Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-10-02T02:36:41Z

MichaelK: /* Given the choice? */

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Offensive remarks by [[Sandra Bernhard]]==

Hi. The liberal comedian [[Sandra Bernhard]] made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. [[User:Breadan43|Breadan43]] 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]] to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Review link to the made-up controversy, rape kit. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)[http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080926141845.aspx]

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Suspect sentence ==

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Problem==
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. [[User:LilyWinston|LilyWinston]] 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008

==Founding Fathers' Christian faith==

"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there '''any''' evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously '''false''' and it smears this site's reputation. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pronunciation ==

While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? [[User:TexasEx|TexasEx]] 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Sources==
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word ''"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0"'', listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Good Rip of Obama Today==
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Polling Information==
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

: I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.

:Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Given the choice? ==

"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."[10]. "
What does "given the choice" mean? Would Sarah and Todd have let her kill the baby? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-10-02T02:35:42Z

MichaelK: /* Given the choice? */

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Offensive remarks by [[Sandra Bernhard]]==

Hi. The liberal comedian [[Sandra Bernhard]] made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. [[User:Breadan43|Breadan43]] 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]] to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Review link to the made-up controversy, rape kit. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)[http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080926141845.aspx]

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Suspect sentence ==

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Problem==
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. [[User:LilyWinston|LilyWinston]] 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008

==Founding Fathers' Christian faith==

"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there '''any''' evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously '''false''' and it smears this site's reputation. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pronunciation ==

While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? [[User:TexasEx|TexasEx]] 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Sources==
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word ''"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0"'', listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Good Rip of Obama Today==
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Polling Information==
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

: I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.

:Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Given the choice? ==

"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."[10]. "
What does "given the choice" mean? Would Sarah and Todd? have let her kill the baby? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-10-02T02:32:44Z

MichaelK: /* Given the choice? */ new section

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Offensive remarks by [[Sandra Bernhard]]==

Hi. The liberal comedian [[Sandra Bernhard]] made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. [[User:Breadan43|Breadan43]] 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]] to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Review link to the made-up controversy, rape kit. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)[http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080926141845.aspx]

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Suspect sentence ==

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Problem==
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. [[User:LilyWinston|LilyWinston]] 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008

==Founding Fathers' Christian faith==

"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there '''any''' evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously '''false''' and it smears this site's reputation. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pronunciation ==

While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? [[User:TexasEx|TexasEx]] 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Sources==
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word ''"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0"'', listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Good Rip of Obama Today==
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Polling Information==
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

: I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.

:Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Given the choice? ==

"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."[10]. "
What does "given the choice" mean? Would her parents have let her kill the baby? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Acceleration

2008-06-29T22:29:41Z

MichaelK: Removing distorted and barely relevant .gif image.

'''Acceleration''' is the rate of change of an object's [[velocity]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. More precisely, it is defined as the derivative of [[velocity]] over time, and is a vector. For an object to undergo an acceleration, a [[force]] needs to be exerted on the object. An example is a falling object on [[Earth]], which is subject to a [[gravity|gravitational force]]. The resulting acceleration ''g'' is independent of the mass of the object, and is approximately 9.81 [[meter]]s per [[second]] per [[second]] near the Earth's surface<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>.

According to Newton's Second Law of Motion, calculation of acceleration is done with the formula <math>\vec F=m \vec a</math>, where F=force and is measured in Newtons, m=mass and is measured in kilograms, and a=acceleration and is measured in meters per second squared. Using the formula we can find that <math> \vec a=\frac{\vec F}{m}</math>.

In the case of straight trajectory, if an object's acceleration and [[velocity]] have the same sign, the object is gaining [[speed]]. If acceleration and velocity have different signs, the object is losing speed. If [[velocity]] is [[zero]], acceleration is not necessarily zero. If acceleration is zero, velocity is not necessarily zero.

In case of a curvilinear trajectory, there is an acceleration, even if speed is constant.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics ]]

Nuclear Energy

2008-06-29T03:29:54Z

MichaelK: The first of many edits needed by this page.

'''Nuclear energy''' is [[energy]] gained from the destruction of subatomic particles during nuclear fission or fusion. The main uses of nuclear technology is in nuclear reactors, which use the energy in an atom to create power, or nuclear weapons, which use the energy in warfare. There are two types of reactions, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

==Theory==
The energy released from a nuclear fission device is given by the equation <math>E= MC</math>2. Spelled out, mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. This equation is the formula for the energy contained in an atom. This energy is released in a nuclear weapon when a speeding [[neutron]] collides with the atom, blasting it apart, and releasing the binding energy of the atom. In a nuclear weapon, the atom blasted apart then releases other neutrons which collide with other atoms. This keeps occurring until there are no atoms left to destroy. This is known as a nuclear chain reaction. In a nuclear fission power plant, however, the nuclear core is designed so that a runaway chain reaction cannot occur, because there are not enough atoms for it.

Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is based on putting atoms together, as opposed to breaking them apart in fission, heavier atoms often require less bonding energy than the combined original binding energies of the fusing lighter atoms.

==Weapon==
[[Image:Hiroshima Nuke.gif|thumb|left|Nuclear "mushroom cloud" at Hiroshima, Japan]]
A nuclear weapon is a weapon designed with a nuclear warhead. Nuclear weapons not only produce mass devastation in the blast radius, but also create a nuclear fallout for many years to come. Recently, there has been much fear of a terrorist state or organization getting hold of either a [[Soviet]] weapon or creating one of their own.

Nuclear fission based weapons occur by the nuclear chain reaction system, while thermonuclear weapons create nuclear fusion in their reaction.

==Power==
[[Image:Nuclear Power Plant.jpg|thumb|right|Nuclear power plant]]
Nuclear fission has existed for power over fifty years, starting with the [[Manhattan Project]]. It currently supplies electricity to many of the nations of the world. The nuclear industry was booming in the 1960's and 1970's, but political opposition stopped nuclear construction in the USA. There is talk of renewing construction because it is the cleanest and cheapest source of large quantities of power, it doesn't depend on Mideast oil, and it doesn't emit greenhouse gases.

Nuclear fusion has been sought vigorously as a clean energy source, but the end result in every try has been less energy resulting in the reaction than was put into it. Nevertheless, several countries still invest heavily in nuclear fusion energy programs in the hope that someday they may become viable.

==Culture==
Nuclear weapons are often colloquially called "nukes."

A nuclear fusion reactor was a central part of the 2004 film [[Spiderman 2]].

[[category:science]]

Mark Levin

2008-06-27T19:42:53Z

MichaelK: Adding current and former occupations.

'''Mark Levin''' is a Jewish [[conservative]] radio talk show host, author, constitutional lawyer, and former director of presidential personnel under President [[Ronald Reagan]]. Mark published the book ''Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is destroying America'' which discusses how [[liberal]], [[activist judges]] are [[Judicial activism|legislating from the bench]].

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

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External Links==
*http://www.marklevinshow.com/ Official website
*http://marklevinfan.com/ Mark Levin Fan website

{{DEFAULTSORT:Levin, Mark}}

[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Jewish Conservatives]]

Conservapedia:Editing etiquette

2008-06-22T15:17:51Z

MichaelK: It isn't just athiest geologists who believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old. I'm sure Hindu geologists have no trouble accepting the science behind the billion-year dating of the Earth.

Wiki editors have found that good '''editing etiquette''' can reduce the arguments that frequently occur between editors with opposing viewpoints.

== Edit or discuss first? ==

An editor will often chastise another editor for not discussing an alteration to an article before altering the article, yet will often edit an article themselves without discussing it first. Does this make them hypocrites? Sometimes, yes, but often it's because the circumstances are different.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Edit an article without discussing your changes first, if you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change.'''

But how would you know what other editors will accept? Here's some ideas:
* You are removing vandalism.
* You are correcting spelling or grammar (but don't change American spelling to British spelling, etc. except where appropriate. As a general rule, that would be if the article is about something related to that country).
* If you are inserting an undisputed fact. For example, ''[[Australia]] is in the southern hemisphere''.
* If you properly reference your "facts". Another editor is less likely to remove your edit if you have references to show that your facts are correct.
* If you put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, ''Many geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old'' is better than ''The world is 4.5 billion years old.''
* You explain your edits. This can be done in an edit comment (Summary edit field) or on the article's talk page. In the latter case, putting "See talk" in the edit comment will alert other editors to the fact that you have discussed your edit on the talk page.
Notwithstanding the above, a case can also be made sometimes that it is better to see a proposed edit in the context of the article rather than in isolation on the talk page.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Favour improving another person's edits over deleting them.'''

This follows naturally from the previous rule. If another editor thinks that his change should be in there, then clearly you cannot have a reasonable expectation that the first editor, at least, will accept you deleting his edit. So improving his edit (perhaps from ''The world is 4.5 billion years old'' to ''Secular geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old'') is better than simply deleting.

If you think that the edit really should come out, explain why in the edit comment or on the talk page. If your reasons are good enough, chances are the first editor will see your point and accept his change being removed.

If you question other editor's facts, then instead of just deleting them, put a {{tl|fact}} tag after the claimed fact, to give him an opportunity to support his edit. If the original editor fails to support his fact in a reasonable time (e.g. a week), then you have better justification for removing his "fact".

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Avoid edit wars.'''

An '''edit war''' is when two editors keep undoing the other editor's changes. Such a situation is totally unproductive and serves only to raise tempers. They are also against the [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|Conservapedia Guidelines]].

If you cannot agree on a change even after discussing it, ask other editors for their opinions or a Sysop to mediate.

== Use the appropriate page for discussions ==

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss an article on that article's talk page.'''

When discussing changes to an article with another editor, have the discussion on the article's talk page, where other editors can see it and contribute if they wish, rather than on one of the editors' talk pages, where the discussion is unlikely to be seen by other editors.

This is also useful for ''later'' editors looking to see why something in the article is the way it is. They can expect to look on the article's talk page, not somewhere else entirely.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss off-topic discussions elsewhere.'''

Sometimes discussions about an article lead off to other matters. If the discussion is no longer about the article, move the discussion elsewhere. Conservapedia has more options for this than Wikipedia. Here are some of the options:
* Discuss it on one of your user talk pages.
* Create a [[debate topics|debate page]] for discussing that issue.
* Create an [[essay]] for putting down your own thoughts on an issue.

== Edit histories ==
Edit histories allow other editors to see how an article was changed, and who changed it. Editors can also "step through" the edit histories to follow a series of changes.

Following are some guidelines for making this easier on other users.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use the "Show preview" button.'''

Using the Show preview button to check how your edit will look will reduce the number of changes to the article, keeping the edit history shorter. It can be irritating to other editors to have to step through a lot of very minor changes that could have been avoided if the Show preview button was used.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Don't make massive changes in one go.'''

When you make massive changes in one edit, it makes it hard for other editors to see what was actually changed. Consider breaking your edits into smaller steps, particularly when moving paragraphs around. Changing ''and'' moving a paragraph in the one edit can make it difficult for the software to highlight the differences properly.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use edit summaries.'''

When you make a change, please put a brief (or not so brief) comment in the Summary box to explain your edit.

Common comments include:
* ''Revert'' (or ''Rv'')
* ''Spelling'' (or ''Sp'')
* ''Grammar''
* ''copyedit'' (indicating that there were changes like a newspaper editor might make, to improve the spelling, grammar, or wording, but not changing the meaning nor deleting nor adding information).
* If your change cannot be explained briefly, an edit comment of ''see talk'' will alert other editors that you have explained (or will explain) your edit on the talk page.
In your user preferences, you can select to have the software remind you if you don't include an edit comment.

