Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Confederate States of America

2021-09-20T01:28:53Z

NotAKiller:

{{Country
|name =Confederate States of America
|map =
|map2 =
|established =February 4, 1861
|dissolved =May 10, 1865
|flag =CSAnational3.png
|arms =ConfederateStatesofAmericaSeal.jpg
|capital =Richmond, Virginia
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic
|government-raw =
|language =
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|governor general=
|governor general-raw=
|president =Jefferson Davis
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|general secretary=
|governor =
|governor-raw =
|premier =
|premier-raw =
|area =770,425 sq mi
|pop =9,103,332
|pop-basis =1860
|gdp =
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =
|currency =Confederate dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The '''Confederate States of America''' (informally, the ''Confederacy'') was a government created from an alliance of eleven southern states which had seceded from the [[United States]] between December 1860 and April 1861. The [[American Civil War]] that was begun by the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter proved disastrous; four years of savage fighting ended with the fledgling government defeated and dissolved, and left the southern states a financial and industrial wreck. The main reason for secession was to preserve slavery—but all the slaves were emancipated with no compensation to the owners. After the war, the states were later readmitted during [[Reconstruction]].

For the social, political, economic and diplomatic history see [[American Civil War homefront]].

==Beginnings==
Seven southern states seceded from the [[United States of America]] over the winter of 1860-61 and joined together as the "Confederate States of America" to protect their slaveholding interests. They saw that the antislavery forces in the North were gaining strength, typified by the election as president of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860. The political future for slavery and for Southern commerce was bleak, as the South was losing relative strength in Congress. Arguing that their Constitutional [[states' rights]] protected the extension of slavery into America's western territories, they saw that issue rejected in the North. The Union government rejected the claims that a state had a right to secede.

When fighting began in April Lincoln called on all states to send troops; at this point four more states broke away and joined the Confederacy, Virginia, North Cariolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.

Of the 15 slave states, four remained in the United States: [[Delaware]], [[Kentucky]], [[Maryland]] and [[Missouri]]. Residents of the latter three states raised [[regiment]]s for the Confederacy, although not as an official act of their governments. In addition, Kentucky and Missouri saw the establishment of Confederate legislatures within their borders which sent delegates to the Confederate Congress. [[West Virginia]] broke away from Virginia during the war and joined the Union as a state.

The president of the Confederate States of America was [[Jefferson Davis]], a former [[Secretary of War]] under President [[Franklin Pierce]] and Senator from [[Mississippi]]. [[Richmond, Virginia]] became the capital of the Confederacy after that state seceded. It was a poor choice for a war capital because it was hard to supply and hard to defend.

Starting in 1862 General [[Robert E. Lee]] led the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia against the Union armies, which were led by various generals appointed by [[Abraham Lincoln]], with the last, and most successful being General [[Ulysses S. Grant]]. Lee proved a tenacious defender of Richmond, which had an exposed position and a long, difficult supply line. Grant wore down Lee's army, which was unable to replace its casualties, supplies, and desertions.

==Geography==
The Confederate States of America claimed a total of 2,919 miles (4,698 km) of coastline. A large part of this territory lay on the sea coast with level and sandy ground. The interior portions were hilly and mountainous, and the far western territories were deserts. The lower reaches of the [[Mississippi River]] bisected the country, with the western half referred to as the Trans-Mississippi.

===Climate===
Much of the area claimed by the CSA had a humid subtropical climate with mild winters and long, hot, humid summers. The climate varied to semi-arid steppe and arid desert west of longitude 96 degrees west. The subtropical climate made winters mild but allowed infectious diseases to flourish. Consequently, disease killed more soldiers than did enemy action.

===River system===
In peacetime, the vast system of navigable rivers allowed for cheap and easy transportation of farm products. The railroad system was built as a supplement, tying plantation areas to the nearest river or seaport. The vast geography made for difficult Union logistics, and Union soldiers were used to garrison captured areas and protect rail lines. But the [[Union Navy]] seized most of the navigable rivers by 1862, making its own logistics easy and Confederate movements difficult. After the fall of Vicksburg in July 1863, it became impossible for units of any size to cross the Mississippi since Union gunboats constantly patrolled it. The South thus lost use of its western regions.

===Rural areas===
The area claimed by the Confederate States of America was overwhelmingly rural. Small towns of more than 1,000 were few — the typical county seat had a population of less than 500 people. Cities were rare. New Orleans was the only Southern city in the list of top 10 largest U.S. cities in the 1860 census, and it was captured by the Union in 1862. Only 13 Confederate cities ranked among the top 100 U.S. cities in 1860, most of them ports whose economic activities were shut down by the [[Union blockade]]. The population of Richmond swelled after it became the national capital, reaching an estimated 128,000 in 1864 (Dabney 1990:182). Other large Southern cities such as Baltimore, St. Louis, Louisville, and Washington, as well as Wheeling, West Virginia, and Alexandria, Virginia (both located in territory that had officially seceded), were never under the control of the Confederate government.

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable" align="center"
|- style="background: #efefef;"
! # !! City !! 1860 Population !! [[List of United States metropolitan statistical areas by population|US Rank]]
| return to USA control
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 1.
| [[New Orleans]], Louisiana
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 168,675
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 6
| 1862
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 2.
| [[Charleston]], South Carolina
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 40,522
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 22
| 1865
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 3.
| [[Richmond, Virginia]]
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 37,910
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 25
| 1865
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 4.
| [[Mobile]], Alabama
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 29,258
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 27
| 1865
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 5.
| [[Memphis]], Tennessee
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 22,623
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 38
| 1862
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 6.
| [[Savannah]], Georgia
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 22,292
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 41
| 1864
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 7.
| [[Petersburg]], Virginia
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 18,266
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 50
| 1865
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 8.
| [[Nashville]], Tennessee
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 16,988
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 54
| 1862
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 9.
| [[Norfolk]], Virginia
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 14,620
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 61
| 1862
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 10.
| [[Augusta]], Georgia
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 12,493
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 77
| 1865
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 11.
| [[Columbus]], Georgia
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 9,621
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 97
| 1865
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 12.
| [[Atlanta]], Georgia
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 9,554
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 99
| 1864
|-
| style="background: #efefef;" | 13.
| [[Wilmington]], North Carolina
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 9,553
| style="text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;" | 100
| 1865
|}
{{-}}

==Economy==
Before the war the states that formed the Confederacy had an agrarian economy with exports, to a world market, of cotton, and, to a lesser extent, tobacco and sugar. Local food production included grains, hogs, cattle, and gardens. The 11 states produced $155 million in manufactured goods in 1860, chiefly from local grist mills, and lumber, processed tobacco, cotton goods and [[naval stores]] such as turpentine. The CSA adopted a low tariff of 15%, but imposed it on all imports from the rest of the United States—thus making one of the greatest tax increases in American history.<ref>[http://docsouth.unc.edu/tariff/tariff.html See]</ref> The tariff mattered little; the Confederacy's ports were blocked to commercial traffic by the Union's blockade, and very few people paid taxes on goods smuggled from the Union states. The government collected about $3.5 million in tariff revenue from the start of their war against the Union to late 1864. The lack of adequate financial resources led the Confederacy to finance the war through printing money, which led to high inflation.

== Ideology ==
Historian Emory Thomas compared the correspondence sent by the Confederate government in the first year of its existence to different governments. He writes, "The Southern nation was by turns a guileless people attacked by a voracious neighbor, an 'established' nation in some temporary difficulty, a collection of bucolic aristocrats making a romantic stand against the banalities of industrial democracy, a cabal of commercial farmers seeking to make a pawn of [[King Cotton]], an apotheosis of nineteenth-century nationalism and revolutionary liberalism, or the ultimate statement of social and economic reaction." <ref>Emory M. Thomas, ''The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865'' (1979), pp. 83-84.</ref>

The example of the [[U. S. Constitution]] clearly guided the drafters of the [[Full Text of the Confederate States Constitution|Confederate Constitution]], enabling the latter group to complete their work in less than half as much time.<ref>Thomas, p. 63.</ref> However, this Confederate Constitution contained a provision banning efforts to end de jure slavery, found at Article I, Section 9, clause 4, lumped in with the provisions banning [[ex post facto laws]] and [[bills of attainder]]. Another clause banned the international [[slave trade]], but permitted the importation of slaves from the United States; this clause was consistent with the United States' banning of Atlantic slave trading in 1808, which had the effect of improving the domestic slave market, benefiting states such as [[Virginia]]. The wording of this clause demonstrates that the drafters clearly anticipated that not all slave states would secede, although they also included a provision for accepting new states into the Confederacy. This proved essential when [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]] and [[North Carolina]] seceded from the United States after the Confederate Constitution was in effect. Although the Confederate document includes no [[bill of rights]], the [[Ninth Amendment]] and [[Tenth Amendment]] of the U.S. Bill of Rights are reproduced in Article VI as Sections 5 and 6. The Confederate Constitution implemented a ban on a [[religious test for office]] in Section 4, notwithstanding the preamble's invocation of God's blessing on the Confederate experiment.<ref>Thomas, Appendix, pp. 306-322.</ref> Other differences had to do with the [[appropriations]] process in Congress. Not only was a [[line-item veto]] expressly included, but Congress required a two-thirds [[supermajority]] to appropriate any funds not specifically requested by the President, giving Jefferson Davis in a real sense more Constitutional power than Abraham Lincoln possessed - an irony, given the Confederate states' putative objection to centralized power.

Despite the later romanticization of the Confederate cause, the perpetuation of Southern conceptions of race and slavery was of prime importance to the new nation. In his "Cornerstone Speech," Vice President [[Alexander Stephens]] argued that a major difference between the Confederate Constitution and the United States Constitution was the belief that blacks were not inherently equal. In describing this fundamental difference, Stephens said, "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man." <ref>[http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76]</ref> The rejection of slavery as a dominant ideology of the Confederate States began after the Civil War, as Confederate leaders sought to legitimize their failed rebellion.

==Leadership==
===Legislative branch===
'''President of the Congress'''
:Robert Woodward Barnwell, 4 Feb 1861 (served for several hours)
:Howell Cobb, 4 Feb 1861 - 18 Feb 1861
'''President Pro Tempore of the Senate'''
:Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, 18 Feb 1862 - 18 Mar 1865
'''President Pro Tempore of the Provisional Congress'''
:Robert Woodward Barnwell, 4 Feb 1861 - 16 Mar 1861
:Thomas Stanhope Bobcock, Josiah A.P. Campbell, 18 Nov 1861 - 17 Feb 1862
'''Speaker of the House of Representatives'''
:Thomas Stanhope Bobcock, 18 Feb 1862 - 18 Mar 1865
===Executive branch===
'''President of the Confederate States'''
:Jefferson Finis Davis, 18 Feb 1861 - 10 May 1865 (provisional president to 6 Nov 1861)
'''Vice President of the Confederate States'''
:Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 18 Feb 1861 - 11 May 1865 (provisional vice president to 6 Nov 1861)
'''Secretary of State'''
:Robert Augustus Toombs, 21 Feb 1861 - 24 Jul 1861
:Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, 25 Jul 1861 - 1 Feb 1862
:William Montague Brown, 1 Feb 1862 - 17 Mar 1862
:[[Judah P. Benjamin]], 18 Mar 1862 - 3 May 1865
'''Attorney General'''
:Judah Philip Benjamin, 25 Feb 1861 - 17 Sep 1861
:Wade Rutledge Keyes, 17 Sep 1861 - 21 Nov 1861
:Thomas Bragg, Jr., 21 Nov 1861 - 17 Mar 1862
:Thomas Hill Watts, 18 Mar 1862 - 1 Oct 1863
:Wade Rutledge Keyes, 1 Oct 1863 - 2 Jan 1864
:George Davis, 2 Jan 1864 - 24 Apr 1865
'''Commissioner of Patents'''
:Rufus Randolph Rhodes, 31 May 1861 - Apr 1865
'''Postmaster General'''
:Henry T. Ellet, 25 Feb 1861 - 6 Mar 1861 (nominated and confirmed; declined appointment)
:John Henninger Reagan, 6 Mar 1861 - 5 May 1865
'''Secretary of the Treasury'''
:Christopher Gustavus Memminger, 21 Feb 1861 - 18 Jul 1864
:George Alfred Trenholm, 18 Jul 1864 - 27 Apr 1865
:John Henninger Reagan, 28 Apr 1865 - 4 May 1865
'''Treasurer of the Confederate States'''
:Edward Carrington Elmore, 6 Mar 1861 - 1865
'''Comptroller and Solicitor'''
:Lewis Cruger, 1861 - 1865
'''Secretary of War'''
:Leroy Pope Walker, 21 Feb 1861 - 16 Sep 1861
:Judah Philip Benjamin, 17 Sep 1861 - 23 Mar 1862
:George Wythe Randolph, 24 Mar 1862 - 17 Nov 1862
:Gustavus Woodson Smith, 17 Nov 1862 - 21 Nov 1862
:James Alexander Seddon, 21 Nov 1862 - 6 Feb 1865
:John Cabell Breckenridge, 6 Feb 1865 - 5 May 1865
'''Chiefs of the Army Engineers Bureau (subordinated to Secretary of War)'''
:Josiah Gorgas, 8 Apr 1861 - 3 Aug 1861
:Danville Leadbetter, 3 Aug 1861 - 10 Nov 1861
:Alfred Landon Rives, 13 Nov 1861 - 24 Sep 1862
:Jeremy Francis Gilmer, 25 Sep 1862 - 17 Aug 1863
:Alfred Landon Rives, 18 Aug 1863 - 9 Mar 1864
:Martin Luther Smith, 9 Mar 1864 - Apr 1864
:Alfred Landon Rives, Apr 1864 - Jun 1864
:Jeremy Francis Gilmer, Jun 1864 - Apr 1865
'''Commissioner of Indian Territory (subordinated to Secretary of War)'''
:Albert Pike, 16 Mar 1861 - 1862
:Benjamin J. McCullough, 1862 - 7 Mar 1862
:Albert Pike, 1862 - 5 Nov 1862
:Douglas Hancock Cooper, Nov 1862 - Jan 1863
:William Steels, Jan 1863 - Dec 1863
'''Commander of the Department of Indian Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs (subordinated to Secretary of War)'''
:Samuel Ball Maxey, Dec 1863 - 1865
:Douglas Hancock Cooper, 1865
'''Surgeon-general (subordinated to Secretary of War)'''
:Samuel Preston Moore, 16 Mar 1861 - 1865
'''Secretary of the Navy'''
:Stephan Russell Mallory, 4 Mar 1861 - 5 May 1865
'''Colonel-Commandant of the Confederate States Marine Corps (subordinated to Secretary of the Navy)'''
:Lloyd J. Beall, 23 May 1861 - 10 May 1865
'''Superintendent of the Confederate States Naval Academy'''
:William Parker, 23 Jul 1863 - 2 May 1865

===Judicial branch===
:A federal court system with a chief justice was not created during the 1861-1865 Confederacy.

