophists, humanists, and assorted others that have already rejected His Words, even before reading them, it will remain an enigma to you. As you have already proven on this webpage that you just can't get it.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)

==Flawed First Premise==
I don't know if there's any coherent ''logical'' argument for literal readings. Allegory takes context into account, and recognises a range of other explanations (even that the text may not be divinely inspired). A literal interpretation tends to assume that the Bible is infallible - a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason, which makes any kind of rational debate impossible. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:How is the premise that the Bible is infallible, flawed? That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's ultimate author was the infallible God. If that is correct, it must be infallible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::You're quite right, Philip: ''if'' that is correct. That's a pretty big if. Effectively what you're saying here is that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. Your premise actually '''is''' based on intuition, because you're intuiting that the Bible is correct about always being correct.

::Put it this way: if I told you that I always tell the truth, you wouldn't necessarily believe it. That's exactly the scenario we have here: a source claiming to be infallible based on its own claims of infallibility. It's circular (flawed) logic, which makes it impossible to evaluate or discuss in a rational context.

::Nonetheless, the Biblical account of creation needn't be divinely inspired to be a fascinating and legitimate aspect of our mythological heritage. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, I'm not saying that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. You are putting those words in my mouth—that is not what I said and not what I meant.
:::I was not offering all the considerable evidence that the claim is true; merely pointing out that the claim of infallibility is not a first premise, but rests on the claim of authorship, so it is not, as ''you'' claimed, a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason.
:::The Bible claims to be divinely inspired, and the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.) is that this claim is true. It being true, it therefore follows that it is infallible. You may disagree with the claim, the evidence, or that the evidence supports the claim, but I have demonstrated that the ''deduction'' that the Bible is infallible is not a first premise and is based on premises and evidence, not on intuition.
:::Of course the Bible doesn't need to be divinely inspired to be interesting. But it does need to be divinely inspired to be considered an totally accurate and reliable history.
:::Do you have any "coherent logical argument" that it is allegory? Do you consider any parts of the Bible to be accurate history? If so, which parts?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::::No disrespect intended, Philip, but that is exactly what you're saying: <blockquote>
"That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's [sic] ultimate author was the infallible God."
</blockquote>
:::: Your claim is based on the Bible's claim that all its claims are correct because it claims to be written by God. Can you see where I'm going with this?
:::: Without wishing to be facetious, I would consider the reports of dietary advice from a talking snake to be allegory at best. ;-D As for authenticity, I believe Leviticus is by far the most historically accurate book in the entire Bible. By the way, it's nice to meet someone as civil as you on this site. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::::It appears that you have read what you wanted to read in my statements.
:::::* I said that the claims appear to be true based on "the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.)"
:::::* You claimed I said it appears to be true "because it claims to be written by God".
:::::See the difference?
:::::Why do you consider the talking snake account to be allegorical? Do you have a reason, or is it just "intuition"?
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::If you're seriously contending that snakes are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication, I don't think we can really continue this conversation. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not contending that, because the Bible doesn't contend that, so your response indicates to me that you have a poor idea of what the Bible that you reject the historicity of actually says.
:::::::The Bible indicates that a serpent was used by Satan to deceive Eve. There is nothing there to indicate that snakes are normally capable of talking. You suggesting that I am contending that snakes are capable of talking is like suggesting that I contend that ventriloquists dummies "are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication". Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean that they've never "spoken" to anybody.
:::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::I don't know what version you're reading, Philip, but the KJV seems to say it pretty clearly:
<blockquote>
Now the serpent was more subtil [sic] than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
</blockquote>
::::::::Either the serpent is a metaphor (read: allegory) or we really did have talking snakes offering dietary advice to nudists. Or perhaps they were telepathic? ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::Revelation has a couple of references to Satan being known as the serpent, and it has long been the understanding of Christianity that the serpent was Satan or that Satan was speaking through or possessing the serpent, but even ignoring that, there is nothing in the passage you quoted to indicate that more than one snake was involved or that this was normal for snakes. You referred to "talking snakes", whereas the passage only refers to one, and the passage says nothing about "snakes [being] physically and mentally capable of verbal communication".
:::::::::If I said that a ventriloquist's dummy told me that I needed to eat more fruit, would you assume that I'm implicitly claiming that a ventriloquist's dummy is "physically and mentally capable of verbal communication"?
:::::::::I believe that the creation account in Genesis is literally true. However, I'm not a hyperliteralist, and recognise that the Bible does employ metaphor, parable, etc., but that it is possible to determine from the language and context when these are employed. The Bible says that a serpent spoke to Eve, but it doesn't say anything about snakes in general being capable of speech. That is you and other bibliosceptics reading into it what you want to read into it.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Fair enough. But if you're willing to acknowledge the existence of metaphor in the Bible, what clearer context could there be than a snake "speaking" to the world's first woman about a miraculous tree that bestows a moral compass? If the serpent was merely a figure of speech, then it's equally plausible that so was Eve/the garden/the six days of creation. The only possible literal interpretations are that either snakes/ a snake ''can'' speak when influenced by demonic possession, or that the ultimate manifestation of evil chose to disguise itself as a snake and gave himself vocal cords. With all due respect, Philip, both notions are absurd and beyond rational debate. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
(unindent) Whilst I accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, I didn't say that I believe that the talking snake was a metaphor or a figure of speech. I don't.

Plenty of things could be more clearly metaphor than a snake speaking. Elsewhere in the Bible there is a metaphorical reference to trees clapping their hands. But if that reference said that when the trees clapped, a bird got caught between their hands and was squashed, we would not be justified in putting clapping trees down to metaphor. In Genesis, the talking snake said specific words and actually had a conversation with Eve, and she acted on that conversation. This context indicates that the story is not metaphorical, but literal.

Why are both notions absurd? You've provided no reasons at all; simply declared them to be so. I guess you are right though—there's going to be no rational debate if you simply declare things to be so.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:I'm saying the notion of a talking snake is absurd because there is no suggestion of it anywhere in the realm of empirical knowledge. I guess what I'm also saying is that I have no problems with you believing this stuff if it gets you through the night, but your arguments here are intellectually dishonest. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::If by "empirical knowledge", you mean things that you have personally observed, then I suppose that you think that you are communicating with something absurd, because you have not personally observed me.
::If, on the other hand, you will allow your "empirical knowledge" to stretch to what ''others'' have observed and recorded, then the talking snake is not absurd, because it was recorded in the Bible by someone who observed it.
::So just how do you define "empirical knowledge"?
::Furthermore, the claim is of a one-off situation with a supernatural basis, for which nobody today could expect to have empirical knowledge, so you're asking a bit much.
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:::It's not ad-hominem, Philip, simply an evaluation of your rationale. I'm saying that I haven't observed a talking snake, you haven't observed a talking snake, and there is no corroborating evidence or record outside the Bible to indicate that this ever took place. So by saying that it really happened because it was written in the Bible, its veracity depends on the claim it's trying to support (that the Bible is infallible). It's a return to circular logic.
:::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:28, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::The problem with that is that nobody is using the talking snake as evidence that the Bible is infallible, so there is no circle to the argument. If that's the basis for your comment about my intellectual dishonesty, then your evaluation is baseless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:::::That's exactly how we got here, Philip. You asked me for a clear indication of allegory in Genesis, I cited the talking snake, and you insisted that there was no reason why it couldn't have really happened. I'm getting tired of running in circles, Philip. Every time I leave a comment here, I first re-read the thread in full to ensure my statements are consistent and credible. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. Now, shall we start again with rational discourse or fall to bickering? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::::I don't reread it unless I think I need to, and your last message doesn't give me any reason to think that I should have reread it this time. Yes, I disputed that it was allegory, arguing that it was literally correct, but I didn't claim that it therefore proved the Bible to be correct. Rather, my arguments are aimed at refuting your attempt to prove the Bible to be ''not'' literally correct rather than trying to prove the Bible to be literally correct. That is, you are saying "the Bible is not literally correct, for reason A". I'm ''not'' saying, "Reason A is wrong so the Bible is literally correct". Rather, I'm saying, "Reason A is wrong, so you have failed to show that the Bible is not literally correct". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::But you are telling me that you have reason to believe a snake once spoke to a human being? The emphasis here being on 'reason'... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Yes, my ''reason'' is that it is recorded in a historical document that I consider to be reliable and accurate.
:::::::: Now let's go back a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you consider it allegorical simply because you don't believe that it's literally true, not because of anything in the language that would suggest allegory. And you believe that it's not literally true because neither you nor I have seen a talking snake and there's no other corroborating evidence.
:::::::: Yet you believe that the book of Leviticus is the most historical in the Bible, despite it mostly comprising laws, not history, and despite neither you nor I witnessing any of it, and despite, for the most part at least, there being no corroborating evidence for it.
:::::::: Does that seem a bit inconsistent? Or is there a distinction here that I'm missing?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::That's a fair observation, but I didn't mean history in the sense of narrative. I consider Leviticus to be an accurate record of contemporary Israelite society, in line with Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. Many of the practices it outlines appear to have been common to other cultures at the time (such as the taking of slaves as wives), and obviously many aspects have persisted in Orthodox Jewish culture today. But part of the reason is that it ''wasn't'' written as a history. It doesn't try to explain how the laws were given, only what the laws are.
:::::::::That's where so much of the Bible leaves me sceptical - the Old Testament particularly is full of remarkable assertions that have no backing anywhere else in gentile chronologies. Take for instance the Exodus - don't you find it remarkable that a whole subjugated race could up and leave Egypt overnight, without any mention in their masters' records? Or for that matter, the plagues that swept the nation and killed the firstborn? If we can't even find corroborating evidence for major historical events like that, what credence should we give to something that supposedly preceded written language and defies all human experience? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:50, 18 November 2007 (EST)

(unindent) Now here's another can of worms!