William Howard Taft

2008-06-22T15:10:36Z

MichaelK: Making the dates of the term of the vice president visible.

{{President
|image=William_taft.jpg
|seq=27
|term_start=March 4, 1909
|term_end=March 4, 1913<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP060301.htm</ref>
|party=Republican
|vp=James S. Sherman
|vp_dates=1909-1912
|2vp=None
|2vp_dates=1912-1913
|previous=Theodore Roosevelt
|next=Woodrow Wilson
|birth_date=September 15, 1857
|birth_place=Cincinnati, Ohio
|death_date=March 8, 1930
|death_place=Washington, D.C.
|spouse=Helen Herron Taft
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Unitarian]]

}}
'''William Howard Taft''' was the 27th [[President of the United States of America]], serving from 1909 to 1913. He is particularly famous for being the portliest president in history, requiring a special bathtub to be installed in the White House. Taft is the only President to go on to serve as [[Chief Justice of the United States]], in addition to being the first-ever president to toss out the ceremonial [[first pitch]] at a [[baseball]] game. He was also the last [[Unitarian]] President, and the only incumbent President in history to seek re-election only to come in third in the [[popular vote]]. This happened in the [[United States presidential election, 1912|1912 Presidential election]] after Taft's supporters prevented [[Theodore Roosevelt]] from winning the nomination of the [[Republican]] party, leading Roosevelt to form the [[Progressive Party]] and come in ahead of Taft but behind [[Woodrow Wilson]] on election day.

He died on February 3, 1930 at the age of 71. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents, William Howard Taft]] by Jane Clark Casey, Children's Press, 1989. </ref> Along with [[John F. Kennedy]], he is one of only two presidents to be buried at [[Arlington_National_Cemetery|Arlington Cemetery]].

==Notes & References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Taft, William Howard}}

[[category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Deliberate ignorance

2008-06-15T23:28:21Z

MichaelK: Adding quotation marks around common expressions.

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php here].</ref>
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
*The claim that there is a verifiable link between Al-Quaida and Iraq, so we must invade, although all evidence points to the contrary.
(add more)

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "They hate us for our freedom!"

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:philosophy]]

John McCain

2008-06-09T02:50:00Z

MichaelK: /* Military career */ Lots of corrections of sloppy writing.

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb|275px|'''Senator John McCain, R-Arizona''']]
'''John Sidney McCain III''' (born in the Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936) <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> is the senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from the state of [[Arizona]], having served 20 years after replacing [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1986. He is currently the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> McCain, a [[Baptist]],<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html McCain Identifies Himself as a [[Baptist]]</ref> has clinched the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 Election]]. <ref>[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NATIONWORLD/803050441/0/LOCAL1901 ''McCain clinches GOP nomination; Huckabee bows out''] 5 March 2008 IndyStar.com</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255535,00.html John McCain Announces Plans for '08 Presidential Candidacy on 'Late Night With David Letterman'], Associated Press, 1 March 2007</ref>

John McCain and the Bush Administration agree on most issues. These include making the Bush tax cuts permanent, continuing the war in Iraq, reforming Social Security, and continuing and expanding Bush's supply-side economic policies. Voteview.com even rated McCain as the second most conservative Senator in the 109th Congress (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2007).[http://voteview.com/SEN109.HTM]

==Early Life==
McCain's family has a long history in the U.S. military, with ancestors fighting as army soldiers in the Indian Wars, [[American Revolutionary War]], [[War of 1812]], for the Confederate States of America in the [[American Civil War]], and in [[World War I]]. Both his father and grandfather were high-ranking United States Navy admirals. In addition, McCain's two son's are currently serving in the U.S. Navy. In 1951, the McCain family moved to Northern [[Virginia]] and he attended Episcopal High School, a private preparatory boarding school in Alexandria. McCain was on the wrestling team and went on to graduate in 1954. He later joined the U.S. Naval Academy and graduated in 1958, where he graduated 894 out of 899.

==Military career==
[[Image:McCain 1965.jpg|left|thumb|200px|McCain photographed in 1965]]
McCain served in the [[United States Navy]] from 1958 to 1981. He spent two and a half years as a naval aviator in training at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas. By 1967, McCain was a veteran pilot aboard the [[USS Forrestal]] aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam. On 29 July 1967, while preparing to take off on a bombing run over North Vietnam a missile accidentally fired from another plane, hitting the fuel tanks on McCain's aircraft and triggering explosions and fire. McCain escaped from his plane by crawling onto the nose of the aircraft and diving on to the ship's deck which was ablaze from burning fuel. His attempt to rescue a fellow pilot whose flight suit was on fire was prevented when McCain was blown over by further explosions. When the fire was contained 24 hours later, 134 men had been killed and hundreds more injured. It was called the worst non-combat-related accident in U.S. naval history.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=526451&in_page_id=1811 ''The coronation of the ultimate survivor, John McCain''] 5 March 2008 [[Daily Mail]]</ref>

On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi. He fractured both arms and a leg during the accident, bringing him to unconsciousness. A group of Vietnamese guerrillas quickly surrounded him. After spiting on and kicking him, they took him Hoa Loa Prison to became a prisoner of war (POW). They interrogated him to give them information in return for medical care. However, McCain only gave them his name and date of birth. He did not receive medical treatment until the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral and they brought in a doctor for medical care. McCain spent six weeks in the Hoa Loa hospital. At the hospital, McCain lost 50 pounds and his hair turned white. He was sent to a prisoner-of-war camp in December of 1967. In July 1968, McCain's father was named Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC); John McCain was offered a chance to return home. However he turned it down, afraid of being used of propaganda purposes, and wanting to honor the POW "code of conduct, "first in, first out": he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.

The North Vietnamese began to intensely torture McCain, subjecting him to frequent beatings and using rope to bind him into painful positions, causing McCain's teeth and bones to be broken. He was forced to tape and sign an anti-American "confession" that said, in part, "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died, and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors." McCain would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine." Two weeks later the Vietnamese tried to force him to sign a second anti-American statement, but this time he refused to. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal. Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five-and-a-half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 15, 1973.

===Decorations===
*Silver Star
*Legion of Merit
*Bronze Star
*[[Purple Heart]]
*Distinguished Flying Cross
*Prisoner of War Medal
*National Defense Service Medal
*Vietnam Service Medal
*Vietnam Campaign Medal

==Political career==
===Congressional===
McCain had been working in [[Phoenix]] for his father-in-law's company Hensley & Co, which is an Anheuser-Busch beer wholesaler and distributor. After gaining support from local business leaders, he ran for a congressional seat for Arizona's 1st congressional district as a Republican in 1982. His [[liberal]] opponents labeled him as a "carpetbagger." McCain responded to a voter making this charge, saying,

"Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi."

With the endorsements of local newspapers, McCain easily won the election. In 1983, he became President of the Republican freshman class of representatives. His voting record generally fell in line with the policy's of President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s. During his four years in [[Congress]], McCain and his wife Cindy had three children.

===Senatorial===
[[Image:Reagan mccain.jpg|left|thumb|300px|3/3/1987 President Reagan and Nancy Reagan greet John McCain in the Blue Room during a dinner for newly elected members of the 100th Congress]]
When Republican and [[conservative]] icon [[Barry Goldwater]] retired from the United States Senate in Arizona in 1986, Congressman McCain announced his candidacy for the seat. He easily won the election, defeating his Democratic opponent Richard Kimball, by 20 percentage points. When entering the Senate, he became a member of the powerful Armed Services Committee, and he also joined the Commerce Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee. During the 1988 Presidential Election, McCain was named chairman of Veterans for Bush. In 1991, Senator McCain became part of the "Keating Five" scandal, were McCain and four other Senators (all Democrats) were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined that McCain was only minimally involved, and McCain (and the four other Senators) were not charged with any crimes.

==="Maverick" Image in the Senate===
John McCain has gained a reputation as a "maverick" for his sponsorship of many bills and leadership on almost every issue. Starting in 1994, he worked with Democrat [[Wisconsin]] Senator [[Russ Feingold]] on campaign finance reform. The McCain-Feingold bill banned "soft money." It passed and was signed into law on November 6th, 2002, by President Bush. In the 1990's, McCain gained attention for his strong opposition to pork barrel spending. He championed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, which gave the President the power to veto individual spending items. However, in 1998, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled the act unconstitutional.

After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues, such as tax cuts, climate change, and gun legislation. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], McCain wrote legislation that created the 9/11 Commission, while he and Democrat Senator Fritz Hollings co-sponsored the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that federalized airport security. In May 2005, McCain led the so-called "[[Gang of 14]]" in the Senate, which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances". McCain also co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform (see below under political record for details).

===2000 Presidential Campaign===
McCain launched his first campaign for President in 2000, when he challenged then-[[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican nomination. McCain's campaign was surprisingly strong, by ignoring the [[Iowa Caucus]], he was able to win the [[New Hampshire]] primary by nineteen percentage points. And then won the [[Michigan Primary]]. However he went on to lose [[South Carolina]], and 9 out of the 13 [[Super Tuesday]] states. McCain withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

==The following are Senator McCain's political views based on his stated positions and voting record:==
'''Domestic Issues'''
===Balanced Budget===
McCain has emphasized reducing government spending over tax cuts. He is one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of pork barrel spending and has pledged to veto any bill with pork as President.

===[[Education]]===
McCain supports school vouchers and charter schools. His voting record shows support for reducing the federal government's role in education. He voted for school vouchers for Washington, D.C., education savings accounts, and against $5billion for grants to local educational agencies. McCain sponsored the Education A-Plus bill in 1997 and again in 1999, which said that parents can open tax-free saving accounts for their children's school supplies. McCain also co-sponsored the Child Nutrition Act, which would provide federal funding for at-risk children. He has publicly stated he supports [[intelligent design]] teaching in schools.

===Health Care===
McCain's record and stated positions on health care is conservative. He is against socialized health care, or health coverage mandates. McCain supports tax credits for personal health savings accounts and enhancing competition in the health care industry to improve quality and lower costs. He also supports allowing citizens to purchase out of state health insurance. In an October 2007 statement, McCain said: "In health care, we believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care. We do not believe in coercion and the use of state power to mandate care, coverage or costs."

===Energy===
McCain supports increasing ethanol imports and more production of hybrid vehicles. He is co-sponsor of a Senate cap-and-trade bill designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. McCain also supports increasing nuclear power. He has consistently voted against drilling for [[oil]] in the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] (ANWR), because of environmental concerns.

===[[Environment]]===
McCain's position on [[global warming]] and other environmental issues have put him at odds with [[conservative]]s. On January 2007, McCain said, "we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed." On October 30, 2003, he co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act (S.139), which would require the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations to limit the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors. The bill was defeated in October 2004 by a margin of 43-55. McCain is a member - and was endorsed - by the Republicans for Environmental Protection organization. He has taken some conservative stances on the environment, such as voting to confirm [[Gale Norton]] as Secretary of Interior, a vote in favor of preserving the budget for ANWR oil drilling (although he has voted against drilling there), and a vote in favor of reducing funding of renewable and solar energy.