==Flags of the Confederacy==
:''For more detail, see [[Confederate flag]]''
{| class="wikitable"
|-bgcolor=#cccccc
! Seal and Flags!!Detail!!Dates of Use
|- valign="center"
|-
| [[Image:ConfederateStatesofAmericaSeal.jpg|125px]] ||Great Seal of the Confederate States of America. The Latin motto ''Deo Vindice'' reads either ''"Under God, Our Vindicator"'' or ''"With God as [our] Champion"''. || 1862-1865
|-
| [[Image:Bonnieblue.png|125px]] ||The ''Bonnie Blue'' flag, unofficial first flag of the Confederacy. First flown January 9, 1861 over the state capitol building of Jackson, Mississippi. Originally, it was used by settlers of west Florida in a short, 74-day republic after they had revolted against the Spanish government, raising it at the Spanish fort in Baton Rouge on September 23, 1810.||1861
|-
| [[Image:Starsand bars1.png|125px]] ||Called the ''Stars and Bars'', it was first flown over Fort Sumter on April 13, 1861. || 1861
|-
| [[File:Confederate States of America 1st official flag thirteen stars.png|125px]] ||The First National Flag of the Confederacy. Like the flag before, it was also called the ''Stars and Bars''; this flag incorporated a different number of stars depending on the time. At the most, and for the longest period of time, the flag had 13 stars, representing the 11 states of the C.S.A. as well as Kentucky and Missouri.|| March 4, 1861 to May 1, 1863
|-
| [[Image:CSAnational2.png|125px]] ||The Second National Flag; also known as the ''Stainless Banner'' due to the large white field. It was also referred to as the ''Stonewall Flag'', as its first official use was to cover the casket of Lieutenant General [[Thomas J. Jackson]] in 1863.|| May 1, 1863 to March 3, 1865
|-
|[[Image:CSAnational3.png|125px]] ||The Third National Flag. The red stripe was added to the fly to correct a major drawback of the previous flag: the appearance of a flag of surrender when it hung limp.|| March 4, 1865 to April 26, 1865
|-
| [[Image:CSAbattleflag.png|125px]] ||The flag of General [[Robert E. Lee]]'s Army of Northern Virginia, called the ''Southern Cross''; the design became so popular that is was used as the canton of the Confederate national flag.|| November 28, 1861 to the fall
|-
|[[Image:CSA Naval Ensign.png|125px]] ||A variation of the Second National Flag, with a shorter 1.5:1 ratio instead of 2:1. This was the last flag hauled down in surrender, when [[CSS Shenandoah]] lowered it on November 7, 1865 in Liverpool, England.|| May 1, 1863 to the fall
|-
| [[Image:1st CSAJack.png|125px]] ||This 7-star jack was used on Confederate naval warships until 1863.|| 1861-1863
|-
| [[Image:Conf Navy Jack.png|125px]] ||Official Confederate naval jack for use on all warships from 1863, and patterned after the design of the battle flag. This flag was adopted in the years since as the ''de-facto'' flag of the South itself.|| 1863-1865
|-
|
|}

==Diplomacy==
===Relations with the United States===
For the four years of its existence, the Confederate States of America asserted its independence and appointed dozens of diplomatic agents abroad. The United States government, by contrast, asserted that the Southern states were provinces in rebellion and refused any formal recognition of their status. Thus, U.S. Secretary of State [[William H. Seward]] issued formal instructions to [[Charles Francis Adams Sr.]], the new minister to Great Britain:
<blockquote>You will indulge in no expressions of harshness or disrespect, or even impatience concerning the seceding States, their agents, or their people. But you will, on the contrary, all the while remember that those States are now, as they always heretofore have been, and, notwithstanding their temporary self-delusion, they must always continue to be, equal and honored members of this Federal Union, and that their citizens throughout all political misunderstandings and alienations, still are and always must be our kindred and countrymen.<ref>William Seward to Charles Francis Adams Sr., April 10, 1861 in Marion Mills Miller, Ed. ''Life And Works Of Abraham Lincoln'' (1907) Vol 6.</ref></blockquote>

However, if the British seemed inclined to recognize the Confederacy, or even waver in that regard, they were to be sharply warned, with a strong hint of war:
<blockquote>[if Britain is] tolerating the application of the so-called seceding States, or wavering about it, you will not leave them to suppose for a moment that they can grant that application and remain friends with the United States. You may even assure them promptly, in that case, that if they determine to recognize, they may at the same time prepare to enter into alliance with the enemies of this republic."<ref>Seward to Adams April 10, 1861 ibid</ref></blockquote>

The Confederate Congress responded to the hostilities by formally declaring war on the United States in May 1861 — calling it "The War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America." The Union government never declared war but conducted its war efforts under a proclamation of [[Union blockade|blockade]] and rebellion. Mid-war negotiations between the two sides occurred without formal political recognition, though the laws of war governed military relationships.

Four years after the war, in 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Texas v. White]]'' that secession was unconstitutional and legally null. The court's opinion was authored by Chief Justice [[Salmon P. Chase]]. Jefferson Davis and his vice president [[Alexander Stephens]] both wrote long books expounding their theories of secession's legality.

===International diplomacy===
Once the war with the United States began, the best hope for the survival of the Confederacy was military intervention by Britain and France. The U.S. realized that too and made it clear that recognition of the Confederacy meant war with the United States — and the cutoff of food shipments into Britain. The Confederates who had believed in "[[King Cotton]]" — that is, Britain had to support the Confederacy to obtain cotton for its industries— were proven wrong. Britain, in fact, had ample stores of cotton in 1861 and depended much more on grain from the U.S.

During its existence, the Confederate government sent repeated delegations to Europe; historians do not give them high marks for diplomatic skills. [[James M. Mason]] was sent to London as Confederate minister to Queen Victoria, and [[John Slidell]] was sent to Paris as minister to Napoleon III. Both were able to obtain private meetings with high British and French officials, but they failed to secure official recognition for the Confederacy. Britain and the United States were at sword's point during the [[Trent Affair]] in late 1861. Mason and Slidell had been illegally seized from a British ship by an American warship. [[Queen Victoria]]'s husband, Prince Albert, helped calm the situation, and Lincoln released Mason and Slidell, so the episode was no help to the Confederacy.

Throughout the early years of the war, British foreign secretary Lord Russell and Napoleon III, and, to a lesser extent, British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, explored the risks and advantages of recognition of the Confederacy, or at least of offering a mediation. Recognition meant certain war with the United States, loss of American grain, loss of exports to the United States, loss of huge investments in American securities, loss of Canada and other North American colonies, much higher taxes, many lives lost and a severe threat to the entire British merchant marine, in exchange for the possibility of some cotton. Many party leaders and the general public wanted no war with such high costs and meager benefits. Recognition was considered following the [[Second Battle of Manassas]] when the British government was preparing to mediate in the conflict, but the Union victory at the [[Battle of Antietam]] and Lincoln's [[Emancipation Proclamation]], combined with internal opposition, caused the government to back away.

No country appointed any diplomat officially to the Confederacy, but several maintained their consuls in the South who had been appointed before the war.<ref>In 1861, [[Ernst Raven]] applied for approval as the [[Saxe-Coburg-Gotha]] consul, but he was a citizen of Texas and there is no evidence that Saxe officials knew what he was doing; Saxe was a firm supporter of the U.S. It is false to state that Saxe (or the Pope) recognized the Confederacy. No country did so. On the Pope see [http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?root=%2Fmoa%2Fofre%2Fofre2003%2F&tif=01042.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fsgml%2Fmoa-idx%3Fnotisid%3DANU4547-2003&coll=moa&frames=1&view=50]</ref>
In 1863, the Confederacy expelled all foreign consuls (all of them British or French diplomats) for advising their subjects to refuse to serve in combat against the U.S.

Throughout the war most European powers adopted a policy of neutrality, meeting informally with Confederate diplomats but withholding diplomatic recognition. None ever sent an ambassador or official delegation to Richmond. However, they applied international law principles that recognized the Union and Confederate sides as [[belligerent]]s. Canada allowed both Confederate and Union agents to work openly within its borders, and some state governments in northern Mexico negotiated local agreements to cover trade on the Texas border.

===Died of States Rights?===
Historian [[Frank Lawrence Owsley]] argued that the Confederacy "died of states rights."<ref>Frank L. Owsley, ''State Rights in the Confederacy'' (Chicago, 1925),</ref> That is, strong-willed governors and state legislatures refused to give the national government the soldiers and money it needed because they feared that Richmond was encroaching on the rights of the states. Historians agree that northern governors were much more supportive of Lincoln's policies. Georgia's governor [[Joseph Brown]] warned that he saw the signs of a deep-laid conspiracy on the part of Jefferson Davis to destroy states' rights and individual liberty. Brown declaimed: "Almost every act of usurpation of power, or of bad faith, has been conceived, brought forth and nurtured in secret session." To grant the Confederate government the power to draft soldiers was the "essence of military despotism." <ref>Rable (1994) 257; however Wallace Hettle in ''The Peculiar Democracy: Southern Democrats in Peace and Civil War'' (2001) p. 158 says Owsley's "famous thesis...is overstated."</ref> In 1863 governor [[Pendleton Murrah]] of Texas insisted that Texas troops were needed for self-defense (against Indians or a threatened Union invasion), and refused to send them East.<ref>John Moretta; "Pendleton Murrah and States Rights in Civil War Texas," ''Civil War History,'' Vol. 45, 1999</ref> [[Zebulon Vance]], the governor of North Carolina was notoriously hostile to Davis and his demands. Opposition to conscription in North Carolina was intense and its results were disastrous for recruiting. Governor Vance's faith in states' rights drove him into a stubborn opposition.<ref>Albert Burton Moore,''Conscription and Conflict in the Confederacy.'' (1924) p. 295.</ref>

Vice President Stephens broke publicly with President Davis, saying any accommodation would only weaken the republic, and he therefore had no choice but to break publicly with the Confederate administration and the president. Stephens charged that to allow Davis to make "arbitrary arrests" and to draft state officials conferred on him more power than the English Parliament had ever bestowed on the king. History proved the dangers of such unchecked authority." He added that Davis intended to suppress the peace meetings in North Carolina and "put a muzzle upon certain presses" (especially the antiwar newspaper ''Raleigh Standard'') in order to control elections in that state. Echoing [[Patrick Henry]]'s "give me liberty or give me death" Stephens warned the Southerners they should never view liberty as "subordinate to independence" because the cry of "independence first and liberty second" was a "fatal delusion." As historian George Rable concludes, "For Stephens, the essence of patriotism, the heart of the Confederate cause, rested on an unyielding commitment to traditional rights. In his idealist vision of politics, military necessity, pragmatism, and compromise meant nothing."<ref>Rable (1994) 258-9</ref>

The survival of the Confederacy depended on a strong base of civilians and soldiers devoted to victory. The soldiers performed well, though increasing numbers deserted in the last year. The civilians, although enthusiastic in 1861-62 seem to have lost faith in the nation's future by 1864, and instead looked to protect their homes and communities instead. As Rable explains, "As the Confederacy shrank, citizens' sense of the cause more than ever narrowed to their own states and communities. This contraction of civic vision was more than a crabbed libertarianism; it represented an increasingly widespread disillusionment with the Confederate experiment.<ref>Rable (1994) p 265</ref>

== Economics ==
While the Northern States had modernized and embraced the industrial revolution, incorporating new technology and rebuilding infrastructure to support it, the South had remained agrarian, and reliant on slave labor to boost productivity.