Fair enough, you have explained the distinction, which shows that my example of Leviticus was not a very good one. My point was that I'm sure that there's other examples of historical events which neither you nor I have seen (of course, using that as a criterion for an ancient historical event is silly anyway—you couldn't ''expect'' either of us to have seen it), and for which there is no other corroborating evidence, but which you accept anyway. Perhaps some event in ancient Roman or Egyptian history?

The Documentary Hypothesis has been long discredited.

Actually, Egyptian records ''do'' include accounts that match the Biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. The problem is that most (not all) Egyptologists use a chronology that doesn't match the Biblical chronology, so are looking for the events in the wrong part (wrong time) of Egyptian history.

And there's ''lots'' of other Biblical accounts that are corroborated elsewhere. Even mentions of the snake. I seem to recall an Aboriginal creation story involving a snake, and an ancient Chinese character that included a snake in a reference to creation. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples of corroborating evidence related to the flood account.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I tend to be pretty sceptical of received wisdom. If we want to look at Classical history, for instance, I have great reservations about Homer's account of the Trojan War. On the other hand, something like Thucydides' ''History of the Peloponnesian War'' can be independently verified by the writings of Herodotus. And of course, we must consider the source - its context and potential bias. Like many of the historians I admire, I am wary of declaring any source a 'definitive version'.

:I realise the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer in vogue, but I believe there's nonetheless some substance to its claims. In any case, there is still common consensus that Leviticus originated from a priestly source and/or successive revisions by members of the priesthood. But we're getting off-track here.

:As regards Egyptian accounts of the Exodus, would you mind referencing them for me? I know the creation stories you're referring to, but it's probably best if you can reference them for me as well. Although... the thought just occurred to me that the Aboriginal story involves a Rainbow Snake as the Creator and a Wagyl which created the valleys and rivers. That's quite a different role from the deceiver in Genesis. If Genesis is literal truth, then the Dreamtime myths contradict it and cannot be used as evidence. If you could find me a non-Biblical Creation myth in which a man and woman are created in a garden and tricked by a talking snake into eating from a tree that makes them mortal, well, then you'd have a case... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:: You've shifted the goalposts, it seems. You apparently ''reject'' that the talking snake is literal because of no corroborative evidence, but with other ancient history you are merely ''sceptical''. To be consistent, why not ''reject'' them also?
:: For Egyptian records of the Israelites, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/ here].
:: If the biblical history is true, then all people, including Chinese, Australian Aboriginal, etc. are descended from Adam and Eve, and also from Noah and his family. We would therefore expect that all these present-day people could potentially have historical accounts of creation, the flood, etc. Of course, some groups would have failed to pass down the history, and with many others it would have been corrupted along the way. So we should not expect all the extant accounts to agree on every detail, let alone have all the same details. Also, none of this means that these peoples would not have other stories with no historical basis.
:: So the question really is, does a given creation (etc.) story represent a corrupted version of the real history, or complete fiction? Assuming the biblical history is true, stories that bear no resemblance to it can be considered fiction and do not detract from the biblical account, whereas stories that bear more than a superficial or passing resemblance can be considered corroborative.
:: There is no single aboriginal creation account. There are many different aboriginal tribes, and there are a number of different stories. Some bear little or no resemblance to biblical accounts, but others bear remarkable similarities. You have asked for a story that has about five points of similarity with the biblical account (1. man and woman created; 2. in a garden; 3. tricked by a talking snake; 4. into eating from a tree; 5. that makes them mortal). I don't know of a story that has those five points, but there are a number of stories that have about five or more points. For example, one [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3264/106/ here] has about seven points: 1. man made by god (Baiame), 2. man and woman put into an ideal location; 3. they could eat everything; 4. except from one tree which was off-limits; 5. evil would result if they did; 6. the evil would affect their descendants also; 7. the woman ate from the tree. Of course there are points that differ, but the number of similarities speak of a corrupted account of the true (biblical) history.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::I am certainly not shifting the goalposts, Philip. I am sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives, but I am ''even more'' sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives that defy the laws of physics. That's why I don't believe the Aboriginal story, either. Surely you can see where I'm coming from.
:::Your reference is intriguing, and I'll be sure to look into it later.
::: But "assuming the biblical history is true" - Do you see what you're doing here? You are '''asssuming''' it ''is'' true, when we're supposed to be objectively testing its truth. If other creation stories are given weight, but interpreted as 'corrupted', who's to say that the Biblical version isn't corrupted? If you're saying there is reason to believe Genesis is a complete and factually accurate account of events, you're going to need sources that verify that exactly.[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:23, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::: It ''is'' a shift of the goalposts, because until now you hadn't mentioned anything about the laws of physics.
:::: But now that you have raised that objection, I'm not actually sure that there's any evidence that any laws of physics were broken. If Satan possessed the snake, and it was Satan speaking, what laws of physics were broken?
:::: I was assuming that the biblical history is true ''for the sake of that particular argument''. Whether or not it actually is true is a separate (albeit relevant and related) argument.
:::: But how do you ''objectively'' test a historical event? Yes, you can see if others corroborate it, but lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either.
:::: The biblical account is far less likely to be corrupted than aboriginal accounts due to it being in writing, particularly given the extreme care that the Jews gave to accurately copying it.
:::: What sort of sources are you referring to? I could quote plenty of people who agree that it's factually accurate, but I expect that you'd dismiss them for one reason or another. But there is plenty of evidence that the Bible as a whole (i.e. many individual details) is accurate, so it's reasonable to assume that if it's accurate on the details that can be checked, it's likely to be accurate on the details that can't be or can't yet be checked.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I would have thought an empirical understanding of the universe was implicit in a rational debate. Laws of physics would have been broken, because snakes have no capacity for speech. I suppose I could have said laws of biology, but physics is a more accurate term. A snake's physical makeup simply cannot produce human vocalisations.
:::::"Lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either." This is called an argument from ignorance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance], and really has no place in our discussion.
::::: You keep telling me there's "plenty of evidence" for the Bible's accuracy, and there may well be in terms of social hierarchy, customs and interactions with other nations. But the Bible is also full of extravagant claims that have no confirmation anywhere else - seas parting, staffs turning to snakes, pillars of fire and people turning to lumps of salt. So we have to employ reasonable doubt when the Bible's statements make no sense at an empirical level and have no independent verification.
:::::I wonder whether we should simply agree to disagree, given that we apparently have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation'. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. When I asked what laws of physics were broken if it was Satan speaking, I had in mind that he was not using the snakes vocal chords, but using whatever means he would normally use to speak. So if it was Satan speaking without using the snake's vocal chords, then what physical—or biological (that's a better claim)—laws ''were'' broken?
:::::: An argument from ignorance is to argue that something ''is'', or is likely to be, the case despite a lack of evidence. I was not doing that, and my point that it "doesn't mean it's true either" was intended to make that very point. But to argue that something ''is not'' or ''is not likely'' the case because one has no evidence is no better, yet that is what you are doing.
:::::: What makes the "extravagant" claims extravagant? And how do they make no sense at an empirical level? As you seem to be getting frustrated with this, I'll cut to the chase and point out our different 'reasonable expectations'. (The talking snake is a little different to the sea parting, etc., but now that you've raised those examples, it's getting more to the point.)
:::::: You are working on an assumption that everything has to obey the laws of physics, and as things like seas parting appear to go against the laws of physics, you are judging the veracity of these accounts accordingly.
:::::: I, however, work on the assumption that God created those laws of physics, and He is therefore capable of overriding them when He chooses. I hasten to add, however, that by His nature, God does not capriciously change or tinker with those laws, yet may ''very occasionally'' override them.
:::::: So is it reasonable to accept that Moses was able to part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff out? No, it is not reasonable. But is it reasonable to accept that the omnipotent Creator God, who created the laws of physics and the water and the wind, etc., was able to part the waters of the Red Sea? Yes, that is entirely reasonable.
:::::: So I suggest that your rejection of the claims of the Bible is ''based on'' an ''a priori'' rejection of the existence and/or nature of God. Thus a rejection of the claims of the Bible is not based on reason and intelligence, but on belief and worldview.
:::::: Furthermore, if your rejection is of the ''existence'' of God, then your belief is contrary to evidence, such as the evidence that everything that began has a cause; the Christian says that the universe's cause was God, and the atheist says that the universe had no cause (or something that amounts to the same thing) ''contrary to the evidence''. (And before you object, God had no beginning (He is eternal, outside of time) so needs no cause.) So the Christian view is more reasonable, rational, and logical.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::I am withdrawing from this discussion. Your statements may be internally consistent, but you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context. Thankyou for your time, patience and persistence. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:20, 22 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Thanks for the civil debate.
::::::::"''Your statements may be internally consistent...''": Thanks. I think that reinforces the point I made in my last post, that there's nothing inherently irrational or illogical in believing the Bible to be accurate history. The problems only arise when one has a starting assumption that God, at least as described in the Bible, does not exist.
::::::::"''...you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context.''": Not true. I was making a defensive argument against your claim that the biblical creation account is not literal history. Acknowledging that my statements are internally consistent is acknowledgement that the creation account cannot be shown to be allegory on the basis of the bible, as distinct from bringing in extra-biblical considerations, such as atheistic worldviews. And because I was making a defensive argument ''against'' your claim, I was not, for the most part at least, making an argument ''for'' the opposing claim that the account is historical. So to now claim that I failed in that is unfair, because I did not attempt that.
:::::::: But even though I sometimes do argue that one can "prove" the biblical view (depending on what one accepts as "proof"), at another level the whole point is that, as we are discussing unique (one-off) past events, that are therefore inherently not amenable to empirical investigation, one cannot expect anyone to "prove" the the account. However, I am fully convinced that if one looks at the available evidence with an open mind, one can make a very good defence of the biblical account and the existence of God.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== But What is really important here? ==