===[[Immigration]]===
Senator McCain's position on illegal immigration has arguably given him the most criticisms from conservatives. On May 12, 2005, McCain joined Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]) as co-sponsor of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. The bill would legalize and eventually grant citizenship to the estimated 12–20 million [[illegal alien]]s in the United States and have them eminently start collecting social security and other government benefits. The bill never came for a vote on the Senate floor. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 are two additional compromises based on the original McCain-Kennedy bill. McCain has consistently voted for visa's for skilled workers. McCain voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and has said border security should be a bigger priority the the illegal aliens who are currently here.

===Outsourcing===
McCain has supported reducing barriers to trade and globalization. He supports the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

===[[Social Security]]===
McCain is a strong supporter of private Social Security accounts.

===Tax Reform===
In 2001, McCain gained attention as one of only two Republicans who voted against President Bush's tax cuts. He opposed accelerating the cuts in 2003, saying, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit (although the budget deficit has gone down since the tax cuts)." He has now changed his stance, by voting to make the tax cuts permanent, and says he would do the same as President. In 2002, Senator McCain was one of only two Republicans to twice vote against the permanent repeal of the Death Tax. He has also refused to sign a pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Freedom not to impose any new taxes or increase existing taxes. However, many of McCain's votes has shown support for lower taxes, such as eliminating the marriage penalty, a 1997 vote to cut capital gains taxes and he introduced measures that would require a sixty-vote majority to pass a tax increase.

'''Foreign Policy'''

===Homeland Security===
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk [[helicopter]] for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]
McCain has voted in support of the U.S. [[PATRIOT Act]] as well as National Missile Defense. However, he has joined [[liberal]]'s in support of immediately closing [[Guantanamo Bay]], and moving all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. On October 3, 2005, he introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The bill was passed and signed by President [[George W. Bush]]. McCain has recently criticized the practice of water boarding, saying "they [other presidential candidates] should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." However, McCain still voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from water boarding prisoners.

===[[Iran]]===
McCain has said that "We continue to be concerned about Iranian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons." He tried to ban Iran from playing in the 2006 World Cup, citing Iranian President [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]'s [[Holocaust]] denials.

===[[Iraq]]===
McCain voted with the majority of the Senate in favor of the 2002 "Iraq War Resolution" authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq and overthrow the [[Saddam Hussein]] regime. McCain went on to became a critic of the management of the war, arguing that there wasn't enough troop strength in the area. McCain publicly stated that he had "no confidence" in then-Secretary of Defense [[Donald Rumsfeld]]. However, he refused to call for his resignation, saying that "the president picks his team, and the president has the right to stay with that team if he wants to." McCain became one of the strongest leading advocates in the Senate for the 2007 troop surge, which increased the number of American troops by 20,500, deployed to the Iraq War to provide security to [[Baghdad]] and [[Al Anbar Province]]. On February 4, he criticized a non-binding resolution opposing the troop buildup, calling it a "vote of no confidence" in the US military.

==Social Issues==
===[[Abortion]]===
[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|100px|A human fetus in the womb]]
McCain's record in the Senate on abortion is generally pro-life. He voted for the 2003 [[Partial Birth Abortion]] Ban Act. McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education. However, during his first Presidential campaign for the 2000 election, McCain said the following on [[Roe v. Wade]], "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." He has since changed his position, saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned. McCain is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership and supports embryonic stem cell research.

===[[Gun Control]]===
[[Image:Gun.jpg|left|100px]]
McCain's record on gun control is mixed. He co-sponsored the [[Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001]], that would reduce gun shows, force gun-owners to purchase trigger locks making their firearms useless for self-defense, and would encourage federal agents to arrest and convict gun-owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal gun laws. However, McCain has frequently voted in support of the Second Amendment, such as voting against background checks at gun shows and voting in support of prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In August of 1999, McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details. However, he still voted against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the efforts to renew it, as well as the Brady Bill.

===[[Same-sex marriage]]===
McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, arguing that the issue of same-sex marriage should be left to the states.

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]''
McCain began the race as the presumptive front runner and the most formidable of either party, based on his longevity in the Senate and his previous race in 2000. McCain informally stated he would be a candidate for the 2008 Presidential Election on the Late Show with David Letterman on February 28, 2007, and officially announced his candidacy in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, two months later. By a few weeks prior to making his announcement on Letterman, he was beginning to trail behind former Mayor of [[New York City]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in the polls. McCain supported the 2007 proposal by President George W. Bush for a "surge", an increase in the number of U.S. troops deployed in the Iraq War. He started a series of campaign events entitled the "No Surrender Tour." His campaign became far more prominent with his wins in the New Hampshire primary and on Super Tuesday, and since [[Mitt Romney]] endorsed him was considered a virtual certainty to win the nomination. He finally reached the 1,191 delegates to win the nomination on the Super Tuesday II contests on March 4th. Current polling shows Senator McCain ahead of both Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] in head-to-head match ups.

McCain has been criticized by John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the Obama-Daley machine as being a Republican Only in Name; see [[RINO]].{{fact}}

== Fundraising in 2007 ==
McCain struggled to raise money for his 2008 presidential campaign, a sign of weakness for a front-runner. "Former [[Massachusetts]] Governor [[Mitt Romney]] raised $23 million for his presidential campaign in the first three months of [2007], almost doubling the total of top Republican contender John McCain. McCain, an [[Arizona]] senator, brought in about $12.5 million in the first quarter, his campaign said. 'We had hoped to do better,' said Terry Nelson, his campaign manager. Former [[New York]] Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] said he raised $15 million, including more than $10 million in March alone."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aZ7SuEo0wuMM&refer=home</ref>

However, for all his money and spending, [[Rudy Giuliani]] won only one delegate.

== Electability ==

He has been called "the Democrats' worst nightmare" in an ad created by the John McCain campaign.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w7OKBAT0Fk&feature=related ''Democrats Worst Nightmare''] Accessed 5 March 2008</ref>

Of the major contenders, only McCain has a background that includes military service. [[Colonel]] [[George "Bud" Day|Bud Day]], the United States' most highly decorated officer, and the most decorated since [[General]] [[Douglas MacArthur]], said: ''"Having stood side-by-side with John McCain on the battlefield, I know that he has the character and will to lead this great country. John McCain is the Commander-In-Chief our military needs during this generational struggle against global terrorism."''

McCain has the reputation as an independent-minded maverick<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402301.html McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid], [[Michael Shear|Michael D. Shear]], ''[[Washington Post]]'', March 15, 2007</ref> and favorite of the media.<ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/blumenthal McCain Mutiny], [[Max Blumenthal]], ''[[The Nation]]'', February 21, 2007</ref> David Limbaugh said, "McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back -- not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the [[Mainstream media|mainstream liberal media]]." <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24669 'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms], [[David Limbaugh]], ''[[Human Events]]'', 01/25/2008</ref>

John McCain was a member of the [[Keating Five]], a scandal relating to the [[Savings and Loan Crisis]]. The Senate Ethics Committee criticized him for "questionable conduct."

John McCain has cancer (melanoma) and has undergone multiple operations for it.<ref>http://www.riskworld.com/PressRel/2001/01q3/PR01a027.htm</ref> Cancer was an issue that hurt the presidential candidacy of Paul Tsongas in 1992. However, it was not even mentioned in the 2004 presidential campaign, despite the fact that John Kerry was treated for prostate cancer in early 2003.

McCain is also known to not like reading from teleprompters, and prefers to speak off-the-cuff from his heart.

John McCain is 71 years old, making him one of the oldest candidates to seek the presidency. Several issues relating to McCain's advanced aged and health have been discussed in the media.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/mccain.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref>

McCain was shot down over Hanoi and held as a [[Prisoner of War]] for five-and-a-half years.<ref>[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html John McCain] at the New York Times</ref>
{{cquote|On October 26, 1967, during his 23rd air mission, McCain's plane was shot down over the North Vietnamese capital of Hanoi. His captors soon learned he was the son of a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Navy and repeatedly offered him early release, but McCain refused, ... knowing that the North Vietnamese would use his release as a powerful piece of propaganda.

He eventually spent five and a half years in various prison camps, three and a half of those in solitary confinement, and was repeatedly [[US POWs in Vietnam|beaten and tortured]] before he was finally released, along with other American POWs, in March 1973, two months after the Vietnam cease fire went into effect.

Though McCain had lost most of his physical strength and flexibility, he was determined to continue serving as a naval aviator. After a painful nine months of rehabilitation, he returned to flying duty, but it soon became clear that his injuries had permanently impaired his ability to advance in the Navy.<ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography (1936-)]</ref>}}

McCain graduated from the National War College in 1974. Upon his retirement from the Navy in 1981, as a Captain, he had been commended with the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and Distinguished Flying Cross.<ref> [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref>

== Votes missed ==
As of August 2007, McCain had missed more votes during the current session of Congress than any Senator other than [[South Dakota]] [[Democrat]] [[Tim Johnson]], who had suffered a brain hemorrhage that had kept him from Congress. He had missed over 48% of his votes. <ref>Lawrence Journal-World, August 10, 2007</ref> This is due to the fact that he is running for President, and he has to attend political rallies across the country.

==Personal life==
[[Image:Cindy McCain.jpg|thumb|Cindy McCain]]
McCain has been married twice. His first marriage, to Carol Shepp, ended in [[divorce]] in 1980. His second and current wife is Cindy Lou Hensley.

His son John Sidney IV is a Midshipman at the [[United States Naval Academy]], Annapolis, and his son James is a non-commissioned officer in the [[United States Marine Corps]], who is serving in [[Iraq]] as part of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]].

===McCain's family===
*Wife Cindy
*4 sons
**Douglas
**Andrew
**John (''"Jack"'') Sidney IV
**James
*3 daughters
**Sidney
**Meghan
**Bridget
*Parents
**[[Admiral]] John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from [[Indiana]])
**[[Roberta McCain|Roberta Wright McCain]] (from [[Oklahoma]]).