The southern economic model was challenged by its lack of access to capital. When a businessman in the North wanted to build a factory, he could obtain a loan from the bank or from a group of investors, pay the labor and material costs to erect it, maintain the factory as collateral, paying back the loan with cash flow from the business. The capital was constantly liquid, changing hands from one individual to another.

Banks were fewer in the South, and most plantation profits went to purchases of more slaves and more land.

== Legacy of destruction==
The principal physical legacy of the Confederacy was mass destruction. Four years of Civil War killed at least 620,000 soldiers (counting deaths from disease as well as in battle), of whom approximately 260,000 were from the Confederacy. This represented a much larger fraction (slightly over one quarter) of the Confederacy's military age free men than was lost by the Union.

An unknown number of civilians also died, in part as a result of the campaign of systematic destruction of the infrastructure in late 1864 and early 1865 by Union General [[William Tecumseh Sherman]] which helped not only to destroy the will of the Confederacy to fight, but literally to destroy the parts of the civilian economy useful to the war effort. Severe damage was inflicted on both urban and rural communities in the South, and hundreds of thousands of people became refugees. The exigencies of [[total war]] had led to the destruction of much Southern infrastructure, in particular [[railroads]], long before 1864.

Upon the Confederate defeat, General Lee on April 9, 1865 ruled out continuing to fight on as [[insurgents]]. To have done otherwise would have been folly. The Union was prepared to use techniques it had learned in Missouri: move all the hostile civilians into concentration camps, thus cutting off supplies to the insurgents, and then hunt down the rebels bands one by one.

===Extent of wartime destruction===
Most of the war was fought in Virginia and Tennessee, but every state was affected. There was little military action in Texas and Florida. Of 645 counties in 9 Confederate states (exclusing Texas and Florida), there was Union military action in 56%, containing 63% of the whites and 64% of the slaves in 1860; however when the action took place, some people had fled to safer areas, so the exact population exposed to war is unknown.<ref>Paul F. Paskoff, "Measures of War: A Quantitative Examination of the Civil War's Destructiveness in the Confederacy," ''Civil War History'' 54.1 (2008) 35-62</ref>

===Towns and cities===
The Confederacy in 1861 had 297 towns and cities with 835,000 people; of these 162 with 681,000 people were at one point occupied by Union forces. Eleven were destroyed or severely damaged by war action, including Atlanta (with an 1860 population of 9,554), Charleston, Columbia, and Richmond (with prewar populations of 40,522, at least 8,052, and 37,910, respectively); the eleven contained 115,916 people in the 1860 census, or 14% of the urban South. Historians have not estimated their population when they were invaded. The number of people who lived in the destroyed places represented just over 1% of the Confederacy's population. In addition, 45 court houses were burned (out of 830).<ref>Paul F. Paskoff, "Measures of War: A Quantitative Examination of the Civil War's Destructiveness in the Confederacy," ''Civil War History'' 54.1 (2008) 35-62</ref>

===Rural areas===
The South's agriculture was not highly mechanized. The value of farm implements and machinery in the 1860 Census was $81 million; by 1870, there was 40% less, of $48 million worth. Many old tools had broken through heavy use and could not be replaced; even repairs were difficult.

Railroad mileage was of course mostly in rural areas. The war followed the rails, and over two-thirds of the rails and rolling stock were in areas reached by Union armies, which systematically destroyed what it could. The South had 9400 miles of track and 6500 miles was in areas reached by the Union armies. About 4400 miles were in areas where Sherman and other Union generals adopted a policy of systematic destruction of the rail system. Even in untouched areas, the lack of maintenance and repair, the absence of new equipment, the heavy over-use, and the deliberate movement of equipment by the Confederates from remote areas to the war zone guaranteed the system would be virtually ruined at war's end.<ref>Paul F. Paskoff, "Measures of War: A Quantitative Examination of the Civil War's Destructiveness in the Confederacy," ''Civil War History'' 54.1 (2008) 35-62</ref>

== Legacy ==
Slavery was abolished in the Confederacy—but not in the four slave states that had not seceded—by Lincoln's [[Emancipation Proclamation]], by the U.S. Army, and by the [[Thirteenth Amendment]] which became law in late 1865.

The seceding states all rescinded their ordinances of secession and were admitted, one-by-one, back into the Union by a government that had previously maintained that it was not possible to secede from the Union. This was done by the process of [[Reconstruction]]. Reconstruction began during the war and ended in 1877.

There was never an effort to revive the Confederacy, but nostalgia for the Lost Cause, poisoned relations from the war and the destruction of Southern property, and by the vengeful administration of Reconstruction soured north–south relations until at least the 1890s. Some Southerners insisted on white supremacy.

After Reconstruction, the [[Redeemers]] (white Democrats) took full control and slowly removed the voting rights and some of the legal rights of the Freedmen, installing a system of segregation known as [[Jim Crow]]. The region became a [[Democratic Party]] stronghold for a century.

Economically the South was badly damaged and fell far behind the North in terms of prosperity; it took 100 years for the South to catch up.

==Bibliography==

===Surveys and textbooks===
* Coulter, E. Merton. ''The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865'' (1950), highly detailed overview; strong Southern accent
* Current, Richard N., et al. eds. ''Encyclopedia of the Confederacy'' (1993) (4 Volume set; also 1 vol abridged version), comprehensive excellent reference work
* Davis, William C. ''Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America'' (2003)
* Donald, David ''et al.'' ''The Civil War and Reconstruction'' (latest edition 2001); 700 page survey
* Eaton, Clement. ''A History of the Southern Confederacy'' (1954).
* Fellman, Michael et al. ''This Terrible War: The Civil War and its Aftermath'' (2nd ed. 2007), 544 page survey
* Heidler, David Stephen, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (2002), 1600 entries in 2700 pages in 5 vol or 1-vol editions; very good basic reference
* McPherson, James M. ''Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era'' (1988), 900 page survey; Pulitzer prize
* [[Allan Nevins|Nevins, Allan]]. ''[[Ordeal of the Union]]'', an 8-volume set (1947-1971). the most detailed political, economic and military narrative; by Pulitzer Prize winner
** vol 4. Prologue to Civil War, 1859–1861; 5. The Improvised War, 1861–1862; 6. War Becomes Revolution, 1862–1863; 7. The Organized War, 1863–1864; 8. The Organized War to Victory, 1864-1865
* Rhodes, James Ford. [http://www.bartleby.com/252/ ''History of the Civil War, 1861-1865 (1918)], Pulitzer Prize; a short version of his 5-volume history
* Roland, Charles P. ''The Confederacy'', 1960. old brief survey
* Rubin, Anne Sarah. ''A Shattered Nation: The Rise and Fall of the Confederacy, 1861-1868.'' (2005). 319 pp.
* Thomas, Emory M. ''Confederate Nation: 1861-1865'' (1979). Standard political-economic-social history

===Specialized studies===
* Beringer, Richard E., Archer Jones, and Herman Hattaway, ''Why the South Lost the Civil War'' (1986) influential analysis of factors; ''The Elements of Confederate Defeat: Nationalism, War Aims, and Religion'' (1988), abridged version
* Boritt, Gabor S., et al., ''Why the Confederacy Lost'', (1992).
* Davis, William C. and Robertson, James I., Jr., eds. ''Virginia at War, 1861.'' (2007). 241 pp.
* Goldin, Claudia D., and Frank D. Lewis, "The Economic Cost of the American Civil War: Estimates and Implications," ''Journal of Economic History'' 35#2 (June 1975), pp. 299–326 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2119410 in JSTOR]
* Owsley, Frank Lawrence. ''King Cotton Diplomacy: Foreign relations of the Confederate States of America'' (1931)
* Ransom, Roger L. "The Economics of the Civil War," ''EH.Net Encyclopedia,'' ed. Robert Whaples (Aug. 25, 2001), [http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us online edition]
* Rable, George C., ''The Confederate Republic: A Revolution against Politics'', (1994). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10417084 online edition]
* Thomas, Emory M. ''The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience'', (1992) short interpretive essay
* Wallenstein, Peter and Wyatt-Brown, Bertram, eds. ''Virginia's Civil War.'' (2005). 303 pp. [https://www.amazon.com/Virginias-Civil-War-Peter-Wallenstein/dp/0813923158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196544677&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wiley, Bell Irvin. ''Southern Negroes: 1861-1865'' (1938)
====Women====
* Faust, Drew. ''Mothers of Invention: Women of the Slaveholding South in the American Civil War'' (2004) [https://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Invention-Slaveholding-American-Morrison/dp/0807855731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231241330&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Harper, Judith E. ''Women during the Civil War: An Encyclopedia.'' (2004). 472 pp.
* Massey, Mary. ''Bonnet Brigades: American Women and the Civil War (1966), excellent overview
* Rable, George C. ''Civil Wars: Women and the Crisis of Southern Nationalism'' (1989), excellent
* Roberts, Giselle. ''The Confederate Belle.'' (2003). 245 pp.
* Wiley, Bell Irvin. ''Confederate Women'' (1975), good survey
* Woodward, C. Vann, Ed., ''Mary Chesnut's Civil War'', (1981) Pulitzer Prize; primary source

== See also ==
*[[American Civil War homefront]]
*[[American Civil War: 1861]]
*[[American Civil War: 1862]]
*[[American Civil War: 1863]]
*[[American Civil War: 1864]]
*[[American Civil War: 1865]]
*[[American Civil War: Aftermath]]
*[[Reconstruction]]
*''[[C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America]]'' - A 2004 film set in an alternate world where the Confederacy won the [[American Civil War]]

===Primary sources===
* Carter, Susan B., ed. ''The Historical Statistics of the United States: Millennial Edition'' (5 vols), 2006; online at many universities
* Davis, Jefferson, ''The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government '' (2 vols), 1881.
* Harwell, Richard B. ed. ''The Confederate Reader'' (1957) 389 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/13580975?title=The%20Confederate%20Reader online edition]
* Jones, John B. ''A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital'', edited by Howard Swiggert, [1935] 1993. 2 vols.
* Richardson, James D., ed. ''A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, Including the Diplomatic Correspondence 1861-1865'', 2 volumes, 1906.
* Yearns, W. Buck and Barret, John G.,eds. ''North Carolina Civil War Documentary'', 1980.
* [http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/confdocs.html Confederate official government documents] major online collection of complete texts in HTML format, from U. of North Carolina
*'' Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, 1861-1865'' (7 vols), 1904. [http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcc.html online]
*[http://fax.libs.uga.edu/AP2xC84/ ''The Countryman'', 1862-1866], published weekly by Turnwold, Ga., edited by J.A. Turner; primary source

==External links==
*[http://politicalgraveyard.com/offices/confed1.html#ZY4102y1862 Confederate offices Index of Politicians by Office Held or Sought]
*[http://fax.libs.uga.edu/ccsus/ ''The Federal and the Confederate Constitution Compared'']
*[http://fax.libs.uga.edu/F206xS727xv9/ ''The Making of the Confederate Constitution''], by A. L. Hull, 1905.
*[http://fax.libs.uga.edu/E468x7xM647/ ''Photographic History of the Civil War'', 10 vols., 1912.]
*[http://docsouth.unc.edu/index.html DocSouth: Documenting the American South] - numerous online text, image, and audio collections.
*[http://docsouth.unc.edu/moore1/moore1.html ''The Geographical Reader for the Dixie Children''] - a Confederacy textbook written in 1863.
*[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?faid/faid:@field(DOCID+ms003052) ''Confederate States of America: A Register of Its Records in the Library of Congress'']
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXzoK77IFJ4 The Civil War: American Masterclass with Historian David Barton | Louder With Crowder]. [[YouTube]].
*[https://www.prageru.com/video/was-the-civil-war-about-slavery/ Was the Civil War About Slavery?]. [[PragerU]].

====Notes====
<references/>
[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Former Countries]]
[[Category:The South]]
[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:Reconstruction]]
[[Category:Slavery]]

Flood Geology

2021-09-20T01:17:55Z

NotAKiller:

'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>

== Genesis Flood account ==
Genesis provides the most detailed account of the global deluge, including specific dates, measurements, and even some key geological events during the flood. Consequently, flood geologists use it as a starting point for understanding the events of the deluge. Based on the Genesis account, flood geologists argue that the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

== Evidence ==
Flood geologists base their belief in a relatively recent global deluge on several strands of evidence. While none of these strands alone is sufficient to ''prove'' that a global flood occurred, flood geologists argue that a global deluge is the most reasonable and [[parsimonious]] explanation for the evidence.

=== Sedimentary rock ===
Sedimentary rocks are formed by sand and other sediments which settle out of suspension in water, minerals which dissolve in water (which sand cannot do)<ref>http://pearsonkt.com/summaryStreetOT/texts/Sci-National-Grade-4/iText/products/0-328-34278-5/unitc/ch11/331.html</ref> and the hard parts of small aquatic organisms such as [[plankton]], which accumulate on the bottom of a body of water and undergo [[lithification]]. Although only about 8% of the earth's rocks are sedimentary, 75%-80% of the Earth's land area is covered in sedimentary rock.[http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program21%20SedimentaryRocks/program21.html] Therefore, geologists point out, there is irrefutable evidence that at least 75% of the Earth's land was once covered in water.