Rather then all this constant bickering between Super-SCIENCE-Athiests, and Young-Earth Creationists, we have to realise the MAIN duty as Christians. To tell others that they are evil sinners, that Jesus suffered, died, suffered Hell's fires, and ROSE AGAIN, for their sins. That is the Great Commission. For Young-Earth Creationists, their belief in a 6,000 year old earth, is just another way of showing their faith, in an ALL POWERFUL God. Everything else is trivial. Souls are important thing. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:What is really important is what God says. If God says that He created the world in six days, and we choose to disbelieve that, we are rejecting what God has plainly said. It is important to ''believe'' what He has said. Nothing undermines our witnessing to unbelievers more than to show that we do not ourselves believe what God has plainly said. As Jesus Himself said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46–47) And in John 3:12: "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" If we don't believe what Moses wrote about Earth's history, how can we expect people to believe what Jesus says about Him being able to save us from our sins?
:Furthermore, what is sin? Where do you find the Bible explaining what sin is? In Genesis! If we allegorise that, we have allegorised sin, so that leaves Jesus to save us from an allegory!?
:Yes, saving souls is the goal. The method, used by Paul when speaking to non-Jews, i.e. those who did not already have Genesis, was to start at the beginning and tell them who God was and where they came from: God was the Creator who made man. You don't start a story half-way through. You start it at the beginning, explaining creation. New Tribes Mission, for one, has had great success in teaching the Gospel starting at Genesis. Creationists have had great success in reaching people who think that science has proven the Bible wrong, by showing that it is the atheistic origins myth (evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) that is wrong, not the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Science has supposedly disproved creation in six days, but it does not disprove the concept of God. The scientific account of creation actually supports the idea of a creator. Rather than a universe which is static, evidence points to a creation event, the big bang, indicating a birth to the universe.

The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews. I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest. I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete. The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.

{{unsigned|AdamB}}

:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days [the word "supposedly" was added later]. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
:God said to work for six days and rest on the seventh ''because'' he took six days to create and rested on the seventh. So what does that mean if He ''didn't'' actually take six days?
:The New Testament did make the old ''covenant'' obsolete. That doesn't change the ''history'' of the Old Testament.
:If you think that the New Testament should be the foundation of our belief, why is it that Jesus founded so much of what He said on the Old Testament? Including endorsing the creation account?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You make some great points, but couldn't Genesis 1 be read as six periods, or creation steps instead of six literal days? Regards, Adam
:No, it can't be.
:# "Day" is defined as comprising an evening and a morning (i.e. an Earth rotation) (as well as a second definition of the daylight portion of a day).
:# Each reference to the six days again references the evening and morning.
:# The Hebrew word for "day" (''yom''), just like its English equivalent, never means anything other than a normal day when used with a number ("second day", "third day", "six days", etc.).
:# Jesus said that man was made male and female ''at the beginning of creation''. If the days were long periods of time, man would have been created very late. Imagine a line representing a timescale of 14 billion years, and imagine where humans appeared on that timescale. It would be indistinguishable from the end of the line.
:# Making the days long periods of time would mean that plants (including fruit trees) survived for millions of years (if a day equals millions of years) without other life, including presumably bees to pollinate them. Surviving two 24-hour days, on the other hand, is no problem.
:#Adam was created on day 6 and lived through at least day 7. How long could day 7 have been?
:These are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 14 November 2007 (EST)
::But here is my arguement, is belief in Biblical Inerancy necessary for salvation? If so, prove it to me with scripture --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:55, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, belief in biblical inerrancy is not a requirement of salvation. Just as a virus checker is not a requirement of a computer connected to the Internet. But in both cases, they won't perform anywhere near as well. Just as computers can be "destroyed" by a virus, a belief in evolution has destroyed the faith of many people. Just as the purpose of a computer might be to communicate with others, not destroy viruses, the aim of a Christian is to witness to others, not to argue about creation. But just as destroying viruses is vital to achieving the purpose of communicating with others, demolishing anti-God arguments is vital in witnessing to others. As Paul said, ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Should we still believe it?==
Face it, the story was written thousands of years ago. Back in those days people believed in the Greek and Roman gods and other strange now disproved things. So, should we take it word for word or as just what people believed back in those days. In fact is it even important knowing the specifics; God made the earth, that is all that is important. --[[User:Ih8stuff|Ih8stuff]] 06:37, 20 February 2008 (EST)
: Yes, the story was written thousands of years ago. That is, much closer to the time it happened (or when it happened), so would be more likely accurate than one written today. Even today, people believe in strange and disproved things, such as astrology, mediums, and the like. So, should we take evolution word for word what people say today or as just what people believe today? If the fact that God made the Earth is the only thing that is important, why did He include all the rest? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:59, 20 February 2008 (EST)

==Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible==
As a Christian, I accept that Christ is the Son of God. I am and have always been concerned by the Biblical Literalism movement; in my opinion, proponents of this belief frequently elevate the Bible itself to an object of worship, which smacks uncomfortably of idolatry to me. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He did not say "The Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Whence comes the notion that everything in the Bible should be and must be read literally? We know that Christ taught through parables--parables that were NOT to be taken literally, but were instead to be taken as lessons for how His followers should live their own lives. Why would He adopt that method of teaching in His incarnation among us, but eschew it when revealing His Word to the prophets?

Moreover, there is the question of ''which'' Bible is infallible and literal truth. It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia. Typically, such translations and revisions were undertaken by rulers with secular agendas to push. Now: if we accept that the Bible is the whole and complete Word of God, then any alteration must perforce make it other than complete. We must then ask which version is the true and unadulterated version. Is it the original texts of the original books of the Old and New Testament? If so, then we must acknowledge that there have been ''many'' changes; a little casual scholarship (or even a simple comparison with the Torah) reveals that. Is the whole and complete Word of God the modern King James Bible? In that case, we must question why He allowed His Word to remain flawed and incomplete for well over a thousand years.

The argument that the changes are only superficial, and don't represent a real change in the Word, simply don't hold water; again, study of Bible history will reveal that some of these changes were extremely significant. Up through relatively recent times, the Apocrypha still appeared in many Bibles; many Christians today are unaware that these texts even exist.

Further, there is the issue of selectivity. The majority of Christians who adhere to the notion that the Bible is the complete, literal, and immutable Word of God don't actually practice what they preach. They do not follow the Old Testament laws concerning foods, clothing, hair, and the disposal of wastes, just as an example. The standard defense for this is that these laws were rendered null and void by the New Covenant; however, I have yet to find any Bible passage that actually contains such a revocation. If the authority on which Bible adjurations are still valid and which are not does not, in fact, come from the Bible, then it comes from man--and is therefore not infallible.

For these reasons, and not without considerable soul-searching and earnest prayer, I find myself unable to accept the notion of Biblical literalism. The Bible is a good and holy book; it is, in fact, THE holy book. It contains the most profound wisdom ever set down in writing. What it is not, as far as I'm concerned, is a roadmap to Heaven. It is, instead, a map to the beginning of a road. That road is a rocky, steep, and narrow one. It's very hard to walk. It ends in a hill called Golgotha. However, Christ has made us a promise: He will walk that road with us...every step of the way.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EST)

:There's a big difference between worshipping the Bible and treating it as inerrant. There's also a significant difference between reading the Bible literally and reading it plainly, or reading it the way it was meant to be understood. Strict literalism would read the parables, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. as literal, but most Christians don't do that, instead reading them the way they were meant: as parables, metaphors, etc. But a fair bit of the Bible is ''history'', and this was meant to be read as ''history'', which means that it is not metaphor, etc., but actual ''history''. This includes, for example, the creation account.
: Jesus ''did'', in effect, say that the Bible was the truth. He, along with other biblical writers, quoted from it as authoritative. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3112/ here] for more.
: "''It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia.''": No, it's not undeniable. I deny it, for starters. Okay, I better qualify that. Yes, it has been copied many times. But when the Jews copied it (the Old Testament) they did so with an overriding desire to ensure that it was accurate, employing various methods to guarantee it's accuracy, such as counting the number of words on a line, lines, on a page, etc., and comparing those figures with previous tallies. And we have an enormous number of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) which show very little in the way of changes.
: Yes, it has been translated many times, but unlike bibliosceptic charges that I've often heard and as your statement might infer, this is ''not'' a ''series of translations'', but numerous "original" translations. That is, most modern English translations have been made from the ''original'' languages, not from translations of translations of translations, etc. So that being the case, your comment about it having been "translated ... many times" seems rather pointless.
: No, it has not been "revised many times". Apart from being translated into English, the Bibles we have today are as close as we can make them the originals.
: Those that believe in inerrancy generally believe that inerrancy applies to the originals, not to copies or translations, despite how close the latter are to the originals.
: The changes due to copying and translation ''are'' only superficial. The Apocrypha is a separate issue.
: Believing the Bible to be inerrant and not following Old Testament regulations does not mean that we don't practice what we preach. As you mention being aware of, the punishments and rituals given to the Israelites in Old Testament times are not applicable to Christians. Do you believe in the Trinity? That's not explicitly mentioned either, but it's clear from a careful reading of the Bible. Similarly, that Old Testament regulations don't apply is also clear from a careful reading and understanding.
: By not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are true and which are not. That road is a steep, downhill, dangerous, road.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip,
::The problem I see is that even those who claim to subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy engage in acts of judgement and evaluation. I honestly don't believe it's possible to read the Bible without doing so.