== Books ==
* ''Faith of My Fathers'' (Random House; 1999) ISBN 0-3755-0191-6
* ''Odysseus in America'' (Scribner; 2002) ISBN 0-7432-1156-1
* ''Worth Fighting For: A Memoir'' (Diane Publ. Co; 2002) ISBN 0-7567-6759-8
* ''Medal of Honor'' (Artisan; 2003) ISBN 1-5796-5240-9
* ''Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life'' (Random House; 2004) ISBN 1-4000-6030-3
* ''Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember'' (Random House; 2005) ISBN 1-4000-6412-0
* ''Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them'' (Twelve; 2007) ISBN 0-4466-9911-X

==Further reading==
*McCain, John [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513224&in_page_id=1811 ''My six years of hell: John McCain recalls life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam''] 8 February 2008 [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 9 February 2008

==See Also==
* [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/John McCain|Articles about '''John McCain''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[White House]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQsckD9trn4&eurl=http://evangelicalsformccain.org/meetthesenator.htm ''John McCain: Courageous Service''] - Streaming video documentary hosted at YouTube, including footage of McCain's time as a POW and the Forrestal incident.
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography]
*[http://evangelicalsformccain.org/index.htm Evangelicals for McCain] - Christians, Families and Patriots for John McCain
*[http://studentsformccain08.blogspot.com/ Students for McCain 2008]
*[http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/mccains-mom-pop.html McCain's Mom Pops Off]
*[http://www.rd.com/national-interest/people-and-politics/our-interview-with-sen-john-mccain/article.html Presidential Candidate John McCain on the Issues]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:McCain, John}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-27T14:27:24Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207Pb/206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-21T22:01:54Z

MichaelK:

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-21T22:01:23Z

MichaelK:

[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207/Pb206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-20T18:36:04Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-16T01:02:11Z

MichaelK:

[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at teh same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-16T01:01:22Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at teh same rate leaving the ration unchanged.
--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-12T21:55:00Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-12T21:54:07Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theory. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-12T15:31:50Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-12T15:30:04Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-12T15:28:47Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I did exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-10T18:38:25Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

User:MichaelK/Measuring c

2008-05-10T18:36:51Z

MichaelK:

The speed at which radiation propagates through a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. We measure the speed of light in this experiment by determining how much a mirror that is rotating at a known speed has rotated during the time it takes a beam of light to travel out to a known distance and back. We use an apparatus specifically manufactured for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. This device consists of a motor that spins a mirror at a very high rate, a laser, and several mirrors and lenses to focus and direct the beam.
A laser beam is shown through a lens L1 which focuses it at a point at position s, then through a beam-splitter which deflects some of the radiation into a measuring microscope. The rest of the radiation is reflected by a rotating mirror Rm to a fixed mirror Fm 13 meters away. This mirror reflects the beam back to the rotating mirror which, during the time the beam has propagated from the fixed mirror, has rotated a certain amount. This amount depends on the time it takes for the beam of light to reach the fixed mirror and return, which is given by the equation <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, where t is the elapsed time, D is the distance between the fixed mirror and the rotating mirror, and c is the speed of light. The beam is then deflected by the beam-splitter 90 degrees to a measuring microscope at point s’. The beam splitter is located at the same distance from points s and s’. When the laser beam strikes the rotating mirror, it is deflected at an angle which is equal to 2θ, where θ is the angle of deflection of the mirror. Point S1 is where the beam is reflected onto the fixed mirror Fm, and S is the point where the virtual image of the beam appears to have been reflected onto the virtual image of the fixed mirror after the rotating mirror has rotated during the time it took the beam to travel from the rotating mirror to the fixed mirror and back again. The distance between S1 and S is ∆S. Due to the focusing of the beam by lens L1 and the spherical shape of the fixed mirror, the apparent displacement of the beam due to rotation when viewed from points s or s’ will be (-i/o)∆S, where i is the distance of the lens from the image and o is the distance of the lens from the object. The distance of the lens from the image is the distance between lens L2 and lens L1 minus the focal length of L1, and the distance of the lens from the object is the distance between the rotating mirror (Rm) and the fixed mirror (Fm) added to the distance between lens L2 and the rotating mirror. Therefore, <math>-i/o=\frac{A}{D+B}</math>. So the distance between location at which the beam actually shines onto the fixed mirror and the location of the point the beam appears to shine onto the fixed mirror in the virtual image reflected from the rotating mirror when viewed from point s or point s’ is <math>\Delta s=\Delta s'=\frac{A}{D+B}\Delta s</math>. This distance is determined by measuring the difference in the position of the beam at point s’ when the mirror is rotating clockwise and when the mirror is rotating counter-clockwise. Since a beam of radiation would undergo a displacement of 2D∆θ on the fixed mirror if the rotating mirror were rotated by an angle of θ, <math>\Delta s'=sD\Delta\theta \frac{A}{D+B}</math>. Since ∆θ = 2ωt if ω is constant, and <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, then <math>\Delta\theta=\frac{2D\omega}{c}</math>. So <math>c=\frac{4AD^2\omega}{(D+B)\Delta s'}</math>. The device measures the rotational speed in revolutions per second, so that value must be multiplied by 2π before being entered into the equation. The reason that the beam appears as a dot in the microscope instead of as a line is because of the spherical shape of the mirror that is thirteen meters away.

User:MichaelK/Measuring c

2008-05-10T18:35:01Z

MichaelK:

The speed at which radiation propagates through a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. We measure the speed of light in this experiment by determining how much a mirror that is rotating at a known speed has rotated during the time it takes a beam of light to travel out to a known distance and back. We use an apparatus specifically manufactured for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. This device consists of a motor that spins a mirror at a very high rate, a laser, and several mirrors and lenses to focus and direct the beam.
A laser beam is shown through a lens L1 which focuses it at a point at position s, then through a beam-splitter which deflects some of the radiation into a measuring microscope. The rest of the radiation is reflected by a rotating mirror Rm to a fixed mirror Fm 13 meters away. This mirror reflects the beam back to the rotating mirror which, during the time the beam has propagated from the fixed mirror, has rotated a certain amount. This amount depends on the time it takes for the beam of light to reach the fixed mirror and return, which is given by the equation <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, where t is the elapsed time, D is the distance between the fixed mirror and the rotating mirror, and c is the speed of light. The beam is then deflected by the beam-splitter 90 degrees to a measuring microscope at point s’. The beam splitter is located at the same distance from points s and s’. When the laser beam strikes the rotating mirror, it is deflected at an angle which is equal to 2θ, where θ is the angle of deflection of the mirror. Point S1 is where the beam is reflected onto the fixed mirror Fm, and S is the point where the virtual image of the beam appears to have been reflected onto the virtual image of the fixed mirror after the rotating mirror has rotated during the time it took the beam to travel from the rotating mirror to the fixed mirror and back again. The distance between S1 and S is ∆S. Due to the focusing of the beam by lens L1 and the spherical shape of the fixed mirror, the apparent displacement of the beam due to rotation when viewed from points s or s’ will be (-i/o)∆S, where i is the distance of the lens from the image and o is the distance of the lens from the object. The distance of the lens from the image is the distance between lens L2 and lens L1 minus the focal length of L1, and the distance of the lens from the object is the distance between the rotating mirror (Rm) and the fixed mirror (Fm) added to the distance between lens L2 and the rotating mirror. Therefore, <math>-i/o=\frac{A}{D+B}</math>. So the distance between location at which the beam actually shines onto the fixed mirror and the location of the point the beam appears to shine onto the fixed mirror in the virtual image reflected from the rotating mirror when viewed from point s or point s’ is <math>\Delta s=\Delta s'=\frac{A}{D+B}\Delta s</math>. This distance is determined by measuring the difference in the position of the beam at point s’ when the mirror is rotating clockwise and when the mirror is rotating counter-clockwise. Since a beam of radiation would undergo a displacement of 2D∆θ on the fixed mirror if the rotating mirror were rotated by an angle of θ, <math>\Delta s'=sD\Delta\theta \frac{A}{D+B}</math>. Since ∆θ = 2ωt if ω is constant, and <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, then <math>\Delta\theta=\frac{2D\omega}{c}</math>. So <math>c=\frac{4AD^2\omega}{(D+B)\Delta s'}</math>. The device measures the rotational speed in revolutions per second, so that value must be multiplied by 2π before being entered into the equation. The reason that the beam appears as a dot in the microscope instead of as a line is because of the spherical shape of the mirror that is thirteen meters away.

User:MichaelK/Measuring c

2008-05-10T18:33:55Z

MichaelK:

The speed at which radiation propagates through a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. We measure the speed of light in this experiment by determining how much a mirror that is rotating at a known speed has rotated during the time it takes a beam of light to travel out to a known distance and back. We use an apparatus specifically manufactured for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. This device consists of a motor that spins a mirror at a very high rate, a laser, and several mirrors and lenses to focus and direct the beam.
A laser beam is shown through a lens L1 which focuses it at a point at position s, then through a beam-splitter which deflects some of the radiation into a measuring microscope. The rest of the radiation is reflected by a rotating mirror Rm to a fixed mirror Fm 13 meters away. This mirror reflects the beam back to the rotating mirror which, during the time the beam has propagated from the fixed mirror, has rotated a certain amount. This amount depends on the time it takes for the beam of light to reach the fixed mirror and return, which is given by the equation <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, where t is the elapsed time, D is the distance between the fixed mirror and the rotating mirror, and c is the speed of light. The beam is then deflected by the beam-splitter 90 degrees to a measuring microscope at point s’. The beam splitter is located at the same distance from points s and s’. When the laser beam strikes the rotating mirror, it is deflected at an angle which is equal to 2θ, where θ is the angle of deflection of the mirror. Point S1 is where the beam is reflected onto the fixed mirror Fm, and S is the point where the virtual image of the beam appears to have been reflected onto the virtual image of the fixed mirror after the rotating mirror has rotated during the time it took the beam to travel from the rotating mirror to the fixed mirror and back again. The distance between S1 and S is ∆S. Due to the focusing of the beam by lens L1 and the spherical shape of the fixed mirror, the apparent displacement of the beam due to rotation when viewed from points s or s’ will be (-i/o)∆S, where i is the distance of the lens from the image and o is the distance of the lens from the object. The distance of the lens from the image is the distance between lens L2 and lens L1 minus the focal length of L1, and the distance of the lens from the object is the distance between the rotating mirror (Rm) and the fixed mirror (Fm) added to the distance between lens L2 and the rotating mirror. Therefore, <math>-i/o=\frac{A}{D+B}</math>. So the distance between location at which the beam actually shines onto the fixed mirror and the location of the point the beam appears to shine onto the fixed mirror in the virtual image reflected from the rotating mirror when viewed from point s or point s’ is <math>\delta s=\delta s'=\frac{A}{D+B}\delta s</math>. This distance is determined by measuring the difference in the position of the beam at point s’ when the mirror is rotating clockwise and when the mirror is rotating counter-clockwise. Since a beam of radiation would undergo a displacement of 2D∆θ on the fixed mirror if the rotating mirror were rotated by an angle of θ, <math>\delta s'=sD\delta\theta \frac{A}{D+B}</math>. Since ∆θ = 2ωt if ω is constant, and <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, then <math>\delta\theta=\frac{2D\omega}{c}</math>. So <math>c=\frac{4AD^2\omega}{(D+B)\delta s'}</math>. The device measures the rotational speed in revolutions per second, so that value must be multiplied by 2π before being entered into the equation. The reason that the beam appears as a dot in the microscope instead of as a line is because of the spherical shape of the mirror that is thirteen meters away.

User:MichaelK/Measuring c

2008-05-10T18:33:13Z

MichaelK:

The speed at which radiation propagates through a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. We measure the speed of light in this experiment by determining how much a mirror that is rotating at a known speed has rotated during the time it takes a beam of light to travel out to a known distance and back. We use an apparatus specifically manufactured for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. This device consists of a motor that spins a mirror at a very high rate, a laser, and several mirrors and lenses to focus and direct the beam.
A laser beam is shown through a lens L1 which focuses it at a point at position s, then through a beam-splitter which deflects some of the radiation into a measuring microscope. The rest of the radiation is reflected by a rotating mirror Rm to a fixed mirror Fm 13 meters away. This mirror reflects the beam back to the rotating mirror which, during the time the beam has propagated from the fixed mirror, has rotated a certain amount. This amount depends on the time it takes for the beam of light to reach the fixed mirror and return, which is given by the equation <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, where t is the elapsed time, D is the distance between the fixed mirror and the rotating mirror, and c is the speed of light. The beam is then deflected by the beam-splitter 90 degrees to a measuring microscope at point s’. The beam splitter is located at the same distance from points s and s’. When the laser beam strikes the rotating mirror, it is deflected at an angle which is equal to 2θ, where θ is the angle of deflection of the mirror. Point S1 is where the beam is reflected onto the fixed mirror Fm, and S is the point where the virtual image of the beam appears to have been reflected onto the virtual image of the fixed mirror after the rotating mirror has rotated during the time it took the beam to travel from the rotating mirror to the fixed mirror and back again. The distance between S1 and S is ∆S. Due to the focusing of the beam by lens L1 and the spherical shape of the fixed mirror, the apparent displacement of the beam due to rotation when viewed from points s or s’ will be (-i/o)∆S, where i is the distance of the lens from the image and o is the distance of the lens from the object. The distance of the lens from the image is the distance between lens L2 and lens L1 minus the focal length of L1, and the distance of the lens from the object is the distance between the rotating mirror (Rm) and the fixed mirror (Fm) added to the distance between lens L2 and the rotating mirror. Therefore, <math>-i/o=\frac{A}{D+B}</math>. So the distance between location at which the beam actually shines onto the fixed mirror and the location of the point the beam appears to shine onto the fixed mirror in the virtual image reflected from the rotating mirror when viewed from point s or point s’ is <math>\delta s=\delta s'=\frac{A}{D+B}\delta s</math>. This distance is determined by measuring the difference in the position of the beam at point s’ when the mirror is rotating clockwise and when the mirror is rotating counter-clockwise. Since a beam of radiation would undergo a displacement of 2D∆θ on the fixed mirror if the rotating mirror were rotated by an angle of θ, <math>\delta s'=sD∆\theta \frac{A}{D+B}</math>. Since ∆θ = 2ωt if ω is constant, and <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, then <math>∆θ=\frac{2Dω}{c}</math>. So <math>c=\frac{4AD^2\omega}{(D+B)\delta s'}</math>. The device measures the rotational speed in revolutions per second, so that value must be multiplied by 2π before being entered into the equation. The reason that the beam appears as a dot in the microscope instead of as a line is because of the spherical shape of the mirror that is thirteen meters away.