=== Sufficient water ===
There is enough water on Earth today to cover the entire surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles), if the surface was levelled out.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf Noah’s Flood—what about all that water?], Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book'', Dr. Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> Continents emerge because the average ocean depth is 3.7 km.<ref>http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html</ref> Flood geologists argue that geological activity during and after the flood lowered the ocean basins, causing water to flow from the continents into the basins, and leaving dry land.<ref>{{Bible ref|Psalms|104|6-9|version=NASB}} "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. '''The mountains rose; the valleys sank down''' To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth."</ref>

=== Fossils ===
Fossilization requires rapid burial in a sedimentary solution, and subsequent rapid lithification of the solution. Slow burial does not result in fossilization, because the remains decay prior to being fossilized. Therefore, every fossil was buried in rapidly deposited sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone.

=== Fossil fuels ===
Fossil fuel formation requires the burial of enormous amounts of organic matter under a sedimentary solution, and the application of heat and pressure. Slow burial processes do not produce fossil fuels, because the organic matter decays prior to conversion into a fossil fuel. Therefore, all fossil fuels on earth were quickly buried under sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone;

Similar processes have been observed in [[Spirit Lake]] following the eruption of [[Mount St. Helens]] in 1980.

=== Rock strata ===
Most sedimentary rocks are layered, forming sharply defined lines at varying depths. Were these formed over long periods, erosion would have softened these lines. The sharpness of the lines implies rapid deposition and lithification.

=== Pure sedimentary layers ===
If sedimentary layers were laid down over millennia, they would have experienced mixing. However, many rock strata are pure—for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica. While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time. However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.

=== Submarine canyons ===
Canyons can be found under the sea at the end of many major world rivers, including the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson. They extend for thousands of miles underwater, thousands of feet under the sea; they are as deep as the Grand Canyon in places, and although not well understood by the mainstream scientific community, they are generally understood to have developed when sea-levels were significantly lower than today. Flood geologists argue that as the continents divided and the flood subsided, these major rivers drained the new continents, and the water flowed into the new low-lying areas, which would fill to become seas, leaving the sediments to dry out of their [[liquefaction|liquefied]] state.

=== Land canyons ===
As explanation for great land canyons such as the [[Grand Canyon]], flood geologists point to canyon formation events such as the catastrophic hot mud slides observed during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. One particular hot mud slide at Mt. St. Helens carved a canyon 140 ft. deep and 17 miles long in a single day. Only a thin creek remains at the bottom of the canyon today, which would likely be interpreted as having carved the canyon "over millions of years," if it were not known first-hand that the canyon was carved in a single day.

=== Ancient accounts of a navigable Atlantic ===
Plato's ''Timaeus'' states:
: "In those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles [Straight of Gibraltar] ... and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."<ref>http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html</ref>

=== Plate tectonics ===

A clear problem with a global flood is that of repopulation: after the flood, very few non-marine species would survive. In particular, most of those observed today could not possibly have survived - this includes all insects, the vast majority of birds (Some species of albatross may have survived), the vast majority of mammals, and possibly freshwater fish depending on the salinity of the floodwaters.

Flood geology models include a means for these species to survive, most typically via artificial assistance - an Ark, as described in [[Genesis]].

An often-proposed explanation is that of continental drift - that the continents may once have been united in a single supercontinent, which broke into fragments and drifted into the formations seen today during the time between the start of repopulation and today. Continental drift in principle is nearly universally accepted by all geologists, with flood geology differing only in time: While conventional geology estimates the breakup of the supercontinent to have occurred over approximately sixty million years, flood geologists mostly claim that the process occurred during the flood year, whilst a few claim that it occurred at the time of [[Peleg]].

Flood geologists propose several models which would explain how continental drift could proceed at the rapid pace required to allow the rearrangement of continents during or shortly after the flood, then slow to the currently observed rate. One of the best known of these is the runaway subduction model of Dr. [[John Baumgardner]].<ref>http://www.globalflood.org/platetec/about.html</ref>

=== Total destruction ===

Flood geologists argue that the scale of destruction of the Flood, especially if rapid plate tectonics was involved, would mean almost certain total destruction of the pre-Flood world, including any evidence of civilisations predating the Flood, along with the destruction of the [[Garden of Eden]].
After the Flood, and particularly after the [[Tower of Babel]], new civilisations developed, that either survive to this day or that we find archaeological evidence of today.

== Dating ==

Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref> Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref> In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a worldwide flood.<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>

[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>

==Counterevidence==

===Explanation of Geological Strata===

Advocates of flood geology generally use the flood as an explanation for the existence of the geologic column, and indeed any geological phenomena or feature. It proposes that the age of the Earth as shown by rock strata is only apparently old, an illusion caused by looking at it through a secular worldview. Thus, while a scientist may spend years developing and testing theories through evidence, a flood geologist manufactures evidence to fit his theory.<ref>The following article explains how Christian geologists create explanations for the flood based on the Biblical account, instead of creating theories based on observed evidence like secular scientists do: https://creation.com/flood-geological-maps</ref>

===Fossils===
Fossils follow a logical pattern. The old ones are near the bottom, the young ones near the top. This is cited as evidence that a catastrophic flood could not have occurred, due to the fact that a flood powerful enough to create canyons in 40 days would also disturb the fossils to a point that they are no longer possible to date. Instead, the fossils follow a pattern predicted by evolution, where the fossils follow the pattern of old to young. Similarly, mass extinction events such as the KT boundary provide very fine lines that cut off the fossil record - this is incompatible with the idea that all rock sediment was laid down only a few thousand years ago in a massive flood.

===Erosion===

Erosion is a slow process in conventional geology - unless the rock is soft and the weather particularly severe, but these cases are outlying exceptions. This is all due to the hardness of rock and the fact that we can observe the rate that it erodes under rain now. The flooddidit idea proposes that despite this, all erosion features can be explained by the flood. This applies equally to rock that is eroded to rock that isn't eroded - a proposition that flies in the face of both science and good sense. The high levels of erosion seen in hard rock formations is chalked up to the speed of the flood waters. Indeed, fast water can be quite powerful and water cutting jets can slice through objects with high efficiency. However, the Grand Canyon, for example, isn't a small board of MDF being hit by a precise sub-millimeter wide jet of water traveling at hundreds of miles per hour. Even in a flood of global proportions, the water could not travel fast enough (it can only work under gravity) and the rock is simply not soft enough for it to form in anything less than millions of years.

Secondly, erosion due to the flood is incompatible with rock sedimentation being explained by the flood. A global flood that would explain both sedimentation and massive erosion would cause both processes to occur simultaneously. There should be more sediment put down at a near equal rate to the erosion removing it - therefore features where erosion has revealed the sedimentation layers should not exist. Conventional geology is able to explain that sedimentation occurs first and erosion cuts in afterwards to expose the layers, and also explains more distorted features such as uncomformities - which flood geology is unable explain.

==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==
Creationist scientists assert that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that flood geology is correct.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Creationist scientists also state that there was enough water to cause a worldwide flood and various other objections to a worldwide flood are invalid.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp</ref>

== Common Criticisms ==

Critics claim that there is not enough water on the Earth to actually cause a worldwide flood, or ever has been; in addition, many archaeological records (notably tree-ring records and the records of various early civilizations, including Egypt and Sumeria) stretch through the period of time most often given as that of the Great Flood, without any actual reference to such an event.<ref>For a summary of other criticisms, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>

== History ==

Until the rise of uniformitarian [[geology]] in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologist]]s" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth. At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation.<ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>

Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood.<ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== See also ==
*[[Literalist Bible chronology]]

== External links ==
*[https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
*[http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood] by Stuart E. Nevins.
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Flood models: the need for an integrated approach] by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor.
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html#anchorgeologycreationist Global Flood Geology from Creation Science Perspectives]
*[http://www.biblicalgeology.net/content/view/46 Biblical Geology: Properly Understanding the Rocks]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category:Geology]]

Pseudoscience

2021-09-20T01:17:01Z

NotAKiller:

:''See also: [[War on Science]]''
'''Pseudoscience''' is [[theory]] or speculation which has the trappings and [[rhetoric]] of [[science]], and is presented as science, but does not follow the [[scientific method]]. Pseudoscientific theories are typically not [[falsifiable]], and their purveyors show unwillingness to allow outsiders to observe, test, or replicate their findings.

A common example of pseudoscientific thought is the notion that [[slave]] [[reparations]] will reduce carbon emissions and lower global temperatures by 2 degrees [[Celsius]].

== Falsifiability ==
The most cited element of scientific theory is [[falsifiability]], established by [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BacHisTho Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, see in particular sections 2 and 3]</ref> A falsifiable theory makes predictions, which can be used to test it. Thus, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, as it predicts that an apple held above the ground and released will fall. If it fails the test, it is discarded, and if it passes, it is not proven, but better supported.

== Disproven Science ==
The term pseudoscience is also often applied to theories which ''are'' falsifiable and have in fact been falsified and discarded. [[Phrenology]] predicted that psychological traits could be inferred from the shape of the skull, but no actual link was ever found. Various [[astrology|astrological]] theories predicted regular planetary effects on the earth and human health, but testing those failed.

The existence of [[God]] is thus not considered scientific theory, as no test can possibly be conceived which categorically disproves His existence. The same is the case for [[string theory]], which is a mathematical unification of scientific theory, but makes no predictions. Such things fall outside the realm of science.

== Charlatanism ==
The label ''pseudoscientist'' is commonly given to cranks and [[charlatan]]s, who claim abnormal powers and abilities, but refuse to demonstrate them in objective, controlled, monitored environments. For example, Uri Geller claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he cannot do it in front of scientists or journalists.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3vGGf-ZIkc Uri Geller debunked by James Randi and Johnny Carson</ref> Countless conjurers and mediums claim to be able to speak with the dead, but controlled circumstances revealed that they were really only conducting clever psychological tricks.

== Metaphysics ==
[[Spiritual]], [[metaphysical]], [[philosophical]], and [[religious]] beliefs are occasionally confused with pseudoscience, as there is often an overlap in rhetoric, and charlatans blur the lines between scientific and philosophical ideas of knowledge.

== Public belief ==
Despite evidence and logic against pseudoscientific theories, many remain popular among the public. Homeopathic medicine is available at most health-food stores and is a multibillion-dollar business, and 31% of Americans believe in astrology.

Notably, twice as many [[Democrats]] believe in astrology as [[Republicans]], showing a strong bent of irrationality and scientific [[illiteracy]] among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref>

There is no definitive or objective definition of the term "pseudoscience", so it is also sometimes used as a pejorative term. Pseudoscientists consider their work to be real science rather than pseudoscience. In addition to this, oftentimes theories which conflict with their theories are considered by them to be pseudoscience. Theories which are considered to be pseudoscience by the public may transition into being considered science if substantial evidence is found to support the theory. For example, before the theory of plate tectonics was fully developed, it was considered pseudoscience, whilst its predecessors, theories which involved an expanding Earth, are now considered pseudoscience.<ref>R. G. A. Dolby, ''Uncertain Knowledge: An Image of Science for a Changing World'', Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0521892627, 9780521892629, 380 pages. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xd3ylT3WTLEC&pg=PA191&dq=pseudoscience+pejorative&num=100&as_brr=3 Page 191]</ref><ref>Brian Stableford, ''Science Fact and Science Fiction'', Published by CRC Press, 2006, ISBN 0415974607, 9780415974608, 729 pages. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uefwmdROKTAC&pg=PA410&dq=pseudoscience+pejorative&num=100&as_brr=3 Page 410]</ref>

==Topics classified as pseudoscience==
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Within the [[evolution]]ary science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience besides committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>https://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref> For more information, please see: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] ]]
* Acupuncture
* Alternative medicine
* The [[ancient astronaut theory]]
* Animal magnetism
* [[Astrology]]
* [[Biodynamic agriculture]]
* Clairvoyance
* [[Creation Science]]
* Cryptozoology
* Crystal healing
* [[Dianetics]]
* [[Dominionism]]
* [[Environmentalism]]
* Extrasensory perception
* Feng shui
* [[Flood geology]]
* [[Free Energy]]
* Ghost hunting
* [[Graphology]]
* [[Homeopathy]]
* Hypnosis
* Iridology
* Levitation
* Lunar effects
* [[Lysenkoism]]
* Magnet Therapy
* Memetics (coincidentally originated by Richard Dawkins)
* Mesmerism
* Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
* Naturopathy
* Neuro-linguistic programming
* Numerology
* Orgone therapy
* Palmistry
* [[Parapsychology]]
* [[Phrenology]]
* [[Population control]]
* [[Pseudoarchaeology]]
* [[Psychoanalysis]]
* Psychokinesis
* Reflexology
* [[Scientific racism]], the basis for [[Democrat]] [[Jim Crow]] laws and [[Adolf Hitler]]'s eugenics system
* [[Scientology]]
* Séances
* [[Self-projection as God]] (also known as [[vicarious autotheism]])
* [[Ufology]]

== See also ==
* [[War on Science]]
* [[Green New Deal]]
* [[Scientism]]
* [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]
* [[Gay gene theory]]
* [http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html]

Humor:
* [[Essay: You obviously don't understand how science works|You obviously don't understand how science works]] - Humor/[[Satire]]

=== Refutations of Pseudoscience ===
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
* [[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
* [[Counterexamples to an Ice Age]]
* [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
* [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
* [[Counterexamples to String Theory]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Creation science

2021-09-20T01:15:05Z

NotAKiller:

[[File:Images.jpg|thumbnail|375px|right|The [[Creation Research Society]] is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons committed to the scientific study of special creation as given in the book of [[Genesis]]. They publish a quarterly peer-reviewed [[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|creation science journal]].<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/index.html The Creation Research Society]</ref> ]]
'''Creation science''' is branch of [[pseudoscience]] which sets out to show via cherrypicking that [[supernatural]] [[creation]] of the material [[universe]] by [[God]] is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Being in the realm of [[origins science]], creation science is a pseudoscience.<ref>[https://creation.com/its-not-science It's not science] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref><ref>[http://creationrevolution.com/2011/05/naturalism-doesn%E2%80%99t-work/ Naturalism Doesn’t Work]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science What is science?]</ref> Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is about 6,000 years old]], and they publish scientific evidence supporting this view (See, for example, [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]). The ongoing discovery of hundreds of [[living fossils]] correlates well with creation science but finds no answer in Darwinian theory.<ref>Thomas, B. 2015. 'Living Fossils' Point to Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. [https://www.icr.org/article/8974/268]</ref> In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that 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> Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the [[origin of life]] and that the [[Evolution|theory of evolution]] cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
[[Creation Ministries International]], a leading [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] science organization, declared:
{{cquote|Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the [[atheism|atheists]] and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, ''Journal of Creation'' has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against [[evolution]], creating little fires all around the world, including [[Great Britain]].