::Consider, for example, your assertion that the triune nature of God is clear "from a careful reading of the Bible." It wasn't so clear to many of the early scholars of the Church; as I'm sure you know, the debate over the nature of God, and over whether Christ was mortal man, was quite involved. While we may conclude that the scholars who could not reconcile themselves to the notion of the Trinity were mistaken, I think it would be unfair to suggest that they were mistaken based on a less-than-careful reading of the Scriptures.

::Likewise, the notion that it is evident from a careful reading of the Bible that the old covenant no longer applies is, I think, unfair. It is not evident to Messianic Jews, for example; nor do I think that the assumption can be made that no practitioners of Messianic Judaism have carefully read the Scriptures. Certainly, there are passages in the New Testament which can be read as indicating that the old law was fulfilled, and thus no longer in effect, but this is by definition interpretation. Mark 7:18, for instance, can be read as a declaration that all foods are now clean (though I will note that not all translations make that clear.) However, the passage taken in context discusses the practice of washing hands before a meal.

::There is also considerable evidence in the New Testament which would indicate the converse: that the old laws ARE still in effect...at least some of them, if not all. Christ did, after all, say that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. There is also the matter of Acts 15, wherein it is affirmed (by James, I believe, though I could be mistaken) that certain of the prohibitions on food apply to Gentiles coming to God--no blood, no animals that have been strangled, and so forth--but that these have been kept minimal in an effort to make the transition easier.

::My point in all of this is simply to demonstrate that it is possible to read the Bible carefully and mindfully and still reach interpretations that are different from those reached by other, equally careful and mindful readers. All readers, I would argue, engage in such judgement. I think it is also important to remember that the vast majority of them are engaging in such judgement based on modern texts--not on familiarity with the autographic manuscripts, or even with, for instance, Textus Receptus.

::Thus, the question remains: how do we determine with absolute certainty the intent of the original authors of the Scriptures, with respect to which sections were meant as factual history and which were meant as allegory? How can we be certain that, in making such judgements, we are not engaging in precisely the sort of selective analysis which you identify as perilous?

::Please understand: my skepticism is not entered into lightly. While I would never pretend to be a scholar of Scripture on a par with those who have debated these issues since the founding of the Church, I do base my beliefs and my understanding upon the most careful and thorough reading of which I am capable. In this, I confess to being at something of a handicap, as I am not a student of ancient languages (though an extremely patient friend who happens to be a rabbi is laboring with remarkable patience to teach me some Hebrew in our limited free time.) Ultimately, I can only work within my understanding, and hope through prayer and effort to come to a more complete understanding in time.

::''(As a side note, I would like to thank you for not taking me to issue for improperly conflating the concepts of Biblical literalism and inerrancy. I recognize that these are distinct, though related, concepts, and it was inexcusably sloppy writing and thinking on my part not to differentiate between them.)''

::Respectfully yours in Christ,

::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 05:14, 29 April 2008

::: I said that by not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are ''true'' and which are not. Judging which were applicable for the Jews and which are still applicable now is a different thing altogether. For example, rejecting the historicity of the creation and flood accounts often leads to rejecting other "unscientific" historical accounts, such as the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead (neither of which are "scientifically possible"). Judging whether or not to continue practising circumcision is not quite in the same league.
::: Messianic Jews likely still practice circumcision, but don't practice animal sacrifices. So even they recognise that the old covenant no longer applies.
::: Certainly there are parts where different people can come to different interpretations, but there are also parts where the teaching is sufficiently clear. Sure, there are parts where it is not ''crystal clear'', and there have therefore been small groups that have had different views, but there will always be those who disagree for some reason, and we shouldn't allow people who prefer their own opinions over clear teaching to cause us to think that it's not really that clear. For example, as mentioned above, there are those who call themselves Christian who don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
::: I don't think it's true to say that the vast majority are relying on modern translations. Most probably rely on what their Minister preaches, and he is relying on what the leading commentators say, and they have studied the text in the original languages.
::: How do we determine with absolute certainty? Well, for a start, it depends on what you mean by "absolute certainty". Are you ''absolutely'' certain that your parents named you Ben? Perhaps the nurse wrote it down wrong, and your parents decided to stick with it? The point is that we can be ''sufficiently certain'' of many things, but if you are inclined to ''not'' believe, perhaps one can't be ''absolutely'' certain. But to be ''realistic'', as opposed to ''absolutely'' certain, then yes, we can be sure, in the vast majority of cases at least, what the authors meant. See for example in [[biblical creation account]], the sections titled "Length of the days" and "Narrative or poetry?".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::...then, really, we're talking about different things here. It seems as if we agree on most points. We accept the truth (that should really probably be Truth) of the Bible; we both accept that certain portions of that Truth are literal and certain portions are allegory. We simply disagree as to the specifics of which is which.

::::I really don't think that you can characterize those with different interpretations as "small groups." Going back to the Apocrypha (and, yes, I realize that you consider them a distinct issue, but I think the issue of whether a given book is Scripture inspired by God and useful for training in righteousness is a pretty significant judgement call) consider the fact that the Roman Catholic canon embraces several books not considered canon by most Protestant denominations. No matter how you slice it, that's an interpretation which has led to a large group of people either wrongly embracing what should not be part of the canon, or wrongly excluding what should be part of the canon.

::::We can argue about whether practicing circumcision is in the "same league" as rejecting the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth, but personally, I'd really rather not go down that road. I don't know how much weight God puts on one of His commandments over another. The consumption of shellfish doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me, but it's referred to as an abomination in Leviticus, and that's pretty strong language.

::::Your points above really highlight what I've been saying: nobody (at least to my knowledge) reads all of the injunctions in the Bible with the same weight. A literal reading of the Bible would tend to lead one to believe that the dome of the firmament is solid, and that (as it says in Genesis) it separates "the waters above" from "the waters below." This is by no means an interpretation limited to those who lack understanding of the Bible; St. Augustine and Martin Luther, for instance, explicitly ascribed to the notion of an impenetrable and solid firmament holding back the waters above.

::::Despite this, very few prominent voices today in the Christian community continue to support the notion of a solid firmament. Most seem to accept modern astronomy as factual. What we have, therefore, is a situation where something that was clearly and evidently literal truth to some of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity is no longer clearly and evidently literal truth to many Christians today.

::::What are we to make of this? Is it that those who reject the solid firmament as literal truth are misguided? Or that even those who earnestly and painstakingly seek to know what is literal and what is allegorical in the Bible may, at times, be mistaken?

::::For that same reason, I have always been leery of relying too heavily on "what the leading commentators say." The Pharisees were the leading commentators of their day; we know what Christ had to say about their leadership, and about what happened to those who chose to follow their commentary.