User:MichaelK/Measuring c

2008-05-10T18:28:11Z

MichaelK:

The speed at which radiation propagates through a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. We measure the speed of light in this experiment by determining how much a mirror that is rotating at a known speed has rotated during the time it takes a beam of light to travel out to a known distance and back. We use an apparatus specifically manufactured for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. This device consists of a motor that spins a mirror at a very high rate, a laser, and several mirrors and lenses to focus and direct the beam.
A laser beam is shown through a lens L1 which focuses it at a point at position s, then through a beam-splitter which deflects some of the radiation into a measuring microscope. The rest of the radiation is reflected by a rotating mirror Rm to a fixed mirror Fm 13 meters away. This mirror reflects the beam back to the rotating mirror which, during the time the beam has propagated from the fixed mirror, has rotated a certain amount. This amount depends on the time it takes for the beam of light to reach the fixed mirror and return, which is given by the equation <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, where t is the elapsed time, D is the distance between the fixed mirror and the rotating mirror, and c is the speed of light. The beam is then deflected by the beam-splitter 90 degrees to a measuring microscope at point s’. The beam splitter is located at the same distance from points s and s’. When the laser beam strikes the rotating mirror, it is deflected at an angle which is equal to 2θ, where θ is the angle of deflection of the mirror. Point S1 is where the beam is reflected onto the fixed mirror Fm, and S is the point where the virtual image of the beam appears to have been reflected onto the virtual image of the fixed mirror after the rotating mirror has rotated during the time it took the beam to travel from the rotating mirror to the fixed mirror and back again. The distance between S1 and S is ∆S. Due to the focusing of the beam by lens L1 and the spherical shape of the fixed mirror, the apparent displacement of the beam due to rotation when viewed from points s or s’ will be (-i/o)∆S, where i is the distance of the lens from the image and o is the distance of the lens from the object. The distance of the lens from the image is the distance between lens L2 and lens L1 minus the focal length of L1, and the distance of the lens from the object is the distance between the rotating mirror (Rm) and the fixed mirror (Fm) added to the distance between lens L2 and the rotating mirror. Therefore, <math>-i/o=\frac{A}{D+B}</math>. So the distance between location at which the beam actually shines onto the fixed mirror and the location of the point the beam appears to shine onto the fixed mirror in the virtual image reflected from the rotating mirror when viewed from point s or point s’ is <math>∆s=∆s'=\frac{A}{D+B}∆s</math>. This distance is determined by measuring the difference in the position of the beam at point s’ when the mirror is rotating clockwise and when the mirror is rotating counter-clockwise. Since a beam of radiation would undergo a displacement of 2D∆θ on the fixed mirror if the rotating mirror were rotated by an angle of θ, <math>∆s'=sD∆θ\frac{A}{D+B}</math>. Since ∆θ = 2ωt if ω is constant, and <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, then <math>∆θ=\frac{2Dω}{c}</math>. So <math>c=\frac{4AD2ω}{(D+B)∆s'}</math>. The device measures the rotational speed in revolutions per second, so that value must be multiplied by 2π before being entered into the equation. The reason that the beam appears as a dot in the microscope instead of as a line is because of the spherical shape of the mirror that is thirteen meters away.

User:MichaelK/Measuring c

2008-05-10T18:13:52Z

MichaelK: New page: The speed at which radiation propagates through a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. We measure the speed of light in this experiment by determining how much a mirror that is rotating at...

The speed at which radiation propagates through a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. We measure the speed of light in this experiment by determining how much a mirror that is rotating at a known speed has rotated during the time it takes a beam of light to travel out to a known distance and back. We use an apparatus specifically manufactured for the purpose of measuring the speed of light. This device consists of a motor that spins a mirror at a very high rate, a laser, and several mirrors and lenses to focus and direct the beam.
A laser beam is shown through a lens L1 which focuses it at a point at position s, then through a beam-splitter which deflects some of the radiation into a measuring microscope. The rest of the radiation is reflected by a rotating mirror Rm to a fixed mirror Fm 13 meters away. This mirror reflects the beam back to the rotating mirror which, during the time the beam has propagated from the fixed mirror, has rotated a certain amount. This amount depends on the time it takes for the beam of light to reach the fixed mirror and return, which is given by the equation <math>t=\frac{D}{c}</math>, where t is the elapsed time, D is the distance between the fixed mirror and the rotating mirror, and c is the speed of light. The beam is then deflected by the beam-splitter 90 degrees to a measuring microscope at point s’. The beam splitter is located at the same distance from points s and s’. When the laser beam strikes the rotating mirror, it is deflected at an angle which is equal to 2θ, where θ is the angle of deflection of the mirror. Point S1 is where the beam is reflected onto the fixed mirror Fm, and S is the point where the virtual image of the beam appears to have been reflected onto the virtual image of the fixed mirror after the rotating mirror has rotated during the time it took the beam to travel from the rotating mirror to the fixed mirror and back again. The distance between S1 and S is ∆S. Due to the focusing of the beam by lens L1 and the spherical shape of the fixed mirror, the apparent displacement of the beam due to rotation when viewed from points s or s’ will be (-i/o)∆S, where i is the distance of the lens from the image and o is the distance of the lens from the object. The distance of the lens from the image is the distance between lens L2 and lens L1 minus the focal length of L1, and the distance of the lens from the object is the distance between the rotating mirror (Rm) and the fixed mirror (Fm) added to the distance between lens L2 and the rotating mirror. Therefore, . So the distance between location at which the beam actually shines onto the fixed mirror and the location of the point the beam appears to shine onto the fixed mirror in the virtual image reflected from the rotating mirror when viewed from point s or point s’ is . This distance is determined by measuring the difference in the position of the beam at point s’ when the mirror is rotating clockwise and when the mirror is rotating counter-clockwise. Since a beam of radiation would undergo a displacement of 2D∆θ on the fixed mirror if the rotating mirror were rotated by an angle of θ, . Since ∆θ = 2ωt if ω is constant, and , then . So . The device measures the rotational speed in revolutions per second, so that value must be multiplied by 2π before being entered into the equation. The reason that the beam appears as a dot in the microscope instead of as a line is because of the spherical shape of the mirror that is thirteen metres away.

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-10T18:06:24Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-30T19:38:47Z

MichaelK: I must have accidentaly duplicated this page. I'm deleting the copy I made.

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-30T17:43:29Z

MichaelK: indentation

*[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
*[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-30T17:42:16Z

MichaelK:

*[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
*[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-29T21:48:19Z

MichaelK:

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-29T20:57:45Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-29T20:57:16Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-29T20:53:03Z

MichaelK: /* Zircon Dating */ Source

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-29T20:43:53Z

MichaelK: Zircon Dating

Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-29T14:46:51Z

MichaelK: /* Responses to criticisms */ Refuting RATE

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists. The abbreviation was likely originally used by opponents, and possibly disparagingly, but is accepted by Young Earth Creationists, who sometimes use it of themselves.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[Earth|earth]] and the [[Universe|universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and evolution are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] [[December 17]] [[1999]] (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and other materialists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the [[universe]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> In regards to the field of [[geology]] these scientists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error.<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> Young earth creationist scientists also believe that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of [[geology]] showing that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] [[28 July]] [[2003]].</ref> Young earth creationist scientists use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions behind the older dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists point out that catastrophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:

{{cquote| ““...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” - Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” - Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys' model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys' model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million years ago, and Earth was formed around 4,500 million years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is of millions of years of death and suffering prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists reject that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly, the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.

== Specific Arguments For a Young Earth and Universe ==
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]
"Many scientific arguments can be used to show that the evidence is more consistent with a recent creation than an [http://creationwiki.org/Old_Earth old Earth]. Some arguments put forward in support of a recent creation simply put an upper limit on the age of the [http://creationwiki.org/Earth Earth], [http://creationwiki.org/Solar_system solar system], or [http://creationwiki.org/Universe universe], which are inconsistent with an ancient creation"<ref name="cwye">[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Young_earth&oldid=80836 Young earth - CreationWiki] ''(quotes taken from the March 28, 2007, version of the article)''</ref> (according to uniformitarian assumptions). The following is a list of various scientific reasons:

# "The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See the following [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp article]..."<ref name="aigcompelling">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]</ref>
#[[William R. Corliss]] is a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss has cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref>
# "The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/p/10-3-090 The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods]''."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited)."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "...distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents..."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
#"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] challenge the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]]."<ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
# '''Geomagnetic field decay'''
#:"Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth. If the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible. The best model for the Earth's magnetic field and observed data places the age of Earth at 6,000 – 8,700 years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for ''billions of years'' are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than '''20,000 years''' old.15"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Pleochroic halos'''
#:"Radioactive inclusions in rock often cause concentric spheres of discoloration due to the damage caused by alpha particles as they are emitted by the radioactive substance. Pleochroic halos are the scars of radioactive decay, particularly alpha decay. These scars appear as spheres (rings when views in cross-section) in the rock surrounding a decaying radioactive atom. The size of the halo is a signature of the energy of the emission and therefore the element and isotope involved. Creationists use these halos in several ways to suggest problems with the standard uniformitarian model."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Helium diffusion'''
#:"One type of nuclear decay is the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain ''1.5 billion years'' worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only '''6,000''' (± 2000) '''years'''.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Helioseismology'''
#:"The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Accelerated Nuclear Decay'''
#:"The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless. However, if radioactive decay has been happening for Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks. Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited '''within months''' of one another, not ''hundreds of millions of years'' apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply '''accelerated nuclear decay''' and very rapid formation of associated minerals."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.'''
#:"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than '''a few hundred million years old''', it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least ''10 billion years'' old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."<ref name="icrye">[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]</ref>
# '''Comets.'''
#:"According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about ''five billion'' years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than '''10,000 years'''.4"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"The origin of the comets in our solar system is a great mystery from an old universe perspective as they degrade rapidly. While evolutionary astronomers once thought the Oort cloud could account for all comets, the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain their existence."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Not enough mud on the sea floor.'''
#:"Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than '''12 million years'''. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged ''three billion years''. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time '''about 5,000 years ago'''."<ref name="icrye" /> (some emphasis added, but not all)
#:"Present erosion rate could produce all the existing ocean sediment in only 15 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 90.</ref>
# '''Not enough sodium in the sea.'''
#:"Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, ''three billion years''. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only '''62 million years'''.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Many strata are too tightly bent.'''
#:"In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for ''hundreds of millions of years'' before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred '''less than thousands of years''' after deposition."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Biological material decays too fast.'''
#:"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized ''200,000 years'' down to possibly as low as '''6,000 years'''.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than '''10,000 years''', yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older... Bacteria allegedly ''250 million years'' old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.'''
#:"With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be ''millions or billions of years'' old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it... These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only '''thousands''', not billions, of years old."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Not enough Stone Age skeletons.'''
#:"Evolutionary anthropologists now say that ''Homo sapiens'' existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only '''a few hundred years''' in many areas."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Agriculture is too recent.'''
#:"The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for ''185,000 years'' during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture '''for a very short time''' after the Flood, if at all."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''History is too short.'''
#:"According to evolutionists, Stone Age ''Homo sapiens'' existed for ''190,000 years'' before beginning to make written records about '''4,000 to 5,000 years''' ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''"Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last."'''<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Slusher, H. S. 1980. ''Age of the Cosmos''. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 65-72.</ref>
# '''Recession of the moon from the earth'''
#:"The moon is moving away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity. This movement is too fast for the earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Huse, S. M. 1993. ''The Collapse of Evolution''. Baker Books. pp. 41-42.</ref>
# '''Shrinking sun'''
#:"Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's environment."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 107-112.</ref>
# '''Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos'''
#:"Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.</ref>
# '''Polonium Halos'''
#:"Robert Gentry's work showed that the Earth's granite was never in a molten condition, because polonium halos survive only in solid rock and the half-life of polonium is much too short to survive a multimillion-year cooling time. His results seem to indicate that the Earth was created instantaneously, in a cool condition. If true, it is clear evidence for creation and a young earth."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Human population growth'''
#:"If humans had been around more than a few thousand years, they would have populated the earth more quickly."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. ''The Young Earth''. Master Books. pp. 70-71.</ref>
# '''Rapid Oil Formation'''
#:"It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)</ref>
#:"British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982</ref>
#:"Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p.</ref>
# '''Rapid Wood Petrification'''
#:"Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>US Patent & Trademark Office, [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,612,050.PN.&OS=PN/4,612,050&RS=PN/4,612,050 Patent No. 4,612,050]</ref>
# '''Tree rings'''
#:"Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. pp. 392-393.</ref>
# '''Only recently known civilizations'''
#:"Earliest known civilizations are only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 70.</ref>
# '''Niagara falls'''
#:"Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 48-49.</ref>
# '''Mississippi river delta'''
#:"Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Mehlert, A. W. "Another Look at the Age and History of the Mississippi River." pp. 121-123. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988.</ref>
# '''Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio'''
#:"This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74.</ref>
# '''Erosion rate of the continents'''
#:"Continental mass divided by erosion rate would wash all the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88-90.</ref>

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.</ref><ref>Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref>, and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

== External Links ==
Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/ AllAboutCreation.org]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category: Religion]]

Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-29T13:56:54Z

MichaelK: /* Responses to criticisms */ Lowercase "edit".

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists. The abbreviation was likely originally used by opponents, and possibly disparagingly, but is accepted by Young Earth Creationists, who sometimes use it of themselves.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[Earth|earth]] and the [[Universe|universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and evolution are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] [[December 17]] [[1999]] (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and other materialists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the [[universe]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> In regards to the field of [[geology]] these scientists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error.<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> Young earth creationist scientists also believe that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of [[geology]] showing that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] [[28 July]] [[2003]].</ref> Young earth creationist scientists use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions behind the older dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists point out that catastrophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:

{{cquote| ““...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” - Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” - Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys' model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys' model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million years ago, and Earth was formed around 4,500 million years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is of millions of years of death and suffering prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists reject that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.

== Specific Arguments For a Young Earth and Universe ==
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]
"Many scientific arguments can be used to show that the evidence is more consistent with a recent creation than an [http://creationwiki.org/Old_Earth old Earth]. Some arguments put forward in support of a recent creation simply put an upper limit on the age of the [http://creationwiki.org/Earth Earth], [http://creationwiki.org/Solar_system solar system], or [http://creationwiki.org/Universe universe], which are inconsistent with an ancient creation"<ref name="cwye">[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Young_earth&oldid=80836 Young earth - CreationWiki] ''(quotes taken from the March 28, 2007, version of the article)''</ref> (according to uniformitarian assumptions). The following is a list of various scientific reasons:

# "The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See the following [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp article]..."<ref name="aigcompelling">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]</ref>
#[[William R. Corliss]] is a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss has cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref>
# "The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/p/10-3-090 The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods]''."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited)."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "...distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents..."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
#"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] challenge the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]]."<ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
# '''Geomagnetic field decay'''
#:"Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth. If the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible. The best model for the Earth's magnetic field and observed data places the age of Earth at 6,000 – 8,700 years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for ''billions of years'' are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than '''20,000 years''' old.15"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Pleochroic halos'''
#:"Radioactive inclusions in rock often cause concentric spheres of discoloration due to the damage caused by alpha particles as they are emitted by the radioactive substance. Pleochroic halos are the scars of radioactive decay, particularly alpha decay. These scars appear as spheres (rings when views in cross-section) in the rock surrounding a decaying radioactive atom. The size of the halo is a signature of the energy of the emission and therefore the element and isotope involved. Creationists use these halos in several ways to suggest problems with the standard uniformitarian model."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Helium diffusion'''
#:"One type of nuclear decay is the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain ''1.5 billion years'' worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only '''6,000''' (± 2000) '''years'''.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Helioseismology'''
#:"The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Accelerated Nuclear Decay'''
#:"The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless. However, if radioactive decay has been happening for Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks. Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited '''within months''' of one another, not ''hundreds of millions of years'' apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply '''accelerated nuclear decay''' and very rapid formation of associated minerals."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.'''
#:"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than '''a few hundred million years old''', it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least ''10 billion years'' old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."<ref name="icrye">[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]</ref>
# '''Comets.'''
#:"According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about ''five billion'' years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than '''10,000 years'''.4"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"The origin of the comets in our solar system is a great mystery from an old universe perspective as they degrade rapidly. While evolutionary astronomers once thought the Oort cloud could account for all comets, the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain their existence."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Not enough mud on the sea floor.'''
#:"Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than '''12 million years'''. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged ''three billion years''. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time '''about 5,000 years ago'''."<ref name="icrye" /> (some emphasis added, but not all)
#:"Present erosion rate could produce all the existing ocean sediment in only 15 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 90.</ref>
# '''Not enough sodium in the sea.'''
#:"Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, ''three billion years''. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only '''62 million years'''.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Many strata are too tightly bent.'''
#:"In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for ''hundreds of millions of years'' before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred '''less than thousands of years''' after deposition."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Biological material decays too fast.'''
#:"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized ''200,000 years'' down to possibly as low as '''6,000 years'''.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than '''10,000 years''', yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older... Bacteria allegedly ''250 million years'' old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.'''
#:"With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be ''millions or billions of years'' old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it... These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only '''thousands''', not billions, of years old."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Not enough Stone Age skeletons.'''
#:"Evolutionary anthropologists now say that ''Homo sapiens'' existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only '''a few hundred years''' in many areas."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Agriculture is too recent.'''
#:"The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for ''185,000 years'' during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture '''for a very short time''' after the Flood, if at all."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''History is too short.'''
#:"According to evolutionists, Stone Age ''Homo sapiens'' existed for ''190,000 years'' before beginning to make written records about '''4,000 to 5,000 years''' ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''"Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last."'''<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Slusher, H. S. 1980. ''Age of the Cosmos''. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 65-72.</ref>
# '''Recession of the moon from the earth'''
#:"The moon is moving away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity. This movement is too fast for the earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Huse, S. M. 1993. ''The Collapse of Evolution''. Baker Books. pp. 41-42.</ref>
# '''Shrinking sun'''
#:"Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's environment."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 107-112.</ref>
# '''Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos'''
#:"Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.</ref>
# '''Polonium Halos'''
#:"Robert Gentry's work showed that the Earth's granite was never in a molten condition, because polonium halos survive only in solid rock and the half-life of polonium is much too short to survive a multimillion-year cooling time. His results seem to indicate that the Earth was created instantaneously, in a cool condition. If true, it is clear evidence for creation and a young earth."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Human population growth'''
#:"If humans had been around more than a few thousand years, they would have populated the earth more quickly."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. ''The Young Earth''. Master Books. pp. 70-71.</ref>
# '''Rapid Oil Formation'''
#:"It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)</ref>
#:"British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982</ref>
#:"Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p.</ref>
# '''Rapid Wood Petrification'''
#:"Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>US Patent & Trademark Office, [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,612,050.PN.&OS=PN/4,612,050&RS=PN/4,612,050 Patent No. 4,612,050]</ref>
# '''Tree rings'''
#:"Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. pp. 392-393.</ref>
# '''Only recently known civilizations'''
#:"Earliest known civilizations are only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 70.</ref>
# '''Niagara falls'''
#:"Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 48-49.</ref>
# '''Mississippi river delta'''
#:"Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Mehlert, A. W. "Another Look at the Age and History of the Mississippi River." pp. 121-123. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988.</ref>
# '''Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio'''
#:"This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74.</ref>
# '''Erosion rate of the continents'''
#:"Continental mass divided by erosion rate would wash all the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88-90.</ref>

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.</ref><ref>Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref>, and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

== External Links ==
Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/ AllAboutCreation.org]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category: Religion]]

Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-29T13:53:10Z

MichaelK: /* Responses to criticisms */ Adding a criticism I have brought to the attention of several evangelist friends of mine that has yet to be adequately refuted.

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists. The abbreviation was likely originally used by opponents, and possibly disparagingly, but is accepted by Young Earth Creationists, who sometimes use it of themselves.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[Earth|earth]] and the [[Universe|universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and evolution are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] [[December 17]] [[1999]] (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and other materialists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the [[universe]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> In regards to the field of [[geology]] these scientists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error.<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> Young earth creationist scientists also believe that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of [[geology]] showing that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] [[28 July]] [[2003]].</ref> Young earth creationist scientists use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions behind the older dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists point out that catastrophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:

{{cquote| ““...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” - Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” - Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys' model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys' model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million years ago, and Earth was formed around 4,500 million years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is of millions of years of death and suffering prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists reject that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "Edit" to add one.