Atheist evangelist, Prof [[Richard Dawkins]], speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Edinburgh International Science Festival in April 2008, said the rise of creationism in British schools raised a serious problem for science teachers.

It is a very worrying trend,’ he said, ‘and I think a lot of it has come over from [[United States|America]] and [[Australia]].’<ref>https://creation.com/growth-of-creation-science-in-uk-worries-prof-dawkins</ref>}}

== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
{{Main|Intelligent design}}
[[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]
Scientists in the area of creation science and [[intelligent design]] advocates state the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118</ref>

Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex [[information]] processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html</ref>

Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:

#In his work ''In the Beginning Was Information'' Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094</ref>
#Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref> Similarly, Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] in his 1996 essay ''The [[Origin of life|Origin of Life]] and the Death of [[Materialism]]'', wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced [[computer chip]]s.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
#Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA [[molecule]], who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
#Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial ([[spirit]]).<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
[[Image:Waltbrown.gif‎|left|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Walt Brown]]]]
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs in regards to the [[supernatural]] origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref>

To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs, Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}

See also:
*[[:Template:Algorithms and information processing in biology|Algorithms and information processing in biology]]

== Creation Scientist Successfully Predicts Planetary Magnetic Fields ==
Using a young earth creation model, physicist Russ Humphreys successfully predicted the strength of planetary magnetic fields while Darwinists failed.<ref>The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., December 1984, CRSQ Vol. 21, No. 3 [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html]</ref> Since Humphreys' first success with the ''Voyager II'' results on Uranus and Neptune,<ref>D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. 1990. Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation. Acts & Facts. 19 (5).[https://www.icr.org/article/beyond-neptune-voyager-ii-supports-creation]</ref> subsequent explorations yielded additional successes for Mercury.<ref>Thomas, B. 2011. Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model. Acts & Facts.[https://www.icr.org/article/mercurys-fading-magnetic-field-fits]</ref>
Dr. Donn Chapman invited Dr. Humphreys on the Origins TV series presenting his theory.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7manZ1WF-Lc&list=PLT8IFvbAQauhBny_7LoWat_ZrjXx159Y7&index=26 Magnetic Fields, part 1 of 2 with Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - Origins]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDk5rgoThA&list=PLT8IFvbAQauhBny_7LoWat_ZrjXx159Y7&index=47 Magnetic Fields, part 2 of 2 with Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - Origins]</ref>

Other recent successful predictions were that Pluto would show active geology, it's atmospheric escape rate would be too great for millions of years, and that Pluto's moons would not yield evidence for being formed from collision.<ref>"Will Pluto Surprise Scientists?" by David F. Coppedge, ''Creation Evolution Headlines,'' July 9, 2015 [https://crev.info/2015/07/will-pluto-surprise-scientists/]</ref> This was confirmed by the ''New Horizons'' flyby.<ref>"“Overdose of Awesomeness”: New Pluto Images Show Unpredicted Activity", by David Coppedge, Creation Matters 2015 Vol. 20, Num. 5 [https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/extensions/s5-creation-matters/cm-archive/creation-matters-2010-to-2019]</ref>

== Effect of the growth of creation science and Christian apologetics ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity]]

The effect of evolutionism/[[atheism]]/[[agnosticism]] on the [[Western World]] and the world at large was mitigated by the growth of modern creationism and [[Christian apologetics]] in the latter half of the 20th century and today [[global creationism]], Christian apologetics and [[global Christianity]] is seeing rapid growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref><ref>[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/10/04/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals/ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals], ''Vancouver Sun'', October 4, 2014</ref>

== Biblical creation publications ==

''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]

Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:

*''[[Creation magazine]]''

*''[[Journal of Creation]]'' - Peer reviewed

*''[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]]'' - peer reviewed

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==
Creation science is considered as pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community. It is also commonly rejected by [[Atheism|atheists]] as they generally hold the [[worldview]] of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]]. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved ([[falsifiable|falsifiability]]) and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/https://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>

However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> and the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to their worldviews and preconceptions, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> However prominent evolutionist [[J. B. S. Haldane]], when asked what would falsify the theory of evolution, said "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

==See also ==
*[[Bill Keith]], author of the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act, struck down by U.S. Supreme Court
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates]]
*[[Creation]]
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Creationist contributions to science]]
*[[Scriptural geologists‎]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth‎]]

==External links==
*[http://associationforcreation.org/ The International Association For Creation]
*[http://creationnetwork.org/ The Creation Network]
*[http://visitcreation.org/ The Big Map of Creation]
*[https://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] the website of Dr. [[Walt Brown]]
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society]
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
*[https://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]

==Notes and References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creation science]]

Talk:Niagara Falls

2021-09-20T01:11:41Z

NotAKiller:

== Even atheistic scientists admit that Niagara Falls is less than 15,000 years old, which makes it a Counterexample to an Old Earth ==
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "[w]ithin a river’s time scale, a waterfall is a temporary feature that is eventually worn away". Indeed, according to https://www.niagaraparks.com/visit-niagara-parks/plan-your-visit/niagara-falls-geology-facts-figures/ "50,000 years from now, at the present rate of erosion, the remaining 20 miles to Lake Erie will have been undermined. There won’t be a falls anymore, but there will still be a river at work." This seems to be a typical timeline for a waterfall. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (EST)
:It was created by fucking glaciation dammit! Do your fucking research! [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 21:11, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2021-09-20T01:09:48Z

NotAKiller:

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

----



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Rates ==

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

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

== Dog Races ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical Counterexamples ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

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

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

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

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

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

== A mathematician's take ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Only 99% certain? ==

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

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

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

== Template ==

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

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

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

== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==

If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)

I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:
* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern. It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)

It turns out that I can't edit [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Could someone else please do it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:35, 13 February 2013 (EST)

:The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)
::If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)

::So the Earth is in a period of change, ok, but you can't conclude that before this period of change there was nothing because the Earth didn't exist. Maybe there was a period when the frequency of large earthquakes decreased, or stayed the same. Why should this 40-year doubling go on unchanged for 6000 years? And this counterexample definitely '''is''' different from the others, in that something is '''increasing''', whereas in all the others something is '''decreasing'''. I think this counterexample is much weaker than the others, and should be dropped. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 17:13, 15 February 2013 (EST)

== Young Earth ==

If it takes only one counterexample being true to disprove Old Earth theories, it must also take only one counterexample to disprove Young Earth theories. You might want to address that. I'm just saying......

== The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought ==

*How is a ''core temperature of about 6,000°C, give or take 500°C'' '''''far hotter''''' than 5,000°C?
*A second question: Andrew Schlafly, you wrote that ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun.'' What do you mean by this? How does this prediction work?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:21, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== Fast Erosion ==

Mountains erode faster than atheist geology previously thought - "no speed limit".
[http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]
Add that to list perhaps? [[User:JamesWS|JamesWS]] 20:20, 17 January 2014 (EST)

:Terrific discovery. Please add your insight to the list!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 17 January 2014 (EST)

== History Section ==

The example listed is false, and thus has been removed. There are many examples, but here, for example, is a 7000 year old mask.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_%22Bible_et_Terre_Sainte%22]
:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?

== Expansion of the universe ==

"The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the Big Bang had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent"

I accept the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why should that mean the universe is only 6000 years old? It would be equally valid for it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

== Stalemate of scientific discoveries ==

The point about scientific discoveries in the last several decades does not make any sense as to why this suggests a young earth. Can someone please explain it better or I shall remove it.

== Based on erosion rates, Niagara Falls is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by atheistic scientists who believe in an Old Earth ==

How is this a counterexample? Waterfalls are thought to be relatively young, compared with the lifetime of a river. And even an old earth is to be expected to have some young features as an old man can sprout a new pimple: that does not make him an adolescent again. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (EST)
:The Niagara Falls were created by the recession of glaciers during the last glacial period 12,000 years ago, as were the Great Lakes. The fact that creationists think that this is an argument against the old Earth is laughable. [[User:GlaciersYouIDiots|GlaciersYouIDiots]] ([[User talk:GlaciersYouIDiots|talk]]) 02:13, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::And your evidence is ...??? [[Atheistic science]] is so circular in its reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 02:44, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
{{Warning collapse
|reason=All criticism of the Party is banned. Offenders will be sent to the gulag.
|content=:::[https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara Here's your evidence], you dumbass denialist. You could have easily found it yourself. Although it may require you to read through something without skimming, so I don't know if you can handle it. Also, banning people just because they poke holes in your arguments, shows how little you actually care about things such as the Freedom of Speech. [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|You claim]] "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", what a crock of shit. [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:49, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::Also, why do you dumbasses think artificially bred dogs are a rebuttal to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old? [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:51, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::: Generally, we block for incivility after a warning. If you want your comments to have any credence or consideration, please remove the incivility and personal contempt you express toward people with differing views. It only discredits yourself and limits your ability to speak. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 17:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT
Also, "The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood." You're telling me that none of you miscreant nincompoops know what the Great Basin is? If you have that little knowledge of geology, why are you dastardly asshole denialists making any claims about it? You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and this page is full of lies. At least don't pretend that you give a solitary fuck about science when you ignore anything that suggests your 4,000 year old fairy tale might not be 100% completely perfectly accurate. You don't even have any pointed criticisms of the fucking methodology of any of this besides "OH NO, NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE!!11!1!111!!1111!1" Also, if you can't fucking handle the word fuck, then you are just a bunch of sheltered immature 10-year-olds who have never been exposed to the real world, but then again I suppose that that is the only part of this complete and utter fucking shitshow that is this wiki. If you refuse to engage with these points and instead complain about "civility" (but why the fuck should ''I'' be civil when your stupidly moronic rhetoric is resulting in the destruction of the world via climate change and many queer teenagers killing themselves) then you will be proving that all of my points are right but you motherfucking bastards are much too cowardly to admit it. [[User:GreatBasinLakeExpert|GreatBasinLakeExpert]] ([[User talk:GreatBasinLakeExpert|talk]]) 19:33, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:Please refrain from incivility, profanity, and disparaging references toward other users. Take this as a warning. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

:Admin/Moderator comment: Obviously, we have some editors who feel strongly about this issue and debate. My question: Why are they incapable of expressing their point of view rationally? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:50, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::Yeah, why don't you tell that crap to Justin Aaberg, Leelah Alcorn, Taylor Alesana, Lui Aquino Aquino, Jadin Bell, Brenda Benet, Blake Brockington, Eylül Cansın, Wiktor, Dora Carrington, Leslie Cheung, Tyler Clementi, Hart Crane, Brad Davis, Denice Denton, Thomas M. Disch, Justin Fashanu, Robert "Bobby" Wayne Griffith, Ash Haffner, Sarah Hegazi, Jamie Hubley, William Inge, Kim Ji-hoom, Adam Kizer, Zuzia Kobałka, Michał Koch, Cameron Langrell, Andrew Leach, Elizabeth Lowe, Billy Lucas, Zander Mahaffey, F. O. Matthiessen, Milo Mazurkiewicz, Alexander McQueen, Markus Middleton, Jamel Myles, Kent North, Avinshu Patel, Arthur Pelham-Clinton, Mike Penner, Kyler Prescott, Jamey Rodmeyer, Melonie Rose, Nigel Shelby, Channing Smith, Bobby Steele, Dominik Szymański, Braxton Taylor, Alan Turing, Tyrone Unsworth, Sergio Urrego, Carlos Vigil, Seth Walsh, William Walters, Kenneth Weishuhn, James Whale, Jim Wheeler, Tobi Wong, Ya-Hui Yang, and Kacperek Zasada? Oh wait, you can't, they are all dead because of assholes like you spreading pseudoscientific bullshit about how being queer is supposedly a choice and evil. At least I'm not a killer, you are the ones that should be banned for having blood on your hands. Also, apparently the word "blood" makes you more uncomfortable than the deaths of queer teenagers. Fuck you all. If there really is a hell, you will be the ones burning inside it for all eternity. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:07, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