:::: [[User:BenP|BenP]] 19:36, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: The reason that believing the virgin birth and practising circumcision are not in the same league is that one is a (claimed) historical fact and the other is a practice that is commanded. They are totally different things. The virgin birth is not a ''commandment''.
::::: It's not a "literal" reading that would lead one to read that the "firmament" was solid. Rather, it's reading it in an older translation, such as the Authorised version, or one based on that, that mistranslated the Hebrew word[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=firmament]. The Hebrew word means "expanse", which is what most modern versions render it as. Believing it to not be solid has nothing to do with modern astronomy.
::::: I agree about not relying "too heavily" on what the commentators say, and I was not suggesting that one do that. I was merely pointing out that, indirectly, this is what most probably do, rather than relying solely on their own reading of modern text.
::::: By the way, I was sent [http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/law2.htm this article] the other day, and it directly addresses your question about the status of the Old Testament laws.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Hmm. Well, I could suggest that God's commandments should be given at least as much weight as claimed fact, but then you'd probably (and rightly) point out that that's placing works before faith--so I'll concede the point.
::::::The mistranslation issue you raise, it seems to me, perfectly illustrates the point of concern I originally voiced. If one mistranslated word can lead the greatest religious thinkers of their time to a significantly incorrect conclusion about the nature of the universe, then doesn't that argue that issues of translation ''aren't'' trivial? I'm willing to concede the point that modern translations reflect the best efforts of the best scholars available to return to the intended sense of the original texts, but let's bear in mind that "best efforts" doesn't necessarily equal "perfect efforts." It's difficult to be certain that you've captured the sense of the autographic texts when, in many cases, the autographic texts simply aren't available.
::::::Ultimately, there's my sticking point. I'm just not convinced that post-Textus eclecticism has resulted in an edition totally free of potential "firmament/expanse" issues. Consequently, I cannot claim with confidence that I know which portions of the Bible reflect literal truth and which reflect allegorical truth. Nor, ultimately, am I certain that I need to. The Bible makes it clear that no man can know the mind of the Almighty; faith, at its heart, is not about knowledge and proof, but about trust.
::::::Thank you for the link to the article; it's fascinating reading. One interesting point of note is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are no longer in force--and yet the Ten Commandments continue to hold a central position in many churches (and in many of the debates on religion currently being fought in this country.) I'd be curious to know your opinion on the issue.
::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 17:21, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: It's not the weight, it's the different types of things. Commandments can be changed. History cannot.
::::::: I never said that translation issues are trivial, and what I did say about translations was to do with modern translations. But even so, a mistranslation on this point may indeed have misled some, but this is hardly a major doctrinal point. Luther seems to have mentioned it almost in passing, and Augustine with not much more importance, from what I can determine from a Google search.
::::::: I'm not claiming that modern translations are error-free, but just because there is some small scope for errors does not mean that one can almost-arbitrarily dismiss clear teaching in order to accommodate secular thinking. True, no man can know the mind of God, but the very fact that God has given us a lot of information about Him shows that He knows we are capable of knowing ''that much'' about Him.
::::::: When I was growing up, I think that I believed that Ten Commandments had to be followed. But over the years I came to realise that Christians are not under the law, and that applies even with the Ten Commandment. However, even though Christians are not under the law, one of the several reasons for the law was to keep us within what could be called our "design parameters". So, for example, Christians don't have to observe every Saturday as the Sabbath (or even every Sunday), but we were not designed for continuous work; we were designed in such a way that we need to rest periodically, such as one day out of seven. So even though we are not obliged to observe the sabbath, it is still prudent to do so, or at least something equivalent (e.g. ministers work on the Sunday but take Monday or another day off instead). So the Ten Commandments in particular are still a useful guide to good practice, even though we are no longer required to observe them.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced of the validity of your first claim. If God exists outside time, then He can, in fact, change history; He is not bound by the linear progression of events. We would, however, likely be unaware of His alterations, as those of us bound by a linear perception of time would simply believe that history had always been that way (indeed, for us, it would be true.)
::::::::It's entirely possible that God is constantly changing history, and that we remain utterly unaware of it. Whether he would do so is another matter entirely; Descartes and his adherents, just for instance, would likely argue against such a notion. Ultimately, since there's no way of knowing, the best course of action is to accept Occam's Razor and assume that the history with which we're familiar is true and stable.
::::::::I'm honestly also not convinced that the age of the earth is more of a major doctrinal point than the nature of division between the heavens and the earth. I think it has been ''conflated'' with major doctrinal points--most specifically, Original Sin--but is not one and the same. It is possible to read the creation account as allegorical and still accept the doctrine of Original Sin.
::::::::Google is an appallingly poor resource for serious historical scholarship, sadly. Perhaps one day that will change. The majority of my library is still in boxes in the basement until I can get the new shelves put up in the study, but I'll see if I can find some solid sources to recommend with respect to the whole firmament issue; I know I have a good translation of Luther somewhere, though I don't believe I have a similarly-solid source for Augustine.
::::::::The Ten Commandments issue is interesting, and I wonder if it wouldn't be worth creating a distinct topic dedicated to it. Several questions present themselves: if the Commandments aren't part of the new covenant, do Christian efforts to create monuments to them constitute idolatry? On the other hand, if it could be clearly established that the Ten Commandments are ''not'' part of modern Christian doctrine, then I think that would significantly alter the tenor of public debate over displays including them--they would thus be strictly historical, and a display dedicated to them would be no different in a legal sense than a display of the Justinian Code, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Declaration of Independence.
::::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 15:21, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
If someone claims to be a christian but doubts the only source for such a belief what does that mean for their belief? It's too bad but it seems that many "Christians" really don't want to hold to the scripture that is the basis for Christianity. They would rather be able to pick and choose what things sound good to them not realizing they are undermining their very own "belief". I do not see how literal FAITH in Christ is possible if you do not have faith in the Bible. Yes you can believe some things the Bible says,a lot of people do, however if you dilute or disregard portions you don't like, the "faith" in Christ that is claimed is more than likely not the saving life changing faith the Bible speaks of but some man centered belief system that has no basis from scripture.

==Literalness of the Scripture==
So if I'm to understand what some here are arguing correctly, are we to assume that Noah literally looked into God's eye and found some big heap of grace? [[User:Quid|Quid]]
:Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I watched a programme last night by Richard Dawkins, the prince of atheism, on his love of evolution, who basically pushed evolution as fact and proof that there is no God. Taking his personal beliefs as proven fact. Why is it that some scientists think that nothing is beyond them? If you say the theory of evolution is a proven fact doesnt all this just prove that the first chapters of Genesis are not strictly literal. Big deal, so what? Is doesnt dispove the existence of God. Is this important anyway? as long as you believe in God and in Jesus Christ. regards, Adam

==Death before sin==
If God created a world full of death, and called it good, how can we be sure there won't be death in Heaven?
:Interesting question, but I don't think the one follows from the other. Plus, Jesus promised 'everlasting life', and it is hard to see how that would be reconciled with the presence of death.

:Death as it is here on Earth is a physical process. Heaven is a place for spiritual beings (God, angels, human souls) which do not die. Also, be sure not to be confused by the terms "spiritual death" and "second death." They are not like physical death, where a body ceases living and eventually rots away. Spiritual death is separation from God, but the spirit goes on existing. The second death is condemnation to Hell where, again, the spirit goes on existing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:07, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==My thoughts in favor of a literal reading==
First, the parts of the Bible that are intended to be read allegorically rather than literally are clearly identified as prophetic visions, songs, or parables. The first Genesis creation account is not. This is evidence for a literal reading.

Second, Our Lord referred to the first Genesis creation account, treating it as literal history rather than allegory. Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6 clearly refer to Genesis 1:27 as literal truth. This is further evidence for a literal reading.

Third, where do we draw the line? I've read about magic-mushroom cultists who regarded the Gospels as allegories. If you say that the first Genesis creation account is an allegory, how do you explain to such people that the Gospels are not?

[[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:09, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

:Well put. To deny the Creation account as figurative is to ultimately trust man's wisdom and deny that the Bible is a preserved, infallible testimony given by God. It allows one to pick and choose from the Bible what they want to believe. But as Romans 3:4 says, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

:Ultimately, it is not wrong to question Scripture, since Acts 17:11 calls noble those who questioned the Scriptures because they did so "with all readiness of mind... searching daily, whether those things were so." So long as we do so with an open mind and desire to find truth, looking honestly and diligently to give the Bible a fair chance to prove itself. As Jesus said, those who seek will find.

:Personally, I think those who deny the Genesis accounts do so out of mistaken belief Evolution is true, not having looked into the matter fully for themselves. I think Macroevolution specifically is incompatible with Genesis 1, and is more speculative than its adherents would like others to believe. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 03:08, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

::Hmm yes. I also want to add that when some people say the believe the Bible is correct in spiritual matters, but not on history and science, that is ridiculous since there would be no evidence then that the Bible was inspired. But since history and science support the Bible, we can be sure that the whole book is true and good. We can be sure of it in spiritual matters as well as historical and scientific matters. [[User:JasperTech|JasperTech]] 17:43, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

Mutation

2013-01-20T23:18:42Z

JasperTech: /* Mutations and the Theory of Evolution */

In [[biology]], a '''mutation''' is any physical change in the [[genetic material]] of an [[organism]]. In most organisms, including humans, the genetic material is [[DNA]], while some viruses use [[RNA]]. Mutations can be caused by internal or external factors. In multicellular organisms there are two primary classes of mutation, [[germline mutations]] and [[somatic mutations]]. Germline mutations are those changes that can be passed down to offspring, while somatic mutations are mutations that only alter genetic material in the mutated organism. Somatic mutations are the root cause of [[cancer]]. There is some evidence that changes outside of the cell's genetic material, such as the [[cytoplasm]], [[proteins]], or the cell [[membrane]] can also be inherited.

Common external factors include [[ultraviolet]] radiation, chemical [[mutagens]], or parasitic organisms (such as [[viruses]] or [[bacteria]]). Most internal causes of mutations stem from errors in reproduction of genetic material.

Some organisms will respond to harsh environments by increasing the rate of mutations. This is known as [[hypermutation]] and is hypothesized to aid organisms by creating wider variation in the [[gene pool]] of the population, increasing the chances that at least some descendents might survive under harsh conditions. Hypermutation also occurs in the human [[immune system]], so that our antibodies have more variation and can respond to a greater variety of invaders.

==Classes of mutations==

DNA is not a static entity. It is subject to a variety of different types of heritable change (mutation). Large-scale chromosome abnormalities involve loss or gain of chromosomes, or breakage and rejoining of chromatids. Smaller scale mutations can be grouped into different mutation classes according to the effect on the DNA sequence. Mutations can also be categorized on the basis of whether they involve a single DNA sequence or whether they involve exchanges between two allelic or non-allelic sequences. According to molecular pathology, there are three main classes of mutation with several subclasses: [[deletion]]s, [[insertion]]s and [[substitution]]s.

===Deletion mutations===
Deletion mutations are mutations where part of a chromosome or DNA sequence is missing.

===Insertion mutations===
Insertion mutations are mutations where DNA is inserted into the genetic sequence.

===Substitution mutations===
A point mutation or ''substitution'' is the most limited type of mutation, whereby a single base [[nucleotide]] is replaced with another nucleotide.

For example, sickle-cell anemia is caused by a single point mutation in one allele of the beta [[hemoglobin]] gene, whereby a CCT codon is converted into TCT. The TCT then mistakenly encodes the [[amino acid]] serine instead of proline.

Sometimes the expression "point mutation" can also include the addition or subtraction of a single base pair, which is also referred to as an "indel".

Deletions and insertions can also occur on a large scale. Other large-scale genetic changes include inversions, where an entire stretch of DNA is removed from the chromosome and replaced in the opposite direction; translocations, where DNA is moved from one part of the genome to another; and duplication, where a region of DNA is copied multiple times and re-inserted into the genome (for example, an entire chromosome is duplicated in [[Down syndrome]]).

==Mutation subclasses==
The following is a list of mutation subclasses that can fall into the three major classes of mutation.