== Specific Arguments For a Young Earth and Universe ==
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]
"Many scientific arguments can be used to show that the evidence is more consistent with a recent creation than an [http://creationwiki.org/Old_Earth old Earth]. Some arguments put forward in support of a recent creation simply put an upper limit on the age of the [http://creationwiki.org/Earth Earth], [http://creationwiki.org/Solar_system solar system], or [http://creationwiki.org/Universe universe], which are inconsistent with an ancient creation"<ref name="cwye">[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Young_earth&oldid=80836 Young earth - CreationWiki] ''(quotes taken from the March 28, 2007, version of the article)''</ref> (according to uniformitarian assumptions). The following is a list of various scientific reasons:

# "The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See the following [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp article]..."<ref name="aigcompelling">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]</ref>
#[[William R. Corliss]] is a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss has cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref>
# "The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/p/10-3-090 The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods]''."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited)."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "...distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents..."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
#"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] challenge the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]]."<ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
# '''Geomagnetic field decay'''
#:"Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth. If the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible. The best model for the Earth's magnetic field and observed data places the age of Earth at 6,000 – 8,700 years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for ''billions of years'' are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than '''20,000 years''' old.15"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Pleochroic halos'''
#:"Radioactive inclusions in rock often cause concentric spheres of discoloration due to the damage caused by alpha particles as they are emitted by the radioactive substance. Pleochroic halos are the scars of radioactive decay, particularly alpha decay. These scars appear as spheres (rings when views in cross-section) in the rock surrounding a decaying radioactive atom. The size of the halo is a signature of the energy of the emission and therefore the element and isotope involved. Creationists use these halos in several ways to suggest problems with the standard uniformitarian model."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Helium diffusion'''
#:"One type of nuclear decay is the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain ''1.5 billion years'' worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only '''6,000''' (± 2000) '''years'''.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Helioseismology'''
#:"The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Accelerated Nuclear Decay'''
#:"The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless. However, if radioactive decay has been happening for Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks. Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited '''within months''' of one another, not ''hundreds of millions of years'' apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply '''accelerated nuclear decay''' and very rapid formation of associated minerals."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.'''
#:"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than '''a few hundred million years old''', it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least ''10 billion years'' old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."<ref name="icrye">[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]</ref>
# '''Comets.'''
#:"According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about ''five billion'' years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than '''10,000 years'''.4"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"The origin of the comets in our solar system is a great mystery from an old universe perspective as they degrade rapidly. While evolutionary astronomers once thought the Oort cloud could account for all comets, the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain their existence."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Not enough mud on the sea floor.'''
#:"Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than '''12 million years'''. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged ''three billion years''. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time '''about 5,000 years ago'''."<ref name="icrye" /> (some emphasis added, but not all)
#:"Present erosion rate could produce all the existing ocean sediment in only 15 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 90.</ref>
# '''Not enough sodium in the sea.'''
#:"Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, ''three billion years''. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only '''62 million years'''.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Many strata are too tightly bent.'''
#:"In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for ''hundreds of millions of years'' before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred '''less than thousands of years''' after deposition."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Biological material decays too fast.'''
#:"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized ''200,000 years'' down to possibly as low as '''6,000 years'''.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than '''10,000 years''', yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older... Bacteria allegedly ''250 million years'' old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.'''
#:"With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be ''millions or billions of years'' old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it... These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only '''thousands''', not billions, of years old."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Not enough Stone Age skeletons.'''
#:"Evolutionary anthropologists now say that ''Homo sapiens'' existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only '''a few hundred years''' in many areas."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Agriculture is too recent.'''
#:"The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for ''185,000 years'' during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture '''for a very short time''' after the Flood, if at all."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''History is too short.'''
#:"According to evolutionists, Stone Age ''Homo sapiens'' existed for ''190,000 years'' before beginning to make written records about '''4,000 to 5,000 years''' ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''"Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last."'''<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Slusher, H. S. 1980. ''Age of the Cosmos''. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 65-72.</ref>
# '''Recession of the moon from the earth'''
#:"The moon is moving away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity. This movement is too fast for the earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Huse, S. M. 1993. ''The Collapse of Evolution''. Baker Books. pp. 41-42.</ref>
# '''Shrinking sun'''
#:"Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's environment."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 107-112.</ref>
# '''Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos'''
#:"Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.</ref>
# '''Polonium Halos'''
#:"Robert Gentry's work showed that the Earth's granite was never in a molten condition, because polonium halos survive only in solid rock and the half-life of polonium is much too short to survive a multimillion-year cooling time. His results seem to indicate that the Earth was created instantaneously, in a cool condition. If true, it is clear evidence for creation and a young earth."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Human population growth'''
#:"If humans had been around more than a few thousand years, they would have populated the earth more quickly."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. ''The Young Earth''. Master Books. pp. 70-71.</ref>
# '''Rapid Oil Formation'''
#:"It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)</ref>
#:"British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982</ref>
#:"Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p.</ref>
# '''Rapid Wood Petrification'''
#:"Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>US Patent & Trademark Office, [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,612,050.PN.&OS=PN/4,612,050&RS=PN/4,612,050 Patent No. 4,612,050]</ref>
# '''Tree rings'''
#:"Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. pp. 392-393.</ref>
# '''Only recently known civilizations'''
#:"Earliest known civilizations are only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 70.</ref>
# '''Niagara falls'''
#:"Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 48-49.</ref>
# '''Mississippi river delta'''
#:"Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Mehlert, A. W. "Another Look at the Age and History of the Mississippi River." pp. 121-123. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988.</ref>
# '''Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio'''
#:"This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74.</ref>
# '''Erosion rate of the continents'''
#:"Continental mass divided by erosion rate would wash all the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88-90.</ref>

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.</ref><ref>Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref>, and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

== External Links ==
Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/ AllAboutCreation.org]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category: Religion]]

Talk:Intelligent design

2008-02-13T01:40:15Z

MichaelK: /* Uneditable?? */

{{protect|DanH}}

== Uneditable?? ==
I understand the need to monitor this "conservi" because of arguments, but there should be a way to get new ideas into a topic. So I commented that there is no evidence for intelligent design (at least in the section called "evidence"). It's a proposition or a belief, not a conveyance of facts. Show me a fact and I'll concede to "evidence," but that's not what is here. Opinions are here (see Evidence --> Support below). It's ok to believe in ID over evolution, but don't confuse your readers by calling a belief "fact." You're sending them backwards a step in their thinking; misleading them. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 18:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::I came here to say the same thing. There is no evidence to support the conjecture of intelligent design under the "evidence" section of this article. In fact, that section spends more time talking about evolution than intelligent design. You don't prove a conjecture by disproving a theory. What I would do if I could is delete everything under the "evidence" section of this page for this reason.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)

:::There is a dispute in the academic community over whether there is evidence for intelligent design. Your opinions don't count, if neither of you is an academic.

:::Specifically at issue is what sort of evidence can be accepted to prove or disprove ID's thesis - or for that matter, the naturalistic theory of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::::But would you say that anything under the "Evidence" section of this article qualifies as evidence? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 20:40, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== Evidence --> Support ==
This section contains no evidence and properly belongs under "support." The statement "...that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer" is not supported by the book quote. The book quote paraphrases 'as humans we can't experience evolution in molecular biology, so we don't ~know~ that it is true.' Ok, that's fine and it is the same statement of doubt placed on all science. Science doesn't prove anything, it just finds evidence to support hypotheses.

However, refuting proof of molecular evolution provides no evidence for intelligent design, it just leaves room for another explanation. This is the classic [[argument from ignorance]] and offers (at best) support. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Arguments ==

"obfuscate?!!" I had to look it up. Anybody else pick up the irony in that statement? Education is not a bad thing. In academia, you're allowed to say just about anything you want... but you have to support it with an argument if you want people to listen.--[[User:Propro|Propro]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I find this "Bible argument" Hillarious. ID is simply idetifying in matter that an intelligent entity influenced it's existsnce. DNA and Natural law as well as the constant sad picture of mosaics show that Intelligent Design is simply identifying that the matter was created by something intelligent. There are Buddhists, Daoists, New Age, Hidnu, Moslem and Jewish people who publically support it in college. What a sad croc for evolutionsits to say it has to do with the Bible. --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't say that they're liars. Just don't go down this road. There are many evolutionsits who have lied about their findings of "missing links" on the human evolutionary chain. There ahs been a lot of "hand waiving" on evolution by atheists, deists, liberals and neo-marxists for years.

We have seen this with "peer review" fraud by "denying articles on the basis of lack of peer review" for the Creation-Evolution Magazine for several years. THAT was fraud and Discovery Institute finally "broke" the peer review bubble troubling all of our "honest" evolutionists as shown in the movie: "Flock of Dodos." [[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

ID is bad science. It assumes a priori that something is true (that some intelligent designer fashioned life with intent) and then attempts to find some sort of evidence to support these claims. It is entirely contrary to fundamental scientific methodology.

Furthermore, I would question the motive of people of faith who seek evidence of the hand of god within the origins of life. Christianity is predicated upon faith. You must profess a faith in God as your savior and to search for evidence to support that faith would seem to be a position that is contradictory and perhaps even heretical, no?

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. [[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Climbing Mount Improbable]] provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Here, Hear==
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist vs. Scientists ==
Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. [[User:Order]] 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)

::The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)

::::In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*What broke up the forces? The expanding universe did, afaik. And that happened at at an exact size and an exact temperature of the universe, that can be computed from quantum physics. The force had no choice other than break apart.
:::*Chaos theory is a theory that studies the behavior of deterministic functions. However, these deterministic functions are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. It might look non-deterministic, but it isn't.
:::*Calling God a force is actually just a bit short of atheism. Why would you worship a 'force'? Or believe in a 'force'? If you belief or not doesn't matter for a 'force'. How would you feel if you would find a tribe that worships magnetism?
:::*'Energy' is something different than 'force'. They are two different words, meaning something different. Your 'force'-speak sounds very much like New Age and Star Wars. Maybe that's what attracts you to it. But it's weasel language blurring the important difference between force and energy, and obscuring the deterministic nature of both. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:15 (AEST)

==Statements and Analogies==
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Behe==

Where it says:

One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael Behe's.

We should probably specify which book of Behe's this is. There's a reference to Darwin's Black Box in the next sentence, but it's not clear in context whether it's that book or not, and if I remember correctly, that may not have been his first book. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please add a sentence to the section on opposition: ==

I would like to add a sentence to opposition:

:Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, after Richard von Sternberg managed the peer review process and published a paper by Intelligent Design researcher [[Stephen C. Meyer]], scietists at the Smithsonian Institution retaliated in what is known as the [[Smithsonian Controversy]].

Of course, the sentece could be reworked as necessary.[[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 22:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== List is not needed given category ==

Please change '''List of Intelligent Design Theorists''' to [[:Category:Intelligent design theorists]] (please look at source to see proper way to link). The list page is only linked from this page. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is an added help to the article and no harm is done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The category has all the information the list does, and is updated automatically as new items are added to the category. The list requires manual updates. If that page (too) becomes protected, then all the work needs to be done by sysops. As it is, the list page has two links on it, making it rather, well, useless. If nothing else, the link to the category should be provided in addition to the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== I just came from wiki ==

I cannot believe how biased their ID article is. And I am not a conservative. However in many areas this site is much more accurate. [[User:ProtoCat|ProtoCat]] 12:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I just came from there too and it gives a FULL discussion of ID and the issues surrounding it.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:39, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fascinating... ==
Apparently, there are [http://www.caidweb.org/blog/ conservatives against intelligent design]. Who knew? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Not all conservatives are willing to ignore or attempt to discredit things we seen as being anti-conservative. I don't see how so many people seem to view evolution as liberal and anti-christian. There are plenty of conservative christians who recognize the significance of evolution and realize that it does not go against their beliefs. I learned evolution in a Catholic school and somehow have managed to keep my faith and remain a Christian. --[[User:TheGoodSociety|UPOD]] 13:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

My wife remembers being tought about evolution by a nun(who didn't bat an eye) in a Catholic school in Colombia.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

: And who taught the nun? The [[Catholic Church]] expressly forbids any teaching evolution as it is commonly taught because it contradicts one Adam. See [[Humani Generis]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:58, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Needed Entry ==
There should be an entry in this article (in the interest of objectivity and facts) about president Bush's science advisor. Professor Marburger has stated that intelligent design is not science.