:::Relax. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Try to be coherent. Never heard of any of those people, and don't have a clue what you're rattling on about. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::You do realize Google is a thing you ninny? And thanks for showing a first-grade level of reading comprehension. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:::::I'm really confused now. Is the argument that certain people were killed because of their views on Old Earth creation? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:46, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Also, it's not a good idea to undo the actions of Sysop. That can and likely may earn you sanctions. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:47, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
People died because of lamebrains like you ignoring any science that went against a 4,000 year old fairy tale. Whether it's on climate change, queer issues, or medicine, nitwits ignoring science in favor of fairy tales always results in disaster. Try telling someone from Kiribati with a straight face that global warming isn't real when their houses are sinking underwater. Try telling any of the people mentioned above that being queer is a choice or a sin. Meanwhile, you don't even fucking acknowledge the existence of glaciers 12,000 years ago or the Great Basin. How am I supposed to take you seriously? I would laugh at you if it weren't for the fact that people are dying due to your denialist bullshit. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:54, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:Also, remember the point of this thread. None of you assholes have fucking acknowledged the evidence that glaciation created the Niagara Falls! You are all a bunch of lying, cheating, authoritarian dishonest denialist bastards! [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:57, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:{ec} People died cause they believed in Old Earth creation. That, I assume is what you mean. You apparently intend to imply that they were murdered because they believe in Old Earth creation. Am I understanding this point correctly now?
:Please reserve your anti-God rants for the appropriate page. Also, please refrain from namecalling, personal attacks, and bigotted generalisations. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]
:Last warning on profanity and incivility. Too bad, cause according to WP, there has only been one hate crime prosecution for the murder of a homosexual ever. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 21:00, September 19, 2021 (EDT)}}
::How am I the one being uncivil when you are the one trivializing the deaths of people? And you still aren't engaging with the evidence, but instead making a vague death threat. It's rich that you ask people to refrain from "bigotted generalisations" (you can't even fucking spell properly) when you have so many bigoted articles on queer people. Those people took their lives because of harassment from people like you, all because you take the words of a fucking fairytale over well-supported science. Yet when these people constantly die, you never take the hint. Maybe learn to have some fucking empathy and you wouldn't be such a stupid evil asshole. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 21:09, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

== Really? ==

It's not that I'm an atheist or anything, but I don't understand why God couldn't have created the Earth billions of years ago. After all, even 10,000 years seems rather a short amount of time, doesn't it? It doesn't say specifically in the Bible the age of the Earth, and though we could try to calculate it based on dates given in the Book, that's also rather difficult and not very precise. All I'm saying is, some Young Earth Creationists think the Earth is just 6,000 years old. That's just 3 times the time that's elapsed since Christ's birth. Just 3! It just seems short to me.

:Intuition doesn't really help on this issue. What "seems" to be about this is usually what is taught in school or promoted by the media.

:Everything declines over time due to the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], and 1 billion years of decline would not be pretty.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:32, 13 February 2020 (EST)

Niagara Falls

2021-09-20T01:03:10Z

NotAKiller: Also coping with Trumps loss via questions, love it

[[File:Niagara-Falls-Flow.jpg|right|300px|Niagara-Falls-Flow|thumbnail|300px|The lest informed and reasonable scientists, namely those that subscribe to [[creation science]], estimate the age of Niagara Falls to be about 4,400 years old.<ref>[https://creation.com/niagara-falls-and-the-bible Niagara Falls and the Bible] by Larry Pierce, Creation.com</ref> In actuality, it's closer to 10,000 years old.<ref>https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara</ref>]]
'''Niagara Falls''' is one of the largest and best known natural waterfall ranges. The falls are located on the [[Niagara River]] on the international borderline between the cities of Niagara Falls, [[New York]] ([[United States]]) and Niagara Falls, [[Ontario]] ([[Canada]]).

The least informed and reasonable scientists, namely those that subscribe to [[creation science]], estimate the age of Niagara Falls to be about 4,400 years old.<ref>[https://creation.com/niagara-falls-and-the-bible Niagara Falls and the Bible] by Larry Pierce, Creation.com</ref>

Even [[atheist]]ic scientists admit that Niagara Falls is less than 15,000 years old due to the fact that it was created as a result of glaciation in the Late Pleistocene.<ref>https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara</ref>

Niagara Falls is comprised of Horseshoe Falls and the American Falls. Horseshoe Falls are about 2,600 feet wide, and is about 173 feet from the top of the falls to the bottom. The American Falls are about 1,060 feet wide, and flows about 70 feet from top to bottom.

<blockquote>
More than 750,000 gallons of water per second thunder down this iconic 167-foot waterfall—the most powerful on the North American continent. The falls straddle the border between the U.S. and Canada, and though some argue that Horseshoe Falls—set on the Ontario side—is more spectacular than the smaller American Falls, the landmark has held a particular place in American history ever since 1901, when Michigan schoolteacher Annie Edson Taylor was the first person to go over the falls (and survive) in a barrel. [http://travel.yahoo.com/p-interests-40437576]
</blockquote>

The falls have been a source of [[hydroelectric power]] for many years.

== See also ==

*[[Mount Rushmore]]
*[[Golden Gate Bridge]]

==External links==
*[http://www.fallsview.com/Stream/StarDotTechCamStill1024.shtml Live image of Niagara Falls — from the Ontario side]

[[Category:United States Rivers]]
[[Category:Canadian Rivers]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]
[[Category:Famous Landmarks]]

Niagara Falls

2021-09-20T01:01:42Z

NotAKiller:

[[File:Niagara-Falls-Flow.jpg|right|300px|Niagara-Falls-Flow|thumbnail|300px|The most informed and reasonable scientists, namely those that subscribe to [[creation science]], estimate the age of Niagara Falls to be about 4,400 years old.<ref>[https://creation.com/niagara-falls-and-the-bible Niagara Falls and the Bible] by Larry Pierce, Creation.com</ref>]]
'''Niagara Falls''' is one of the largest and best known natural waterfall ranges. The falls are located on the [[Niagara River]] on the international borderline between the cities of Niagara Falls, [[New York]] ([[United States]]) and Niagara Falls, [[Ontario]] ([[Canada]]).

The least informed and reasonable scientists, namely those that subscribe to [[creation science]], estimate the age of Niagara Falls to be about 4,400 years old.<ref>[https://creation.com/niagara-falls-and-the-bible Niagara Falls and the Bible] by Larry Pierce, Creation.com</ref>

Even [[atheist]]ic scientists admit that Niagara Falls is less than 15,000 years old due to the fact that it was created as a result of glaciation in the Late Pleistocene.<ref>https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara</ref>

Niagara Falls is comprised of Horseshoe Falls and the American Falls. Horseshoe Falls are about 2,600 feet wide, and is about 173 feet from the top of the falls to the bottom. The American Falls are about 1,060 feet wide, and flows about 70 feet from top to bottom.

<blockquote>
More than 750,000 gallons of water per second thunder down this iconic 167-foot waterfall—the most powerful on the North American continent. The falls straddle the border between the U.S. and Canada, and though some argue that Horseshoe Falls—set on the Ontario side—is more spectacular than the smaller American Falls, the landmark has held a particular place in American history ever since 1901, when Michigan schoolteacher Annie Edson Taylor was the first person to go over the falls (and survive) in a barrel. [http://travel.yahoo.com/p-interests-40437576]
</blockquote>

The falls have been a source of [[hydroelectric power]] for many years.

== See also ==

*[[Mount Rushmore]]
*[[Golden Gate Bridge]]

==External links==
*[http://www.fallsview.com/Stream/StarDotTechCamStill1024.shtml Live image of Niagara Falls — from the Ontario side]

[[Category:United States Rivers]]
[[Category:Canadian Rivers]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]
[[Category:Famous Landmarks]]

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2021-09-20T00:57:44Z

NotAKiller:

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

----



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Rates ==

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

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

== Dog Races ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical Counterexamples ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

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

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

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

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

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

== A mathematician's take ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Only 99% certain? ==

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

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

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

== Template ==

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

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

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

== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==

If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)

I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:
* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern. It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)

It turns out that I can't edit [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Could someone else please do it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:35, 13 February 2013 (EST)

:The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)
::If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)

::So the Earth is in a period of change, ok, but you can't conclude that before this period of change there was nothing because the Earth didn't exist. Maybe there was a period when the frequency of large earthquakes decreased, or stayed the same. Why should this 40-year doubling go on unchanged for 6000 years? And this counterexample definitely '''is''' different from the others, in that something is '''increasing''', whereas in all the others something is '''decreasing'''. I think this counterexample is much weaker than the others, and should be dropped. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 17:13, 15 February 2013 (EST)

== Young Earth ==

If it takes only one counterexample being true to disprove Old Earth theories, it must also take only one counterexample to disprove Young Earth theories. You might want to address that. I'm just saying......

== The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought ==

*How is a ''core temperature of about 6,000°C, give or take 500°C'' '''''far hotter''''' than 5,000°C?
*A second question: Andrew Schlafly, you wrote that ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun.'' What do you mean by this? How does this prediction work?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:21, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== Fast Erosion ==

Mountains erode faster than atheist geology previously thought - "no speed limit".
[http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]
Add that to list perhaps? [[User:JamesWS|JamesWS]] 20:20, 17 January 2014 (EST)

:Terrific discovery. Please add your insight to the list!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 17 January 2014 (EST)

== History Section ==

The example listed is false, and thus has been removed. There are many examples, but here, for example, is a 7000 year old mask.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_%22Bible_et_Terre_Sainte%22]
:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?

== Expansion of the universe ==

"The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the Big Bang had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent"

I accept the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why should that mean the universe is only 6000 years old? It would be equally valid for it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

== Stalemate of scientific discoveries ==

The point about scientific discoveries in the last several decades does not make any sense as to why this suggests a young earth. Can someone please explain it better or I shall remove it.

== Based on erosion rates, Niagara Falls is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by atheistic scientists who believe in an Old Earth ==

How is this a counterexample? Waterfalls are thought to be relatively young, compared with the lifetime of a river. And even an old earth is to be expected to have some young features as an old man can sprout a new pimple: that does not make him an adolescent again. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (EST)
:The Niagara Falls were created by the recession of glaciers during the last glacial period 12,000 years ago, as were the Great Lakes. The fact that creationists think that this is an argument against the old Earth is laughable. [[User:GlaciersYouIDiots|GlaciersYouIDiots]] ([[User talk:GlaciersYouIDiots|talk]]) 02:13, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::And your evidence is ...??? [[Atheistic science]] is so circular in its reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 02:44, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
{{Warning collapse
|reason=All criticism of the Party is banned. Offenders will be sent to the gulag.
|content=:::[https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara Here's your evidence], you dumbass denialist. You could have easily found it yourself. Although it may require you to read through something without skimming, so I don't know if you can handle it. Also, banning people just because they poke holes in your arguments, shows how little you actually care about things such as the Freedom of Speech. [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|You claim]] "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", what a crock of shit. [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:49, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::Also, why do you dumbasses think artificially bred dogs are a rebuttal to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old? [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:51, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::: Generally, we block for incivility after a warning. If you want your comments to have any credence or consideration, please remove the incivility and personal contempt you express toward people with differing views. It only discredits yourself and limits your ability to speak. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 17:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT
Also, "The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood." You're telling me that none of you miscreant nincompoops know what the Great Basin is? If you have that little knowledge of geology, why are you dastardly asshole denialists making any claims about it? You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and this page is full of lies. At least don't pretend that you give a solitary fuck about science when you ignore anything that suggests your 4,000 year old fairy tale might not be 100% completely perfectly accurate. You don't even have any pointed criticisms of the fucking methodology of any of this besides "OH NO, NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE!!11!1!111!!1111!1" Also, if you can't fucking handle the word fuck, then you are just a bunch of sheltered immature 10-year-olds who have never been exposed to the real world, but then again I suppose that that is the only part of this complete and utter fucking shitshow that is this wiki. If you refuse to engage with these points and instead complain about "civility" (but why the fuck should ''I'' be civil when your stupidly moronic rhetoric is resulting in the destruction of the world via climate change and many queer teenagers killing themselves) then you will be proving that all of my points are right but you motherfucking bastards are much too cowardly to admit it. [[User:GreatBasinLakeExpert|GreatBasinLakeExpert]] ([[User talk:GreatBasinLakeExpert|talk]]) 19:33, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:Please refrain from incivility, profanity, and disparaging references toward other users. Take this as a warning. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