===Morphological===
Morphological mutants affect the outward appearance of an individual ([[phenotype]]). Plant height mutations could changes a tall plant to a short one, or from having smooth to round seeds, due to mutations in genes relating to plant growth.

===Biochemical===
Biochemical mutations have a lesion in a gene necessary for one specific step of an enzymatic pathway. For bacteria, biochemical mutants need to be grown on a media supplemented with a specific nutrient. Such mutants are called auxotrophs. Often though, morphological mutants are the direct result of a mutation in a biochemical pathway. In humans, albinism is the result of a mutation in the pathway from converts the amino acid tyrosine to the skin pigment melanin. Similarly, cretinism results when the tyrosine to thyroxine pathway is mutated. Therefore, in a strict genetic sense, if appropriate experiments are performed, a morphological mutation can be explained at the biochemical level.

For some mutations to be expressed, the individual needs to be placed in a specific environment. This is called the restrictive condition. But if the individual grow in any other environment (permissive condition), the wild type phenotype is expressed. These are called conditional mutations. Mutations that only expressed at a specific temperature (temperature sensitive mutants), usually elevated, can be considered to be conditional mutations.

===Lethal===
Lethal mutations are mutations that lead to the death of the individual. Death does not have to occur immediately, it may take several months or even years. But if the expected longevity of an individual is significantly reduced, the mutation is considered a lethal mutation.

Wild type alleles typically encode a product necessary for a specific biological function. If a mutation occurs in that allele, the function for which it encodes is also lost. The general term for these mutations is loss-of-function mutations. The degree to which the function is lost can vary. If the function is entirely lost, the mutation is called a null mutation. If is also possible that some function may remain, but not at the level of the wild type allele. These are called leaky mutations.

===Loss-of-function===
Loss-of-function mutations are typically recessive. When a heterozygote consists of the wild-type allele and the loss-of-function allele, the level of expression of the wild type allele is often sufficient to produce the wild type phenotype. Genetically this would define the loss-of-function mutation as recessive. Alternatively, the wild type allele may not compensate for the loss-of-function allele, and the gene is called haploinsufficient. In those cases, the phenotype of the heterozygote may be equal to that of the loss-of-function mutant, and the mutant allele will act as a dominant.

===Gain-of-function===
Gain-of-function mutations create a new allele that is associated with a new function. Any heterozygote containing the new allele along with the original wild type allele will express the new allele. Genetically this will define the mutation as a dominant.

'''Sickle hemoglobin''', where the function of the hemoglobin has changed in a way to be not conducive to [[malaria]] [[parasite]]s, is often cited as an example of a gain-of-function mutation, but it is actually a loss-of-function mutation that conveys a survival advantage in some circumstances. A proper example is the mutations that occur in the immune system in order to make and improve antibodies against invading bacteria and viruses.

{{QuoteBox|This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible [[disease]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/901/ Sickle-cell anemia does not prove evolution!], ''Creation'' 16(2):40–41, March 1994.</ref>}}

'''HIV-1 M subtype D's Na+ viroporin''', is known as an example of a Gain-of-Function mutation due to the viroporin being gated and specific to Na+ cations. A viroporin is an ion channel that allows for the movement of ions from one side of a membrane to another. A gated channel has an additional feature which closes the channel to prevent "leaking" of ions across the membrane. In this example the HIV types before HIV-1 M did not have this viroporin. To go from an ordinary viroporin's original form to the multisubunit structure with a new function required the development of a new binding site, which involves more than a single amino acid substitution<ref>Paul et al. (1998) Mutational Analysis of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Vpu Transmembrane Domain That Promotes the Enhanced Release of Virus-Like Particles from the Plasma Membrane of Mammalian Cells. J Virol, 72 (2): 1270.</ref>. Not just any binding site will do, for a mass of agglomerated protein would occur, not an ion channel with ion selectivity. As such, HIV-1 M's viroporin is a gated ion channel, not just a hole punched in the membrane, with a specific amino acid responsible for the gating<ref>Mehnert T, et al., Biophysical characterization of Vpu from HIV-1 suggests a channel-pore dualism. Proteins. 2007 Oct 1; doi: 10.1002/prot.21642.</ref>. What is important is that this mutation is beneficial to the virus; it increases viral particle release, spreading HIV more efficiently<ref>Paul et al. (1998) Mutational Analysis of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Vpu Transmembrane Domain That Promotes the Enhanced Release of Virus-Like Particles from the Plasma Membrane of Mammalian Cells. J Virol, 72 (2): 1270.</ref>.

===Neutral===

Neutral mutations cause neither a gain or a loss of function. For example, both AAA and AAG code for the amino acid [[lysine]], so a mutation (a single-letter substitution) of one to the other would be predicted to have no effect. Gene duplications can also be initially neutral, and then later turn out to protect the organism if one of the genes (which has a redundant function after the duplication) is mutated later on.

===Nonsense===

Nonsense mutations cause introduction of a stop [[codon]] into a gene, which will then be produced only in a truncated form. Nonsense mutations are almost always loss-of-function mutations as well.

===Dynamic===
Dynamic mutations are heritable mutations where the probability of the mutation is a function of the number of copies of the mutation, causing the chance of inheriting the mutation to be different than organism’s predecessor. These mutations are known to cause several genetic syndromes such as [[Fragile X syndrome]], Huntington’s Chorea, Myotonic Dystrophy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease to name a few.

===Frame shift===
Frame shift mutations are mutations where the reading frame is moved to cause a different translation of the DNA. This is due to the fact that codons that encode the genetic sequence are read in threes. Frame shift mutations are known to cause hypercholesterolemia as well as disabling several chemokine receptors.

===Reversions===
Reversion mutations are those which "undo" a previous mutation by chance (for example, a mutation of ATG to CTG in the start [[codon]] of a gene will prevent it from being transcribed, but a mutation at the same location might undo this back to ATG). A mutation at another location might also revert the phenotype (for example, if another gene which compensates for the lost function of the first is upregulated), although the genetic code is still different from before the two mutations had occurred.

==Mutations and the Theory of Evolution==
Most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and [[natural selection]] created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]<ref name="Dawk">[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable: A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]</ref>, and of these, mutations are the only one supposedly capable of supplying new genetic information.
Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]."<ref>[[NorthWest Creation Network]], [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]</ref>

[[Image:Pierre Grasse.jpg|thumb|140px|right|Pierre Grasse]]
Mutations that allegedly create new genetic [[information]] have been described. Mutations are claimed to have led to the evolution of new genes<ref>[[Okada]] 1983</ref>, to the novel use of existing genetic information<ref> [[Sean Carroll]] 2005</ref>, and to the construction of new genes by shuffling and recombining of parts of existing genes<ref> [[Godzik A.]] 2008</ref>, although the claims are disputed<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1586/ The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste], ''Journal of Creation'' 17(3):3–5, December 2003.</ref> or are based on speculation rather than observation of the mutations actually occurring. But these examples don't challenge [[creation]] at all, since the [[information]] already existed in the past. Mutations that have created new genetic ''information'' (different from genetic ''material'') have never been observed.

[[Pierre Grasse]], who served as Chair of Evolution at [[Sorbonne University]] for thirty years and was ex-president of the [[French Academy of Sciences]], said:{{QuoteBox|Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.<ref name="Grasse">Quoted on [http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Veritas Forum]</ref>}}
Grasse went on to point out that bacteria, much studied by geneticists and molecular biologists, produce the most mutants,<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Veritas Forum]</ref>, yet bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".<ref name="Grasse" />
Grasse regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref name="Grasse" />

Although he believed that random mutations produced new features, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] admitted the difficulty with the idea: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>

[[Creationism|Creation scientists]] argue that mutations ''cannot'' generate new genetic information.<ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]</ref><ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]</ref><ref name="Dawk" /><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]</ref><ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==Other References==
Biology (7th Edition). Neil A. Campbell,Jane B. Reece. http://www.amazon.com/Biology-7th-Neil-Campbell/dp/080537146X.
*Okada, H., Negoro, S., Kimura, H, and Nakamura, S. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v306/n5939/abs/306203a0.html], [[Nature]] 306:203-206, 1983
* Sean B. Carroll, [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030245&ct=1], [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]] USA 89:e245, 2005
* Zhang Q, Zmasek CM, Dishaw LJ, Mueller MG, Ye Y, Litman GW, Godzik A., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18680598?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum], [[Genome Biology]] 9(8):R123, 2008

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Cosmic microwave background

2013-01-20T22:37:27Z

JasperTech: Created page with "==Addition to the "Biblical Explanation" Section== Below is something that might be added to provide a different array of perspectives regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background ..."

==Addition to the "Biblical Explanation" Section==

Below is something that might be added to provide a different array of perspectives regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Bible.

Right after the existing paragraph I wrote:

''However, the light mentioned on the first day of creation was more likely radiating from God Himself. Psalm 104, the creation psalm, says in verse 2 (NLT):''

<blockquote>
''"O Lord my God, how great you are! You are robed with honor and majesty. You are dressed in a robe of light. You stretch out the starry curtain of the heavens;"''</blockquote>

''This passage, although poetic, seems to indicate that God was the source of light before the sun was created on day four.''

''So, from a Biblical perspective, there are no indications of what this Cosmic Microwave Background could be.''

Anyway, I don't really care whether or not this is added. I'll contribute some more when I have more time.

--[[User:JasperTech|JasperTech]] 17:37, 20 January 2013 (EST)

Cosmic microwave background

2013-01-20T22:29:21Z

JasperTech:

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' (CMB) radiation describes the [[electromagnetic wave]]s that propagate through our entire universe.