==A new year of encyclopedia building==

This article has been locked for 9 months. I don't think I need to ask anybody to unlock it, but any sysop thinks there's a problem go ahead and reprotect it.

I've opened discussions with two Wikipedians about the objections to intelligent design and have gotten some very illuminating answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Identity_of_the_designer here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_designer#Design_and_the_designer here].

Not only do evolutionists believe that natural forces alone are sufficient to explain "the gradual appearance of new forms of life", but they also see ID in terms of a [[strategy]] or [[campaign]] to introduce [[Creationism]] into U.S. public school biology courses.

Plainly there is much hostility toward religion in America, and any excuse to keep it out will be employed. It's not just about science, but about the liberal movement toward secularism. The idea that God and religion can coexist with materialism is certainly not accepted by liberals. I'm not even sure how many conservatives think coexistence is possible. A lot of Christians would like to see schools teach that God exists, the He is the source of moral and ethical rules (or values), and so on.

The stakes are pretty high here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Cdesign proponentsists==

I would like to include mention of the term [[Cdesign proponentsists]] under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Implications==

It's not possible to discuss ID or evolution without considering the implications. The clear implication of naturalistic evolution is that "forms of life came into being with God". In fact, 15% of Americans believe just that. The other 85% believe either that God caused the forms of life to come into being gradually, or that he created it all a few thousand years ago.

The [[Origins dispute]] covers this in more detail (or it should). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:The Supreme Court

2008-02-12T17:05:14Z

MichaelK: /* Enroll here: */

"The Supreme Court" is a one-semester course for those curious about how the Court became more [[liberal]] in the 1960s through 1980s, and for those interested in learning how the Court can get back on a more traditional path for the future.

This course will harness the power of Conservapedia to build an online constitutional law treatise for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] of the future. Currently the leading constitutional law treatise cites about 3000 decisions, many of which are quickly becoming outdated and overruled by the [[Roberts Court]]. The author of that constitutional law treatise, Laurence Tribe, has announced that he will not be publishing an updated edition in the near future. This course and Conservapedia course will fill that void for the online future.

Categories essential to this course include:
 [[:Category:United States Supreme Court]]
 [[:Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 [[:Conservapedia:Supreme Court Project]]

Lectures are [[The Supreme Court Lectures|here]].

Questions addressed in this course include:

*in how many years does the Supreme Court make or remake 50% (weighted by significance) of its case law? Expressed in scientific terms, what is the "half-life" of the Supreme Court?

*what precedents are there now 5 [[conservative]] votes for overruling? Are there 5 votes to overrule ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''?

*which precedents are at risk of being overruled in the upcoming 2007-2008 Term?

*what are the most interesting cases likely to be appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]? Should amicus briefs be filed for any upcoming petitions?

*will the Supreme Court [[grant cert.]] in the [[gun control]] case, and how will it rule?

*What are the judicial philosophies of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justices?

*What are the worst [[liberal]] decisions rendered by the Court?

This fascinating course will examine critically the worst decisions of the past half-century and consider judicial and legislative corrections to them.

This cutting-edge course will emphasize decisions rendered as recently as this summer and will review cases on the Court's docket for the fall. This course will draw upon the expertise of leading attorneys and activists, including at least one teacher who practices before the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. Utilizing the full power of Conservapedia, this course will incorporate important news about the Court as it occurs and anticipate issues that will dominate political discourse in the upcoming election season.

By the end of the course students will be far more knowledgeable about the most important government institution in the world: the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]

== Enroll here: ==

This free course starts in September. By enrolling here, you will be able to participate in a restricted namespace to be created only for students and teachers in this class. Both students and teachers should add your id. below to be sure of having a spot in this course:

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 21:50, 18 August 2007 (EDT) Sure! Let's go! :)

: Welcome! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

-[[User:Todd16]] 9:29 PM August 23rd 2007 - I would like to join this class too. I have never edited wikipedia so I'm trying to learn this format. Will this be a like a correspondence course, or will we have online meeting times? Thanks! Todd

: Welcome Todd16!!! We'll be online but not at fixed times.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

-[[User:Legis01|Legis01]] 17:07, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

: Welcome and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

-- I would also be interested in being a student for the course. Thank you. [[User:StevenW|StevenW]] 20:48, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Is it too late to enroll? I am not seeking any kind of credit - just trying to keep up with my teenagers so they don't think I am dumb!! contrary1965

: Not too late at all. Welcome, and happy Thanksgiving!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 22 November 2007 (EST)

--[[User:Lulzmeister|Lulzmeister]] 09:39, 30 November 2007 (EST)

--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:38, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::Is that September of last year? Am I too late? There seems to be only two short lectures up so far. Can I catch up? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 12:04, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:The Supreme Court

2008-02-12T17:04:32Z

MichaelK: /* Enroll here: */

"The Supreme Court" is a one-semester course for those curious about how the Court became more [[liberal]] in the 1960s through 1980s, and for those interested in learning how the Court can get back on a more traditional path for the future.

This course will harness the power of Conservapedia to build an online constitutional law treatise for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] of the future. Currently the leading constitutional law treatise cites about 3000 decisions, many of which are quickly becoming outdated and overruled by the [[Roberts Court]]. The author of that constitutional law treatise, Laurence Tribe, has announced that he will not be publishing an updated edition in the near future. This course and Conservapedia course will fill that void for the online future.

Categories essential to this course include:
 [[:Category:United States Supreme Court]]
 [[:Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 [[:Conservapedia:Supreme Court Project]]

Lectures are [[The Supreme Court Lectures|here]].

Questions addressed in this course include:

*in how many years does the Supreme Court make or remake 50% (weighted by significance) of its case law? Expressed in scientific terms, what is the "half-life" of the Supreme Court?

*what precedents are there now 5 [[conservative]] votes for overruling? Are there 5 votes to overrule ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''?

*which precedents are at risk of being overruled in the upcoming 2007-2008 Term?

*what are the most interesting cases likely to be appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]? Should amicus briefs be filed for any upcoming petitions?

*will the Supreme Court [[grant cert.]] in the [[gun control]] case, and how will it rule?

*What are the judicial philosophies of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justices?

*What are the worst [[liberal]] decisions rendered by the Court?

This fascinating course will examine critically the worst decisions of the past half-century and consider judicial and legislative corrections to them.

This cutting-edge course will emphasize decisions rendered as recently as this summer and will review cases on the Court's docket for the fall. This course will draw upon the expertise of leading attorneys and activists, including at least one teacher who practices before the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. Utilizing the full power of Conservapedia, this course will incorporate important news about the Court as it occurs and anticipate issues that will dominate political discourse in the upcoming election season.

By the end of the course students will be far more knowledgeable about the most important government institution in the world: the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]

== Enroll here: ==

This free course starts in September. By enrolling here, you will be able to participate in a restricted namespace to be created only for students and teachers in this class. Both students and teachers should add your id. below to be sure of having a spot in this course:

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 21:50, 18 August 2007 (EDT) Sure! Let's go! :)

: Welcome! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

-[[User:Todd16]] 9:29 PM August 23rd 2007 - I would like to join this class too. I have never edited wikipedia so I'm trying to learn this format. Will this be a like a correspondence course, or will we have online meeting times? Thanks! Todd

: Welcome Todd16!!! We'll be online but not at fixed times.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

-[[User:Legis01|Legis01]] 17:07, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

: Welcome and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

-- I would also be interested in being a student for the course. Thank you. [[User:StevenW|StevenW]] 20:48, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Is it too late to enroll? I am not seeking any kind of credit - just trying to keep up with my teenagers so they don't think I am dumb!! contrary1965

: Not too late at all. Welcome, and happy Thanksgiving!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 22 November 2007 (EST)

--[[User:Lulzmeister|Lulzmeister]] 09:39, 30 November 2007 (EST)

--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:38, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::Is that September of last year? Am I too late? There seems to be only two short lectures up so far. Can I catch up? [[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 12:04, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:The Supreme Court

2008-02-12T17:04:08Z

MichaelK: /* Enroll here: */

"The Supreme Court" is a one-semester course for those curious about how the Court became more [[liberal]] in the 1960s through 1980s, and for those interested in learning how the Court can get back on a more traditional path for the future.

This course will harness the power of Conservapedia to build an online constitutional law treatise for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] of the future. Currently the leading constitutional law treatise cites about 3000 decisions, many of which are quickly becoming outdated and overruled by the [[Roberts Court]]. The author of that constitutional law treatise, Laurence Tribe, has announced that he will not be publishing an updated edition in the near future. This course and Conservapedia course will fill that void for the online future.

Categories essential to this course include:
 [[:Category:United States Supreme Court]]
 [[:Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 [[:Conservapedia:Supreme Court Project]]

Lectures are [[The Supreme Court Lectures|here]].

Questions addressed in this course include:

*in how many years does the Supreme Court make or remake 50% (weighted by significance) of its case law? Expressed in scientific terms, what is the "half-life" of the Supreme Court?

*what precedents are there now 5 [[conservative]] votes for overruling? Are there 5 votes to overrule ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''?

*which precedents are at risk of being overruled in the upcoming 2007-2008 Term?

*what are the most interesting cases likely to be appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]? Should amicus briefs be filed for any upcoming petitions?

*will the Supreme Court [[grant cert.]] in the [[gun control]] case, and how will it rule?

*What are the judicial philosophies of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justices?

*What are the worst [[liberal]] decisions rendered by the Court?

This fascinating course will examine critically the worst decisions of the past half-century and consider judicial and legislative corrections to them.

This cutting-edge course will emphasize decisions rendered as recently as this summer and will review cases on the Court's docket for the fall. This course will draw upon the expertise of leading attorneys and activists, including at least one teacher who practices before the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. Utilizing the full power of Conservapedia, this course will incorporate important news about the Court as it occurs and anticipate issues that will dominate political discourse in the upcoming election season.

By the end of the course students will be far more knowledgeable about the most important government institution in the world: the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]

== Enroll here: ==

This free course starts in September. By enrolling here, you will be able to participate in a restricted namespace to be created only for students and teachers in this class. Both students and teachers should add your id. below to be sure of having a spot in this course:

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 21:50, 18 August 2007 (EDT) Sure! Let's go! :)

: Welcome! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

-[[User:Todd16]] 9:29 PM August 23rd 2007 - I would like to join this class too. I have never edited wikipedia so I'm trying to learn this format. Will this be a like a correspondence course, or will we have online meeting times? Thanks! Todd

: Welcome Todd16!!! We'll be online but not at fixed times.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

-[[User:Legis01|Legis01]] 17:07, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

: Welcome and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

-- I would also be interested in being a student for the course. Thank you. [[User:StevenW|StevenW]] 20:48, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Is it too late to enroll? I am not seeking any kind of credit - just trying to keep up with my teenagers so they don't think I am dumb!! contrary1965

: Not too late at all. Welcome, and happy Thanksgiving!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 22 November 2007 (EST)

--[[User:Lulzmeister|Lulzmeister]] 09:39, 30 November 2007 (EST)

--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:38, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::Is that September of last year? Am I too late? There seems to be only two short lectures up so far. Can I catch up?[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 12:04, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:The Supreme Court

2008-02-12T16:43:06Z

MichaelK: /* Enroll here: */