:Admin/Moderator comment: Obviously, we have some editors who feel strongly about this issue and debate. My question: Why are they incapable of expressing their point of view rationally? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:50, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::Yeah, why don't you tell that crap to Justin Aaberg, Leelah Alcorn, Taylor Alesana, Lui Aquino Aquino, Jadin Bell, Brenda Benet, Blake Brockington, Eylül Cansın, Wiktor, Dora Carrington, Leslie Cheung, Tyler Clementi, Hart Crane, Brad Davis, Denice Denton, Thomas M. Disch, Justin Fashanu, Robert "Bobby" Wayne Griffith, Ash Haffner, Sarah Hegazi, Jamie Hubley, William Inge, Kim Ji-hoom, Adam Kizer, Zuzia Kobałka, Michał Koch, Cameron Langrell, Andrew Leach, Elizabeth Lowe, Billy Lucas, Zander Mahaffey, F. O. Matthiessen, Milo Mazurkiewicz, Alexander McQueen, Markus Middleton, Jamel Myles, Kent North, Avinshu Patel, Arthur Pelham-Clinton, Mike Penner, Kyler Prescott, Jamey Rodmeyer, Melonie Rose, Nigel Shelby, Channing Smith, Bobby Steele, Dominik Szymański, Braxton Taylor, Alan Turing, Tyrone Unsworth, Sergio Urrego, Carlos Vigil, Seth Walsh, William Walters, Kenneth Weishuhn, James Whale, Jim Wheeler, Tobi Wong, Ya-Hui Yang, and Kacperek Zasada? Oh wait, you can't, they are all dead because of assholes like you spreading pseudoscientific bullshit about how being queer is supposedly a choice and evil. At least I'm not a killer, you are the ones that should be banned for having blood on your hands. Also, apparently the word "blood" makes you more uncomfortable than the deaths of queer teenagers. Fuck you all. If there really is a hell, you will be the ones burning inside it for all eternity. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:07, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

:::Relax. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Try to be coherent. Never heard of any of those people, and don't have a clue what you're rattling on about. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::You do realize Google is a thing you ninny? And thanks for showing a first-grade level of reading comprehension. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:::::I'm really confused now. Is the argument that certain people were killed because of their views on Old Earth creation? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:46, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Also, it's not a good idea to undo the actions of Sysop. That can and likely may earn you sanctions. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:47, September 19, 2021 (EDT)}}
People died because of lamebrains like you ignoring any science that went against a 4,000 year old fairy tale. Whether it's on climate change, queer issues, or medicine, nitwits ignoring science in favor of fairy tales always results in disaster. Try telling someone from Kiribati with a straight face that global warming isn't real when their houses are sinking underwater. Try telling any of the people mentioned above that being queer is a choice or a sin. Meanwhile, you don't even fucking acknowledge the existence of glaciers 12,000 years ago or the Great Basin. How am I supposed to take you seriously? I would laugh at you if it weren't for the fact that people are dying due to your denialist bullshit. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:54, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:Also, remember the point of this thread. None of you assholes have fucking acknowledged the evidence that glaciation created the Niagara Falls! You are all a bunch of lying, cheating, authoritarian dishonest denialist bastards! [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:57, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

== Really? ==

It's not that I'm an atheist or anything, but I don't understand why God couldn't have created the Earth billions of years ago. After all, even 10,000 years seems rather a short amount of time, doesn't it? It doesn't say specifically in the Bible the age of the Earth, and though we could try to calculate it based on dates given in the Book, that's also rather difficult and not very precise. All I'm saying is, some Young Earth Creationists think the Earth is just 6,000 years old. That's just 3 times the time that's elapsed since Christ's birth. Just 3! It just seems short to me.

:Intuition doesn't really help on this issue. What "seems" to be about this is usually what is taught in school or promoted by the media.

:Everything declines over time due to the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], and 1 billion years of decline would not be pretty.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:32, 13 February 2020 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2021-09-20T00:54:48Z

NotAKiller:

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

----



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Rates ==

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

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

== Dog Races ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical Counterexamples ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

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

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

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

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

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

== A mathematician's take ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Only 99% certain? ==

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

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

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

== Template ==

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

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

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

== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==

If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)

I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:
* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern. It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)

It turns out that I can't edit [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Could someone else please do it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:35, 13 February 2013 (EST)

:The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)
::If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)

::So the Earth is in a period of change, ok, but you can't conclude that before this period of change there was nothing because the Earth didn't exist. Maybe there was a period when the frequency of large earthquakes decreased, or stayed the same. Why should this 40-year doubling go on unchanged for 6000 years? And this counterexample definitely '''is''' different from the others, in that something is '''increasing''', whereas in all the others something is '''decreasing'''. I think this counterexample is much weaker than the others, and should be dropped. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 17:13, 15 February 2013 (EST)

== Young Earth ==

If it takes only one counterexample being true to disprove Old Earth theories, it must also take only one counterexample to disprove Young Earth theories. You might want to address that. I'm just saying......

== The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought ==

*How is a ''core temperature of about 6,000°C, give or take 500°C'' '''''far hotter''''' than 5,000°C?
*A second question: Andrew Schlafly, you wrote that ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun.'' What do you mean by this? How does this prediction work?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:21, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== Fast Erosion ==

Mountains erode faster than atheist geology previously thought - "no speed limit".
[http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]
Add that to list perhaps? [[User:JamesWS|JamesWS]] 20:20, 17 January 2014 (EST)

:Terrific discovery. Please add your insight to the list!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 17 January 2014 (EST)

== History Section ==

The example listed is false, and thus has been removed. There are many examples, but here, for example, is a 7000 year old mask.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_%22Bible_et_Terre_Sainte%22]
:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?

== Expansion of the universe ==

"The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the Big Bang had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent"

I accept the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why should that mean the universe is only 6000 years old? It would be equally valid for it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

== Stalemate of scientific discoveries ==

The point about scientific discoveries in the last several decades does not make any sense as to why this suggests a young earth. Can someone please explain it better or I shall remove it.

== Based on erosion rates, Niagara Falls is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by atheistic scientists who believe in an Old Earth ==

How is this a counterexample? Waterfalls are thought to be relatively young, compared with the lifetime of a river. And even an old earth is to be expected to have some young features as an old man can sprout a new pimple: that does not make him an adolescent again. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (EST)
:The Niagara Falls were created by the recession of glaciers during the last glacial period 12,000 years ago, as were the Great Lakes. The fact that creationists think that this is an argument against the old Earth is laughable. [[User:GlaciersYouIDiots|GlaciersYouIDiots]] ([[User talk:GlaciersYouIDiots|talk]]) 02:13, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::And your evidence is ...??? [[Atheistic science]] is so circular in its reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 02:44, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
{{Warning collapse
|reason=All criticism of the Party is banned. Offenders will be sent to the gulag.
|content=:::[https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara Here's your evidence], you dumbass denialist. You could have easily found it yourself. Although it may require you to read through something without skimming, so I don't know if you can handle it. Also, banning people just because they poke holes in your arguments, shows how little you actually care about things such as the Freedom of Speech. [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|You claim]] "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", what a crock of shit. [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:49, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::Also, why do you dumbasses think artificially bred dogs are a rebuttal to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old? [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:51, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::: Generally, we block for incivility after a warning. If you want your comments to have any credence or consideration, please remove the incivility and personal contempt you express toward people with differing views. It only discredits yourself and limits your ability to speak. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 17:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT
Also, "The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood." You're telling me that none of you miscreant nincompoops know what the Great Basin is? If you have that little knowledge of geology, why are you dastardly asshole denialists making any claims about it? You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and this page is full of lies. At least don't pretend that you give a solitary fuck about science when you ignore anything that suggests your 4,000 year old fairy tale might not be 100% completely perfectly accurate. You don't even have any pointed criticisms of the fucking methodology of any of this besides "OH NO, NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE!!11!1!111!!1111!1" Also, if you can't fucking handle the word fuck, then you are just a bunch of sheltered immature 10-year-olds who have never been exposed to the real world, but then again I suppose that that is the only part of this complete and utter fucking shitshow that is this wiki. If you refuse to engage with these points and instead complain about "civility" (but why the fuck should ''I'' be civil when your stupidly moronic rhetoric is resulting in the destruction of the world via climate change and many queer teenagers killing themselves) then you will be proving that all of my points are right but you motherfucking bastards are much too cowardly to admit it. [[User:GreatBasinLakeExpert|GreatBasinLakeExpert]] ([[User talk:GreatBasinLakeExpert|talk]]) 19:33, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:Please refrain from incivility, profanity, and disparaging references toward other users. Take this as a warning. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

:Admin/Moderator comment: Obviously, we have some editors who feel strongly about this issue and debate. My question: Why are they incapable of expressing their point of view rationally? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:50, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::Yeah, why don't you tell that crap to Justin Aaberg, Leelah Alcorn, Taylor Alesana, Lui Aquino Aquino, Jadin Bell, Brenda Benet, Blake Brockington, Eylül Cansın, Wiktor, Dora Carrington, Leslie Cheung, Tyler Clementi, Hart Crane, Brad Davis, Denice Denton, Thomas M. Disch, Justin Fashanu, Robert "Bobby" Wayne Griffith, Ash Haffner, Sarah Hegazi, Jamie Hubley, William Inge, Kim Ji-hoom, Adam Kizer, Zuzia Kobałka, Michał Koch, Cameron Langrell, Andrew Leach, Elizabeth Lowe, Billy Lucas, Zander Mahaffey, F. O. Matthiessen, Milo Mazurkiewicz, Alexander McQueen, Markus Middleton, Jamel Myles, Kent North, Avinshu Patel, Arthur Pelham-Clinton, Mike Penner, Kyler Prescott, Jamey Rodmeyer, Melonie Rose, Nigel Shelby, Channing Smith, Bobby Steele, Dominik Szymański, Braxton Taylor, Alan Turing, Tyrone Unsworth, Sergio Urrego, Carlos Vigil, Seth Walsh, William Walters, Kenneth Weishuhn, James Whale, Jim Wheeler, Tobi Wong, Ya-Hui Yang, and Kacperek Zasada? Oh wait, you can't, they are all dead because of assholes like you spreading pseudoscientific bullshit about how being queer is supposedly a choice and evil. At least I'm not a killer, you are the ones that should be banned for having blood on your hands. Also, apparently the word "blood" makes you more uncomfortable than the deaths of queer teenagers. Fuck you all. If there really is a hell, you will be the ones burning inside it for all eternity. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:07, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

:::Relax. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Try to be coherent. Never heard of any of those people, and don't have a clue what you're rattling on about. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::You do realize Google is a thing you ninny? And thanks for showing a first-grade level of reading comprehension. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:::::I'm really confused now. Is the argument that certain people were killed because of their views on Old Earth creation? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:46, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Also, it's not a good idea to undo the actions of Sysop. That can and likely may earn you sanctions. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:47, September 19, 2021 (EDT)}}
People died because of lamebrains like you ignoring any science that went against a 4,000 year old fairy tale. Whether it's on climate change, queer issues, or medicine, nitwits ignoring science in favor of fairy tales always results in disaster. Try telling someone from Kiribati with a straight face that global warming isn't real when their houses are sinking underwater. Try telling any of the people mentioned above that being queer is a choice or a sin. Meanwhile, you don't even fucking acknowledge the existence of glaciers 12,000 years ago or the Great Basin. How am I supposed to take you seriously? I would laugh at you if it weren't for the fact that people are dying due to your denialist bullshit. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:54, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
== Really? ==

It's not that I'm an atheist or anything, but I don't understand why God couldn't have created the Earth billions of years ago. After all, even 10,000 years seems rather a short amount of time, doesn't it? It doesn't say specifically in the Bible the age of the Earth, and though we could try to calculate it based on dates given in the Book, that's also rather difficult and not very precise. All I'm saying is, some Young Earth Creationists think the Earth is just 6,000 years old. That's just 3 times the time that's elapsed since Christ's birth. Just 3! It just seems short to me.

:Intuition doesn't really help on this issue. What "seems" to be about this is usually what is taught in school or promoted by the media.

:Everything declines over time due to the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], and 1 billion years of decline would not be pretty.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:32, 13 February 2020 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2021-09-20T00:38:14Z

NotAKiller:

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

----



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Rates ==

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

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

== Dog Races ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical Counterexamples ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

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

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

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

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

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

== A mathematician's take ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Only 99% certain? ==

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

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

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

== Template ==

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

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

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

== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==

If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)

I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:
* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern. It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)

It turns out that I can't edit [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Could someone else please do it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:35, 13 February 2013 (EST)

:The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)
::If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)

::So the Earth is in a period of change, ok, but you can't conclude that before this period of change there was nothing because the Earth didn't exist. Maybe there was a period when the frequency of large earthquakes decreased, or stayed the same. Why should this 40-year doubling go on unchanged for 6000 years? And this counterexample definitely '''is''' different from the others, in that something is '''increasing''', whereas in all the others something is '''decreasing'''. I think this counterexample is much weaker than the others, and should be dropped. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 17:13, 15 February 2013 (EST)

== Young Earth ==

If it takes only one counterexample being true to disprove Old Earth theories, it must also take only one counterexample to disprove Young Earth theories. You might want to address that. I'm just saying......

== The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought ==

*How is a ''core temperature of about 6,000°C, give or take 500°C'' '''''far hotter''''' than 5,000°C?
*A second question: Andrew Schlafly, you wrote that ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun.'' What do you mean by this? How does this prediction work?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:21, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== Fast Erosion ==

Mountains erode faster than atheist geology previously thought - "no speed limit".
[http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]
Add that to list perhaps? [[User:JamesWS|JamesWS]] 20:20, 17 January 2014 (EST)

:Terrific discovery. Please add your insight to the list!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 17 January 2014 (EST)

== History Section ==

The example listed is false, and thus has been removed. There are many examples, but here, for example, is a 7000 year old mask.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_%22Bible_et_Terre_Sainte%22]
:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?