=="Scientific" explanation==

The usual explanation of the CMB radiation trotted out by [[atheistic]] scientists is that it is left-over radiation from the [[Big Bang]], namely the radiation scattering off of the opaque, dense plasma of the early universe just before the transition to the transparent universe we observe today. This transition, called "last scattering", is believed to have occurred approximately 380,000 years after the big bang.

==Biblical explanation==

The scientific version of events doesn't make sense when viewed from a [[Christian]] perspective, as it requires the universe be ''at least'' 380,000 years old for the transition to have occurred. However, scholarly analysis of the [[Bible]] indicates that the universe is around 6000 years old, which is backed up by many observations in many fields from geology to astronomy.

A possible explanation for the CMB is that it is the light (Genesis 1:2) from the moment of the [[Creation]] around the universe. If the [[Lord]] had suddenly created the universe and flooded it with perfectly uniform light (electromagnetic waves), we would indeed see the remnants to this day, except for minuscule variations introduced by a fraction of the light being blocked by the Earth (which of course preceded the light, Genesis 1:1).

==Characteristics==

One interesting feature of the CMB is that it provides a rest frame against which one can measure the motion of galaxies and other astronomical objects. Since the cosmic microwave background is made of electromagnetic waves, a moving observer will observe a [[Doppler shift]] of the cosmic microwave background, whereas a stationary observer will not. Since the frequency of the cosmic microwave background is known (160.2 GHz <ref name="physorg">http://www.physorg.com/tags/cosmic+microwave+background/</ref>), the velocity of the observer can easily be calculated. Our very Earth sees a Doppler shift in the cosmic microwave background, a shift that must be subtracted from measurements of the CMB to obtain its true temperature distribution.

The thermal black-body spectrum of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 K. <ref name="physorg"/>

==See also==
*[[Gravitational lensing]]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category: Physics]]
[[Category: Astronomy]]
[[Category: Cosmology]]

Gap theory

2013-01-20T22:24:53Z

JasperTech:

The '''Gap theory''' or '''Gap creationism''' is the idea that there was an indeterminate "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. During this gap the surface of the [[Earth]] was destroyed by a battle between [[God]] and [[Lucifer]].

==Dinosaurs==
The [[dinosaur]]s were also destroyed at this time and their fossil remains are those that are found to this day.

==Differences of opinion==

Many [[Christian]]s believe that following the gap a six-day creation took place. Others hold more to a view of [[Progressive Creationism]].

As a theory which attempts to harmonise the age of the earth with that promoted by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists, it is preferred by some Christians, although has largely fallen out of favour in recent times.

== Problems with the theory ==

A crucial point for the Gap theory is the translation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It appears in some translations as follows:
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning [[God]] created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NIV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=KJV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NASB}}

Gap theorists claim that the verse can be translate to say that the Earth ''became'' formless and empty. However, the [[Hebrew]] letter ''waw'' used as a conjunction does not allow this translation in this context.<ref name="JS06">Sarfati, 2006</ref><ref>Ham, 2000</ref> In fact, some translations such as the New Living Translation actually have a footnote providing several alternative renderings, one of which is, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." It is clear that the the original language doesn't allow any gap.

In trying to harmonize the Bible with uniformitarian geology, the Gap theory introduces a new global catastrophe (the so-called "Lucifer's Flood") which uniformitarian geology doesn't recognize and the Bible doesn't mention.<ref name="JS06" />

== Bibliography ==
* Ham, Ken, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/267 Creation at the academy], ''Creation'' 22(2):24–27, March 2000.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://downloads.creationontheweb.com/pdfs/gap_theory_tract.pdf The Gap Theory, Why it fails on all counts], 2006.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

* [http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Gaptheory.html Biblical basis of the Gap Theory]
* [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-the-earth-recreated-after-an-initial-creation-1.html Was the Earth recreated?]
* [http://www.bbmhp.org/editorial/tohu.html BEREAN BIBLE MINISTRIES]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Talk:Redshift

2013-01-20T21:11:23Z

JasperTech: /* Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate */

== My Edits ==
I edited for grammar and added the "Support for Big Bang" section, a stub. It should be added to immensely, as my knowledge of physics only goes into a basic understanding of electromagnetism and relativity. --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]

==Doppler Effect==
Isn't this an example of the Doppler Effect? Not merely analogous to it? [[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 20:43, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that the article expresses it all that well, but the Doppler effect is produced by the source moving relative to the observer, whereas some if not most of the redshift is not due to the source moving through space, but due to the space itself between the source and observer expanding (as part of the expansion of the universe). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks for the explanation. --[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 18:07, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

There are four sources of redshift.
; Doppler effect
: The Newtonian space z = v/c.
; Relativistic Doppler
: Doppler effect when time dilation is taken into account gives z + 1 = (1+v/c)γ. This can be observed with in the [[Ives–Stilwell experiment]].
; Cosmic expansion
: z = anow/athen (a is the scale factor of the universe). As the space that light travels through expands, the wavelength of the light becomes longer. This requires light to be traveling over a region of empty space (not within the galaxy - space isn't expanding faster than gravity is holding it together). If z is less than 0.01, then the redshift from space expansion is minimal compared to the other sources. For comparison, the Andromeda galaxy has a blueshift of 0.0001 [http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-allsky?ra_constraint=Unconstrained&ra_1=&ra_2=&dec_constraint=Unconstrained&dec_1=&dec_2=&glon_constraint=Unconstrained&glon_1=&glon_2=&glat_constraint=Unconstrained&glat_1=&glat_2=&z_constraint=Less+Than&z_value1=0&z_value2=&z_unit=km%2Fs&ot_include=ANY&ex_objtypes1=Clusters&ex_objtypes1=Supernovae&ex_objtypes1=QSO&ex_objtypes2=AbsLineSys&ex_objtypes2=GravLens&ex_objtypes2=Radio&ex_objtypes2=Infrared&ex_objtypes3=EmissnLine&ex_objtypes3=UVExcess&ex_objtypes3=Xray&ex_objtypes3=GammaRay&nmp_op=ANY&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=B1950.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&zv_breaker=30000.0] (warning VERY large page)
: This source of redshift does not apply to any objects that are gravitationally bound to the observer (you can't say that Andromeda's light is from the future). It doesn't work within the galaxy, or within the local group of galaxies, or even the cluster of galaxies that we are part of. The gravity of those various objects cancels the expansion of space between them.
: Assuming cosmological redshift being the most significant part of the redshift you can then use f = 1/((1+z)3/2) to approximate the age of the universe at when the light was sent on its way. The exact value of depends on the shape of the universe (flat, open, or closed). The 3/2 value is for a flat universe. 'f' is the fraction of the age of the universe when the light was emitted. For z = 0.2 gives you 1/(1.2)3/2 = 1/1.3145341... = 0.7607.... Though this is only good to one significant digit (z was only one sig digit) so lets call it 0.8. The universe was 80% of its current age when that light was emitted.
; Gravity
: As light climbs out of a gravity well, it becomes redshifted. As it falls into the gravity well, it becomes blueshifted. This can be observed with the frequency of GPS satellites and binary pulsars. How significant this is depends on how massive the light source is.

Not sure how to work this into the article itself though. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate ==

OK, so first of all I'm only 13 years old. But I've done some research on this recently (for fun) and I think I have some suggestions. I think that the scientific articles of Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate would be extremely helpful for this article.

After Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift/distance correlation, he said that the redshift was due to the Doppler effect. However, Fritz Zwicky noted that the redshift/distance relationship wasn't really that great. If the universe was expanding, the redshift/distance correlation should be pretty much linear, but for further distances the relationship was not that good. In fact, it was out of the margin of error involved during calculations and had to be attributed to something else. So Zwicky proposed that light lost energy as it traveled through gravitational fields (or that the energy got transferred via gravitational fields to intervening matter).

Of course, that was a nice idea, but it was just a hypotheses. So here's where Ten Bruggencate comes into the scene. He wanted to test Zwicky's hypotheses, so he decided to test the redshifts of globular clusters. These globular clusters were a good testing sample since their distances would be somewhat accurate, and he could just deal with redshifts. If Hubble's idea was right, then they should all have the same redshifts, but if Zwicky's idea was right, then their redshifts should relate to the intervening matter around them. And that's just what he found - that the redshifts of the globular clusters were definitely related to the intervening matter surrounding them. Zwicky's theory was proven!

So to sum up, redshift is caused by light travelling through gravitational fields. The longer the light has traveled, the more gravitational fields it has gone through, and the redder it appears. When light does not go through many gravitational fields, it does not appear as redshifted. Hubble's constant actually varies up to 30% (you can even see that by having a look at any redshift/distance diagram).

Below are the two articles I'm talking about.

http://www.pnas.org/content/15/10/773.full.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/16/2/111.full.pdf

You can also see even in a traditional diagram like this how when stars are clustered together, the redshift/distance correlation is even more messed up.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/swift_grb/images/swift_fig2.gif

''Written by JasperTech, Sunday, January 20, 2013''

Talk:Redshift

2013-01-20T21:02:10Z

JasperTech: /* Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate */

== My Edits ==
I edited for grammar and added the "Support for Big Bang" section, a stub. It should be added to immensely, as my knowledge of physics only goes into a basic understanding of electromagnetism and relativity. --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]

==Doppler Effect==
Isn't this an example of the Doppler Effect? Not merely analogous to it? [[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 20:43, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that the article expresses it all that well, but the Doppler effect is produced by the source moving relative to the observer, whereas some if not most of the redshift is not due to the source moving through space, but due to the space itself between the source and observer expanding (as part of the expansion of the universe). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks for the explanation. --[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 18:07, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

There are four sources of redshift.
; Doppler effect
: The Newtonian space z = v/c.
; Relativistic Doppler
: Doppler effect when time dilation is taken into account gives z + 1 = (1+v/c)γ. This can be observed with in the [[Ives–Stilwell experiment]].
; Cosmic expansion
: z = anow/athen (a is the scale factor of the universe). As the space that light travels through expands, the wavelength of the light becomes longer. This requires light to be traveling over a region of empty space (not within the galaxy - space isn't expanding faster than gravity is holding it together). If z is less than 0.01, then the redshift from space expansion is minimal compared to the other sources. For comparison, the Andromeda galaxy has a blueshift of 0.0001 [http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-allsky?ra_constraint=Unconstrained&ra_1=&ra_2=&dec_constraint=Unconstrained&dec_1=&dec_2=&glon_constraint=Unconstrained&glon_1=&glon_2=&glat_constraint=Unconstrained&glat_1=&glat_2=&z_constraint=Less+Than&z_value1=0&z_value2=&z_unit=km%2Fs&ot_include=ANY&ex_objtypes1=Clusters&ex_objtypes1=Supernovae&ex_objtypes1=QSO&ex_objtypes2=AbsLineSys&ex_objtypes2=GravLens&ex_objtypes2=Radio&ex_objtypes2=Infrared&ex_objtypes3=EmissnLine&ex_objtypes3=UVExcess&ex_objtypes3=Xray&ex_objtypes3=GammaRay&nmp_op=ANY&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=B1950.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&zv_breaker=30000.0] (warning VERY large page)
: This source of redshift does not apply to any objects that are gravitationally bound to the observer (you can't say that Andromeda's light is from the future). It doesn't work within the galaxy, or within the local group of galaxies, or even the cluster of galaxies that we are part of. The gravity of those various objects cancels the expansion of space between them.
: Assuming cosmological redshift being the most significant part of the redshift you can then use f = 1/((1+z)3/2) to approximate the age of the universe at when the light was sent on its way. The exact value of depends on the shape of the universe (flat, open, or closed). The 3/2 value is for a flat universe. 'f' is the fraction of the age of the universe when the light was emitted. For z = 0.2 gives you 1/(1.2)3/2 = 1/1.3145341... = 0.7607.... Though this is only good to one significant digit (z was only one sig digit) so lets call it 0.8. The universe was 80% of its current age when that light was emitted.
; Gravity
: As light climbs out of a gravity well, it becomes redshifted. As it falls into the gravity well, it becomes blueshifted. This can be observed with the frequency of GPS satellites and binary pulsars. How significant this is depends on how massive the light source is.

Not sure how to work this into the article itself though. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate ==

OK, so first of all I'm only 13 years old. But I've done some research on this recently (for fun) and I think I have some suggestions. I think that the scientific articles of Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate would be extremely helpful for this article.

After Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift/distance correlation, he said that the redshift was due to the Doppler effect. However, Fritz Zwicky noted that the redshift/distance relationship wasn't really that great. If the universe was expanding, the redshift/distance correlation should be pretty much linear, but for further distances the relationship was not that good. In fact, it was out of the margin of error involved during calculations and had to be attributed to something else. So Zwicky proposed that light lost energy as it traveled through gravitational fields (or that the energy got transferred via gravitational fields to intervening matter).

Of course, that was a nice idea, but it was just a hypotheses. So here's where Ten Bruggencate comes into the scene. He wanted to test Zwicky's hypotheses, so he decided to test the redshifts of globular clusters. These globular clusters were a good testing sample since their distances would be somewhat accurate, and he could just deal with redshifts. If Hubble's idea was right, then they should all have the same redshifts, but if Zwicky's idea was right, then their redshifts should relate to the intervening matter around them. And that's just what he found - that the redshifts of the globular clusters were definitely related to the intervening matter surrounding them. Zwicky's theory was proven!

Below are the two articles I'm talking about.

http://www.pnas.org/content/15/10/773.full.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/16/2/111.full.pdf

You can also see even in a traditional diagram like this how when stars are clustered together, the redshift/distance correlation is even more messed up.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/swift_grb/images/swift_fig2.gif

''Written by JasperTech, Sunday, January 20, 2013''

Talk:Redshift

2013-01-20T21:00:18Z

JasperTech: /* Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate */ new section

== My Edits ==
I edited for grammar and added the "Support for Big Bang" section, a stub. It should be added to immensely, as my knowledge of physics only goes into a basic understanding of electromagnetism and relativity. --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]

==Doppler Effect==
Isn't this an example of the Doppler Effect? Not merely analogous to it? [[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 20:43, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that the article expresses it all that well, but the Doppler effect is produced by the source moving relative to the observer, whereas some if not most of the redshift is not due to the source moving through space, but due to the space itself between the source and observer expanding (as part of the expansion of the universe). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks for the explanation. --[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 18:07, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

There are four sources of redshift.
; Doppler effect
: The Newtonian space z = v/c.
; Relativistic Doppler
: Doppler effect when time dilation is taken into account gives z + 1 = (1+v/c)γ. This can be observed with in the [[Ives–Stilwell experiment]].
; Cosmic expansion
: z = anow/athen (a is the scale factor of the universe). As the space that light travels through expands, the wavelength of the light becomes longer. This requires light to be traveling over a region of empty space (not within the galaxy - space isn't expanding faster than gravity is holding it together). If z is less than 0.01, then the redshift from space expansion is minimal compared to the other sources. For comparison, the Andromeda galaxy has a blueshift of 0.0001 [http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-allsky?ra_constraint=Unconstrained&ra_1=&ra_2=&dec_constraint=Unconstrained&dec_1=&dec_2=&glon_constraint=Unconstrained&glon_1=&glon_2=&glat_constraint=Unconstrained&glat_1=&glat_2=&z_constraint=Less+Than&z_value1=0&z_value2=&z_unit=km%2Fs&ot_include=ANY&ex_objtypes1=Clusters&ex_objtypes1=Supernovae&ex_objtypes1=QSO&ex_objtypes2=AbsLineSys&ex_objtypes2=GravLens&ex_objtypes2=Radio&ex_objtypes2=Infrared&ex_objtypes3=EmissnLine&ex_objtypes3=UVExcess&ex_objtypes3=Xray&ex_objtypes3=GammaRay&nmp_op=ANY&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=B1950.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&zv_breaker=30000.0] (warning VERY large page)
: This source of redshift does not apply to any objects that are gravitationally bound to the observer (you can't say that Andromeda's light is from the future). It doesn't work within the galaxy, or within the local group of galaxies, or even the cluster of galaxies that we are part of. The gravity of those various objects cancels the expansion of space between them.
: Assuming cosmological redshift being the most significant part of the redshift you can then use f = 1/((1+z)3/2) to approximate the age of the universe at when the light was sent on its way. The exact value of depends on the shape of the universe (flat, open, or closed). The 3/2 value is for a flat universe. 'f' is the fraction of the age of the universe when the light was emitted. For z = 0.2 gives you 1/(1.2)3/2 = 1/1.3145341... = 0.7607.... Though this is only good to one significant digit (z was only one sig digit) so lets call it 0.8. The universe was 80% of its current age when that light was emitted.
; Gravity
: As light climbs out of a gravity well, it becomes redshifted. As it falls into the gravity well, it becomes blueshifted. This can be observed with the frequency of GPS satellites and binary pulsars. How significant this is depends on how massive the light source is.

Not sure how to work this into the article itself though. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate ==

OK, so first of all I'm only 13 years old. But I've done some research on this recently (for fun) and I think I have some suggestions. I think that the scientific articles of Fritz Zwicky and Ten Bruggencate would be extremely helpful for this article.

After Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift/distance correlation, he said that the redshift was due to the Doppler effect. However, Fritz Zwicky noted that the redshift/distance relationship wasn't really that great. If the universe was expanding, the redshift/distance correlation should be pretty much linear, but for further distances the relationship was not that good. In fact, it was out of the margin of error involved during calculations and had to be attributed to something else. So Zwicky proposed that light lost energy as it traveled through gravitational fields (or that the energy got transferred via gravitational fields to intervening matter).

Of course, that was a nice idea, but it was just a hypotheses. So here's where Ten Bruggencate comes into the scene. He wanted to test Zwicky's hypotheses, so he decided to test the redshifts of globular clusters. These globular clusters were a good testing sample since their distances would be somewhat accurate, and he could just deal with redshifts. If Hubble's idea was right, then they should all have the same redshifts, but if Zwicky's idea was right, then their redshifts should relate to the intervening matter around them. And that's just what he found - that the redshifts of the globular clusters were definitely related to the intervening matter surrounding them. Zwicky's theory was proven!

Below are the two articles I'm talking about.

http://www.pnas.org/content/15/10/773.full.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/16/2/111.full.pdf

You can also see even in a traditional diagram like this how when stars are clustered together, the redshift/distance correlation is even more messed up.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/swift_grb/images/swift_fig2.gif

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2013-01-18T19:28:18Z

JasperTech:

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Template ==

The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in ''See also'' with <nowiki>{{Counterexamples}}</nowiki>? [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2013-01-18T19:27:45Z

JasperTech: /* Magnetic Field of the Earth */ new section

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



== Magnetic field of the earth ==

In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.

__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Template ==

The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in ''See also'' with <nowiki>{{Counterexamples}}</nowiki>? [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2013-01-18T19:26:35Z

JasperTech: Proposing to remove a false claim.

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



== Magnetic field of the earth ==

In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.

__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Template ==

The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in ''See also'' with <nowiki>{{Counterexamples}}</nowiki>? [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)