== Expansion of the universe ==

"The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the Big Bang had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent"

I accept the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why should that mean the universe is only 6000 years old? It would be equally valid for it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

== Stalemate of scientific discoveries ==

The point about scientific discoveries in the last several decades does not make any sense as to why this suggests a young earth. Can someone please explain it better or I shall remove it.

== Based on erosion rates, Niagara Falls is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by atheistic scientists who believe in an Old Earth ==

How is this a counterexample? Waterfalls are thought to be relatively young, compared with the lifetime of a river. And even an old earth is to be expected to have some young features as an old man can sprout a new pimple: that does not make him an adolescent again. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (EST)
:The Niagara Falls were created by the recession of glaciers during the last glacial period 12,000 years ago, as were the Great Lakes. The fact that creationists think that this is an argument against the old Earth is laughable. [[User:GlaciersYouIDiots|GlaciersYouIDiots]] ([[User talk:GlaciersYouIDiots|talk]]) 02:13, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::And your evidence is ...??? [[Atheistic science]] is so circular in its reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 02:44, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:::[https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara Here's your evidence], you dumbass denialist. You could have easily found it yourself. Although it may require you to read through something without skimming, so I don't know if you can handle it. Also, banning people just because they poke holes in your arguments, shows how little you actually care about things such as the Freedom of Speech. [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|You claim]] "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", what a crock of shit. [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:49, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::Also, why do you dumbasses think artificially bred dogs are a rebuttal to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old? [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:51, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::: Generally, we block for incivility after a warning. If you want your comments to have any credence or consideration, please remove the incivility and personal contempt you express toward people with differing views. It only discredits yourself and limits your ability to speak. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 17:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT
Also, "The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood." You're telling me that none of you miscreant nincompoops know what the Great Basin is? If you have that little knowledge of geology, why are you dastardly asshole denialists making any claims about it? You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and this page is full of lies. At least don't pretend that you give a solitary fuck about science when you ignore anything that suggests your 4,000 year old fairy tale might not be 100% completely perfectly accurate. You don't even have any pointed criticisms of the fucking methodology of any of this besides "OH NO, NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE!!11!1!111!!1111!1" Also, if you can't fucking handle the word fuck, then you are just a bunch of sheltered immature 10-year-olds who have never been exposed to the real world, but then again I suppose that that is the only part of this complete and utter fucking shitshow that is this wiki. If you refuse to engage with these points and instead complain about "civility" (but why the fuck should ''I'' be civil when your stupidly moronic rhetoric is resulting in the destruction of the world via climate change and many queer teenagers killing themselves) then you will be proving that all of my points are right but you motherfucking bastards are much too cowardly to admit it. [[User:GreatBasinLakeExpert|GreatBasinLakeExpert]] ([[User talk:GreatBasinLakeExpert|talk]]) 19:33, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:Please refrain from incivility, profanity, and disparaging references toward other users. Take this as a warning. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

:Admin/Moderator comment: Obviously, we have some editors who feel strongly about this issue and debate. My question: Why are they incapable of expressing their point of view rationally? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:50, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::Yeah, why don't you tell that crap to Justin Aaberg, Leelah Alcorn, Taylor Alesana, Lui Aquino Aquino, Jadin Bell, Brenda Benet, Blake Brockington, Eylül Cansın, Wiktor, Dora Carrington, Leslie Cheung, Tyler Clementi, Hart Crane, Brad Davis, Denice Denton, Thomas M. Disch, Justin Fashanu, Robert "Bobby" Wayne Griffith, Ash Haffner, Sarah Hegazi, Jamie Hubley, William Inge, Kim Ji-hoom, Adam Kizer, Zuzia Kobałka, Michał Koch, Cameron Langrell, Andrew Leach, Elizabeth Lowe, Billy Lucas, Zander Mahaffey, F. O. Matthiessen, Milo Mazurkiewicz, Alexander McQueen, Markus Middleton, Jamel Myles, Kent North, Avinshu Patel, Arthur Pelham-Clinton, Mike Penner, Kyler Prescott, Jamey Rodmeyer, Melonie Rose, Nigel Shelby, Channing Smith, Bobby Steele, Dominik Szymański, Braxton Taylor, Alan Turing, Tyrone Unsworth, Sergio Urrego, Carlos Vigil, Seth Walsh, William Walters, Kenneth Weishuhn, James Whale, Jim Wheeler, Tobi Wong, Ya-Hui Yang, and Kacperek Zasada? Oh wait, you can't, they are all dead because of assholes like you spreading pseudoscientific bullshit about how being queer is supposedly a choice and evil. At least I'm not a killer, you are the ones that should be banned for having blood on your hands. Also, apparently the word "blood" makes you more uncomfortable than the deaths of queer teenagers. Fuck you all. If there really is a hell, you will be the ones burning inside it for all eternity. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:07, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

:::Relax. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Try to be coherent. Never heard of any of those people, and don't have a clue what you're rattling on about. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::You do realize Google is a thing you ninny? And thanks for showing a first-grade level of reading comprehension. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

== Really? ==

It's not that I'm an atheist or anything, but I don't understand why God couldn't have created the Earth billions of years ago. After all, even 10,000 years seems rather a short amount of time, doesn't it? It doesn't say specifically in the Bible the age of the Earth, and though we could try to calculate it based on dates given in the Book, that's also rather difficult and not very precise. All I'm saying is, some Young Earth Creationists think the Earth is just 6,000 years old. That's just 3 times the time that's elapsed since Christ's birth. Just 3! It just seems short to me.

:Intuition doesn't really help on this issue. What "seems" to be about this is usually what is taught in school or promoted by the media.

:Everything declines over time due to the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], and 1 billion years of decline would not be pretty.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:32, 13 February 2020 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2021-09-20T00:07:57Z

NotAKiller:

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

----



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Rates ==

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

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

== Dog Races ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical Counterexamples ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

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

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

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

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

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

== A mathematician's take ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Only 99% certain? ==

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

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

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

== Template ==

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

== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==

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

== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==

If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)

I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:
* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern. It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)

It turns out that I can't edit [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Could someone else please do it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:35, 13 February 2013 (EST)

:The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)
::If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)

::So the Earth is in a period of change, ok, but you can't conclude that before this period of change there was nothing because the Earth didn't exist. Maybe there was a period when the frequency of large earthquakes decreased, or stayed the same. Why should this 40-year doubling go on unchanged for 6000 years? And this counterexample definitely '''is''' different from the others, in that something is '''increasing''', whereas in all the others something is '''decreasing'''. I think this counterexample is much weaker than the others, and should be dropped. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 17:13, 15 February 2013 (EST)

== Young Earth ==

If it takes only one counterexample being true to disprove Old Earth theories, it must also take only one counterexample to disprove Young Earth theories. You might want to address that. I'm just saying......

== The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought ==

*How is a ''core temperature of about 6,000°C, give or take 500°C'' '''''far hotter''''' than 5,000°C?
*A second question: Andrew Schlafly, you wrote that ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun.'' What do you mean by this? How does this prediction work?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:21, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== Fast Erosion ==

Mountains erode faster than atheist geology previously thought - "no speed limit".
[http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]
Add that to list perhaps? [[User:JamesWS|JamesWS]] 20:20, 17 January 2014 (EST)

:Terrific discovery. Please add your insight to the list!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 17 January 2014 (EST)

== History Section ==

The example listed is false, and thus has been removed. There are many examples, but here, for example, is a 7000 year old mask.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_%22Bible_et_Terre_Sainte%22]
:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?

== Expansion of the universe ==

"The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the Big Bang had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent"

I accept the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why should that mean the universe is only 6000 years old? It would be equally valid for it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

== Stalemate of scientific discoveries ==

The point about scientific discoveries in the last several decades does not make any sense as to why this suggests a young earth. Can someone please explain it better or I shall remove it.

== Based on erosion rates, Niagara Falls is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by atheistic scientists who believe in an Old Earth ==

How is this a counterexample? Waterfalls are thought to be relatively young, compared with the lifetime of a river. And even an old earth is to be expected to have some young features as an old man can sprout a new pimple: that does not make him an adolescent again. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (EST)
:The Niagara Falls were created by the recession of glaciers during the last glacial period 12,000 years ago, as were the Great Lakes. The fact that creationists think that this is an argument against the old Earth is laughable. [[User:GlaciersYouIDiots|GlaciersYouIDiots]] ([[User talk:GlaciersYouIDiots|talk]]) 02:13, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::And your evidence is ...??? [[Atheistic science]] is so circular in its reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 02:44, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
{{Warning collapse
|reason=A user has engaged in wrongthink. Remember, Big Brother is watching!
|content=:::[https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara Here's your evidence], you dumbass denialist. You could have easily found it yourself. Although it may require you to read through something without skimming, so I don't know if you can handle it. Also, banning people just because they poke holes in your arguments, shows how little you actually care about things such as the Freedom of Speech. [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|You claim]] "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", what a crock of shit. [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:49, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::Also, why do you dumbasses think artificially bred dogs are a rebuttal to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old? [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:51, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::::: Generally, we block for incivility after a warning. If you want your comments to have any credence or consideration, please remove the incivility and personal contempt you express toward people with differing views. It only discredits yourself and limits your ability to speak. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 17:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT
Also, "The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood." You're telling me that none of you miscreant nincompoops know what the Great Basin is? If you have that little knowledge of geology, why are you dastardly asshole denialists making any claims about it? You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and this page is full of lies. At least don't pretend that you give a solitary fuck about science when you ignore anything that suggests your 4,000 year old fairy tale might not be 100% completely perfectly accurate. You don't even have any pointed criticisms of the fucking methodology of any of this besides "OH NO, NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE!!11!1!111!!1111!1" Also, if you can't fucking handle the word fuck, then you are just a bunch of sheltered immature 10-year-olds who have never been exposed to the real world, but then again I suppose that that is the only part of this complete and utter fucking shitshow that is this wiki. If you refuse to engage with these points and instead complain about "civility" (but why the fuck should ''I'' be civil when your stupidly moronic rhetoric is resulting in the destruction of the world via climate change and many queer teenagers killing themselves) then you will be proving that all of my points are right but you motherfucking bastards are much too cowardly to admit it. [[User:GreatBasinLakeExpert|GreatBasinLakeExpert]] ([[User talk:GreatBasinLakeExpert|talk]]) 19:33, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
:Please refrain from incivility, profanity, and disparaging references toward other users. Take this as a warning. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)}}

:Admin/Moderator comment: Obviously, we have some editors who feel strongly about this issue and debate. My question: Why are they incapable of expressing their point of view rationally? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:50, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
::Yeah, why don't you tell that crap to Justin Aaberg, Leelah Alcorn, Taylor Alesana, Lui Aquino Aquino, Jadin Bell, Brenda Benet, Blake Brockington, Eylül Cansın, Wiktor, Dora Carrington, Leslie Cheung, Tyler Clementi, Hart Crane, Brad Davis, Denice Denton, Thomas M. Disch, Justin Fashanu, Robert "Bobby" Wayne Griffith, Ash Haffner, Sarah Hegazi, Jamie Hubley, William Inge, Kim Ji-hoom, Adam Kizer, Zuzia Kobałka, Michał Koch, Cameron Langrell, Andrew Leach, Elizabeth Lowe, Billy Lucas, Zander Mahaffey, F. O. Matthiessen, Milo Mazurkiewicz, Alexander McQueen, Markus Middleton, Jamel Myles, Kent North, Avinshu Patel, Arthur Pelham-Clinton, Mike Penner, Kyler Prescott, Jamey Rodmeyer, Melonie Rose, Nigel Shelby, Channing Smith, Bobby Steele, Dominik Szymański, Braxton Taylor, Alan Turing, Tyrone Unsworth, Sergio Urrego, Carlos Vigil, Seth Walsh, William Walters, Kenneth Weishuhn, James Whale, Jim Wheeler, Tobi Wong, Ya-Hui Yang, and Kacperek Zasada? Oh wait, you can't, they are all dead because of assholes like you spreading pseudoscientific bullshit about how being queer is supposedly a choice and evil. At least I'm not a killer, you are the ones that should be banned for having blood on your hands. Also, apparently the word "blood" makes you more uncomfortable than the deaths of queer teenagers. Fuck you all. If there really is a hell, you will be the ones burning inside it for all eternity. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:07, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

== Really? ==

It's not that I'm an atheist or anything, but I don't understand why God couldn't have created the Earth billions of years ago. After all, even 10,000 years seems rather a short amount of time, doesn't it? It doesn't say specifically in the Bible the age of the Earth, and though we could try to calculate it based on dates given in the Book, that's also rather difficult and not very precise. All I'm saying is, some Young Earth Creationists think the Earth is just 6,000 years old. That's just 3 times the time that's elapsed since Christ's birth. Just 3! It just seems short to me.

:Intuition doesn't really help on this issue. What "seems" to be about this is usually what is taught in school or promoted by the media.

:Everything declines over time due to the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], and 1 billion years of decline would not be pretty.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:32, 13 February 2020 (EST)